Rakhshanda a 50-year-old mother-in-law is losing sleep. It’s not arthritis, nor is it the rising cost of living. It’s something far graver. A new bride is entering the house, and with her comes the one thing that threatens every ruler, every institution, every empire: the redistribution of power.

For years, Rakhshanda has held a supreme position of power. She has been in-charge of the kitchen, meal times, household decisions, and the holy art of brewing her son’s tea. However, a younger woman, who could be seen as a potential competitor, has emerged on the scene.  The loss of singular power is a profound tragedy, one that resonates deeply within the fabric of leadership and influence.  This transcends mere family dynamics; it delves into the very essence of power.  The apprehension of a mother-in-law mirrors the anxieties that can destabilise governments, ignite fierce corporate competition, and even lead to conflicts between nations. 

It is a well-established truth that power is rarely relinquished without a struggle. In various spheres of life, we witness a troubling trend: a father who denies his children the autonomy to make their own decisions, a professor who intentionally fails students as a means of exerting control, or a political leader who stubbornly clings to their position. This pattern reveals an unavoidable fact that power is not distributed but rather tightly held, leaving little room for collaboration or growth.

Some people avoid marriage entirely because they fear losing their autonomy. Others marry solely to gain more of it, power through wealth, status, or influence. The extravagant weddings, the grand farmhouses, the over-the-top displays of wealth, these aren’t just about luxury. They are statements of dominance. A person doesn’t need a list of 500-guests in a wedding, just like a country doesn’t need nuclear weapons. But both serve the same purpose: to show power, to intimidate, to ensure control.

This game is as old as time. Governments fight over it. The military craves it. The judiciary resents not having enough of it. Power struggles aren’t just between states. They exist within them. Institutions meant to balance each other out instead spend their time trying to outmanoeuvre one another. Meanwhile, the common citizen, much like the powerless daughter-in-law, remains at the mercy of those who dictate the rules.

And what about those who have no power at all? The homeless man who can be thrown off a piece of land at any moment. The worker whose livelihood depends on the impulse of an employer. The people used as puppets in the grand ambitions of those above them. Power is never about fairness. It is about control and mere control. And history has shown, time and time again, that those who hold it will do anything to keep it.

The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.” Edmund Burke

Rakhshanda’s worries may seem domestic, but at their core, they mirror the world’s greatest conflicts. From the battle for household dominance to the fight for global supremacy, it is all, and always has been, a ruthless game of power.