 Marking-criteria:

a. Understanding of the text

b. Clarity of thought/articulation
c. Strength/soundness of your own arguments
d. Ability to defend them against opposition
e. Coherence in Writing

The key elements of each answer are highlighted below:-

1. Historical Narratives:
a. Rousseau says ‘might cannot create right’ because he believes there exists something over
and above brute power/authority (namely, reason and nature) – therefore, merely because
someone holds power does not make his rule just, or his authority legitimate – however, the
problem is more complicated than he anticipates – because justification of the actions of
power always happens through some narrative structure – AFSPA is to be presented as
though it is in ‘public interest’ – similarly the holocaust was presented as though it was in the
larger interest of the German people – which means that the question of legitimacy needs to
be interrogated through the narratives upon which it is grounded – if one can see through
them and critique them (as in Joffery’s case) then one can claim that power is illegitimate – if
not, then it continues to appear as though it is legitimate.
b. From the above, it seems there is no single/objective answer to the question ‘What is the
requirement of a just/legitimate authority?’ – insofar as it depends on historically contingent
factors – the task of critiquing the narratives of power becomes essential in every polity –
one cannot assume that a particular exercise of power is legitimate simply because it
emanates from the sovereign – there may be various methods of doing this – first, the birth
of a class of people which can critique and analyse the justificatory narrative of the sovereign
– and secondly, the dissemination of such knowledge to the masses – for ultimately, what
the masses believe turns out to the most determining factor in politics – this gradual shifting
and breaking down of dominant narratives is perhaps the only reasonable way in which this
contradiction reconciles itself through history – of course democratic structures like popular
elections and media institutions have a huge role to play, both in the maintenance as well as
the critique of dominant narratives – when such contradictions reach an extreme point (i.e.
when the falsity of the dominant narrative becomes apparent to the masses) then political
upheavals take place.
2. Daum & Ishiwata:
a. For D&M, rights based strategies inherently focus on the abstract individual – by removing
from the frame historical and social contexts which go into shaping the individual, the
language of rights gets easily tied up with formal equality – so long as every individual is
given equal rights, the political structure appears fair – what gets missed in this is the fact
that certain classes of society do require special attention – this is because society has never
been absolutely equal – D&M call this ‘the myth of the level playing field’ – the language of
substantive equality is one which favours special rights to historically disadvantaged groups
precisely because it sees through this myth – as we saw in the Morton and Rice cases, the
conservatives easily changed the meaning of equality into formal equality to argue against
these special rights – with time, they managed to convince the masses that equality meant
 no special privileges to anyone, regardless of their historical positions – because the
language of equality can be easily moulded in this fashion, D&M suggest arguing against it.
b. Based on the above, their suggestion to progressive academics is to gradually distance
themselves from the language of equality, and move towards ‘social justice’ – being a more
amorphous concept than equality, it is difficult for the conservatives to manipulate it –
moreover, it is something to which the masses can directly relate – movements can be
constructed around it – the rise of the PIL movements in India post 1970s lends some
credence to what D&M are saying here – in fact, most of the socio-economic rights that we
now celebrate today (education, information, food etc.) are all products of this movement.
3. JS Mill:
a. Mill’s objectors argue, quite simply, that because all human opinions are fallible
governments cannot simply stand still and do nothing – being in positions of public authority
often requires taking tough decisions, even when one is unsure – Mill’s response to this is
that there might not be any absolutely true answer but there is nonetheless a right answer –
this right answer is reached only when all the views have been heard – in other words, the
expediency/necessity of government action can never be used as an argument to suppress
free speech.
b. Mill is a rule-utilitarian unlike Bentham – he therefore derives the utility of an action from
the general rule/principle on which it was based – therefore, if something is done simply to
please the majority it would satisfy Bentham, but not necessarily Mill – unless the rule on
which that action is based brings long term happiness to mankind as such – that is, for Mill
certain actions which immediately upset the majority can still be consistent with the
principle of Utility – in this sense, individual liberty as well as majority opinion both can be
trampled in favour of the harm caused to society in the long-run – Mill’s utilitarianism
therefore requires a hypothetical calculation through which we can assess the outcomes of
acting in accordance with certain rules – as opposed to Bentham’s direct cost-benefit
analysis of each action itself.