Rule of law, & rule only by law make impersonal transaction with strangers at a distance possible, thus expanding the world in which you can transact business without fear of expropriation. Without rule of law, your transactions are confined to only those who you know and trust.

People often think Capitalism was made possible by discovery of the productivity gains made possible by division of labour. That was Adam Smith’s thesis but it alone would never have propelled Capitalism as a way of producing & distributing more goods and services.

Along with and increase in production of goods & services, the market for them had to also expand to absorb the increased production. This would not happen if transactions were confined to only those you knew. To do business with stranger rule of law had to be there.

The reason Capitalism thrived in the Anglo-Saxon world was its long tradition of faith in rule of law & rule by law. This culture was simply absent in societies that had despotic rule. If division of labour in factories is Capitalism’s hardware, rule by law is its software.

Without the software of contracts, courts & fair administration of justice the hardware of factories & shop floors simply cannot work.

Of the 2, the hardware is easy to do but the software takes ages to build because it involves people & winning their trust & changing behaviour.

If you read Adam Smith carefully, rule of law & rule by law ranks high up there as the requisite of Capitalism to work as much as does organised factory production.

You can build factories but you cannot have a market place without rule of law of to do business in.

In India Capitalism hasn’t taken off b/c we have paid inadequate attention to rule of law & enforcement of contracts in time, without delay.

Now Modi is actively subverting rule of law & rule by law,with its selective application.

It takes longer 2 build trust than factories.

Why were a handful of Englishmen able to rule over a vast, diverse sub-continent like India without much resistance. My thesis is that the brought rule of law as part of their new culture that was seen as more fair & more just than the prevailing patronage newtorks.

If you read Phule’s Gulamgiri, he welcomes the rule by the British because it provides him with access to justice ever since he, and his ancestors, can recall.

I am not sure the British intended it thus. They were pretty selfish about their own interest.

But even the approximation to rule by law they they provided, unified India into a political entity, expanded markets and gave access to justice to disfranchised people.

And they went to great lengths to uphold their laws even when fighting the rebellious Indians.

Rule of law, and & by law, is something invisible, banal, that we take for granted until we get into trouble & have to find a patron who is plugged into the network to bail ourselves out of trouble.

But it is more difficult to build than factories to make Rafale fighter jets.

Modi has been living dangerously for the last 6 years feeding off the political, cultural and transactional Capital built by past Govts with much tears, blood & sacrifice.

One by one those vaults of our national Capital are being drained to keep Modi afloat.

India stands much diminished today. Its reputation as a democracy lies in tatters. It record as a humanely governed society that relies on rule by consent lies buried in Kashmir. Rule by law has fallen to selective application of law.

That corrupted software is irreplaceable.