Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law

The significant achievement of human civilization during past 300 years is the evolution of law in a structured manner and conceptualization and enforcement of 'equality before law'. It is the fact that the poor suffers in the hands of law, and the rich men enjoys the life without much botheration about law. A poor man getting into any problem cannot come out of the police station or court easily and jailed easily with no means to get a bail. Whereas a rich politician or businessman, in most situations, come out of the station very easily with the influence of money and muscle power avoiding jail with simple bail. Accused poor is always always convicted and the accused rich are mostly acquitted. This is what happening in our country. 

• A law is made with the express intent to help people in getting justice through a legal system, thereby aiming to achieve the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’. But very often the law fails to serve this purpose.
• There just cannot be one law for the rich and connected, and another for the poor and unconnected. Everyone is entitled to be treated equally in his dealings with the public authorities.
• The innocent, simple, illiterate and the poor cannot access legal procedure because it is highly expensive, complicated and time-consuming to them. So they look upon law from a distance as a frightening scarecrow.
• On the other hand, some people in society like those strong, greedy birds, tame, twist or tarnish a law and use it for their own benefits. Some others follow suit and seize the opportunity, too. Thus the law is made into a no-more frightening, rather a tattered scarecrow.
• It is this second group that is mainly responsible for making many laws ineffective. Not only that, they make law an accomplice in fulfilling their greed for power and possessions.
• Our laws are adequate for the purposes intended. Our weak point is the enforcement part. We have a system, but we do not seem to be able to work the system according to the Rule of Law which posits three things: (1) that everyone is deemed equal before the law; (2) that the law is applied in its generality; and, (3) that the law is applied neutrally.
• Generality of laws, the Equality of everyone before the law, and the Neutrality of the law means that if any law is used to target a person, a group or a class of persons, then the Rule of Law is breached.
• The Commercial Division of High Courts Bill, 2009 has as its foundation a special provision with the objective of achieving quicker disposal by expert tribunals that involve a sum of Rs.5 crore or more. The idea is to facilitate their early disposal so that the rich who are involved in such disputes do not have to wait for too long for a final adjudication. 
• Meanwhile, the poor person whose litigation mostly involves a value that is below Rs.5 crore has to wait for the outcome at the Munsiff’s Court, the District Court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court that take decades before a final judgment comes. Often it takes more than a generation. 
• Obviously the rich are favoured by helping them achieve early finality while the poor and the middle classes have to hang on often for a life-time for an outcome. 
• Democracy is fundamentally equality of the judicial process. To make the monetary value of a commercial dispute the basis of classification is undemocratic. Indian socialism and democracy are the victims of feudalism, capitalism and corporate control, even as the courts enjoy longevity without accountability. 
• The legislation classifies litigation into two categories. The poor litigant will wait for the somnolescent process and leisurely pronouncement and the wealthy litigant will have his case speedily terminated. If this be the differentiation, it is horrendous and outrageous in a socialist democracy. Perhaps Oliver Goldsmith was right when he said “Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law.”

Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

Be ye ever so high, still the law is above you ... Thomas Fuller

Dynasty runs every where in India

Dynasty runs every where in India in all walks of life -- politics, businesses, professions, and so on. This undermines merit, the essence of democracy. Royal titles having been abolished but Indians seem to not given up on the idea of dynastic rule. About 30% of the current MPs are dynasts.

• Whether it’s politics, businesses, or bollywood, Indians seem to have trust in their off springs, irrespective of whether they might be deserving or not. The stunning example is Rahul Gandhi.
• Dynasts are a widespread phenomenon in Asia. Singapore is effectively run by the Lee family. In China, sons and daughters of leading party members are known as 'red princes' because of the influence they wield. With the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, and the Bush family, America can't afford to sneer at Indian dynasts.
• Dynasticism works in modern political systems because it appeals to notions of inherited charisma that help legitimize leadership succession and minimize organisational division. In India, dynasts do seem able to hold parties together. 
• The Nehru-Gandhi family is the most prominent political dynasty in the country with four generations of the family having ruled the country. The Nehru-Gandhi family is the keystone of the Congress party. Take them out and the Congress party collapses. There are several dynasties across party lines all over the country. There seems nothing objectionable in political power passing from parent to progeny. In India dynasties are serving the needs of the present times while preserving democracy by providing a measure of stability.
• Even big business houses are quite often family-run enterprises. The Birlas, the Tatas and the Ambanis, three names that signify wealth and entrepreneurship for Indians, have passed on the baton from generation to generation, rarely allowing outsiders to head their conglomerates.
• One of Sonia Gandhi’s fiercest critics, Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray slammed her and her family for running a “fiefdom” and then went ahead and did exactly the same thing. In 2004, Thackeray declared his son, a political novice, as leader of Siva Sena.
• The Bollywood is dotted with “star kids” hoping that their children will continue to capture the imagination of audiences, lack of talent notwithstanding. Some have made it and some have fallen by the wayside.
• Governments run by 'the dynasty' doled out more subsidies, spent more and indebted the economy more than by non-dynastic governments. Subsidies create distortions in asset use, dampen individual incentives, promoted rampant corruption and resulted in retarded economic growth & development of nation.
• The communists and the Jan Sangh (BJP) were participants in Indian elections from the very beginning. Yet, in comparison to the Congress, they are far less dynastic.
• America which shouts loudest about democracy could be described as a plutocracy, such is the wealth required to enter the political fray as a major player there.

If you are not a communist at 20 you have problem with your heart and 

if you are not a capitalist by 40 you have problem with your brain ... Sudha Murthy

In a democracy it is the 'will' of the people which is supreme. Dynasty or non-dynasty is immaterial, as long as the candidate ascends to position based on the principle of the 'rule of the law'. There is no bar on dynastic descendant to participate in the process of elections. Most politicians forget that what ever sense or nonsense they do as per their whims is not necessarily in the interest of people nor has their approval. Therefore the processes must be transparent and followed at all times, discretion must be exercised rarely or never, accountability at all times, and financial matters must always have prior legislature approval. To ensure these, institutions must be strong and independent and must not be trampled with. Unfortunately that is not happening and opposite is prevailing. Social media cramped with BJP trolls are spreading untruths always pro-BJP and anti-Congress sentiments where as the fact is that both are as bad as each other. Today very few are bothered about worst state of economy, unemployment, distressed agriculture, perilous banking sector etc but are happily engaged in dirty politics and chest thumping for nothing with trophy projects or achievements. The kind of money spent each day on government advertisements for self aggrandizement -- a small town or 100 villages could be modernized every day.

Post Nehru, Congress governments rule resulted in rampant corruption and unmanageable subsidies and political landscape got filled with corruption money, musclemen and criminals. However, non congress governments headed by Morarji Desai and VP Singh did no better or even worse. Vajpayee did nothing except building highways & roads and could not control communal riots especially in Gujarat. Congress governments succeeding these non congress catastrophic governments provided much needed stability and economic recovery. Today, Modi government's 3+ year rule there is nothing to boast off except relentless publicity with economic parameters worse than where he started in 2014 despite very low oil prices. Failed demonetization, mangled GST hurriedly rolled out impacted economy greatly. With PSU banks on the verge of collapse with nearly Rs.10 lakh crores of NPAs economic recovery prior to 2019 is unlikely. 

Therefore, dynasty or non-dynasty is not an issue as long as it has people's mandate. Under Modi administration several state governments patronized by Modi's BJP don't have electoral mandate but are in power with manipulation of numbers. Matter of shame in the largest democracy.