The other day, I came across a young lad, known to be bright in school, who had secured admission to the prestigious Symbiosis School of Law in Pune. At the time of our meeting, the dude had already undergone three years of training in The Law. In order to test his fundas, I posed him a simple question:
What is the purpose of The Law?
His answer: The Law is an instrument of social control.
You cannot get it more wrong than that. Indeed, I do think that this fine young man is well on his way to joining our "illiterate bar."
The correct answer is: The Law Protects Us All.
People value law, and are scared of anarchy because they confuse Liberty with lawlessness, only because they feel that, without The Law, they would be at the mercy of every bully who came along. Unfortunately for them, The Law itself has been taken over by bullies. The Police are nothing but a bunch of bullies. As are the legislators, who use their powers for the purpose of "social control." And the professors of Law are all on the side of the bullies. They justify injustice. They teach their students to be slaves of The State. They know nothing of Liberty Under Law.
A Rule of Law Society is based on three pillars: Property, Contracts and Torts. Each of these pillars of The Law are meant for the protection and safety of the citizen. With his Property protected by Law, the citizen is secure, his possessions are securely his; and not only that, when he wills his property to his descendants, these descendants are secure and protected too. No bully can interfere and hijack property. As John Locke wrote in 1690: "Where there is no Property, there is no Justice."
Thus, Singur and Nandigram are examples of bullies – or should I say thieves – taking over The Law. Likewise with Indira Gandhi's "nationalization" of coal mines, banks, insurance and Air India. In all these cases, to use Bastiat's words, "the Law is guilty of the very crimes it is meant to punish."
The Constitution of India must therefore be seen as an instrument for the benefit of thieves, for it does not protect private property. This is one pillar of The Law we Indians do not have.
Similarly, contracts are a means of protecting the individual who signs an agreement with another. People make long-term plans with others on the basis of signed agreements (which are solemn promises – or "covenants" in the old language) and The Law exists to see that these promises are kept. Note that contracts are "private law" in the precise sense that two private parties signed the contract, and it is binding on them both. The Law exists to protect these private parties. For example, take a rent contract: the lessor must hand over possession to the lessee under Law; and the lessee must pay his rent on time. The Law of Contracts protects them both.
In India, rent control legislation, labour legislation, and currency legislation all make a mockery of solemn contracts. So this is another protection we do not possess under Law. The bullies have taken over the land.
The purpose of Tort Law – which is the oldest law – is entirely the protection of the individual and his properties. If anyone causes damage or injury to anyone else, he must pay damages. In India, this vital pillar of The Law simply does not exist. You may be hit on the road by a car driven by a reckless driver, and break a few bones, but under our The Law, you can claim no damages as compensation. You may go blind drinking illicit hooch – but there is no damage that the bootlegger will be forced to pay you. Your building may collapse in the rains, but the builder will not pay damages. In all these instances, the criminal law will take over, the police will be called in – and these bullies will extort money from the tortfeasor, as in the case of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, or the Uphaar cinema fire.
Wake Up!
We in India are NOT protected by The Law. In our land, none of the three pillars of Liberty Under Law exist. All Law is confused with Legislation – and all this legislation is aimed at "social control." This is why I say that bullies, tyrants and thieves have taken over The Law. This includes the professors, who are on the side of tyranny.
And what about this dude in Symbiosis?
Well, I saw a t-shirt the other day that said: "I was born intelligent, but education ruined me." I'll buy him one.
A good article.
ReplyDeleteAnd now let me share a little bit about social control. This is for all of y'all who have blogs.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Bloggers-can-be-nailed-for-views/articleshow/4178823.cms
Be careful!
Hi sauvik- am a little confused- as per my understanding we do sell/buy/ register property in our names- -will these properties to our descendants –the entire business world works on contracts and agreements- and we have compulsory 3rd party insurance for accidents – the enforcements may be lax at times but the law seems to be quite clear
ReplyDeleteJayram: Over half the properties in cities like Bombay and Calcutta have been usurped by tenants because of rent control.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the "acquisition" of land by our The State from farmers - as in Nandigram and Singur? What about "nationalization" of enterprises by socialists, who have usurped properties from their rightful owners? What about our Constitution, that does not treat property as a fundamental right?
The Law, in this case, is selectively applied. If you are lucky, you have your property. If you are unlucky...
Now, take contracts: I am a poor man and voluntarily agree to work in your factory at a wage we agree upon. What happens if this wage is below the legislated "minimum wage"? In all such cases, our contract is nullified. The labour inspector takes over.
Actually, rent control is also a violation of contract - between owner and tenant.
What about the "promise to pay" on a currency note? If the governor of the RBI cannot convert his note into money on demand, he should be in prison: a debtor's prison. Here, the note-holder goes to prison - FERA legislation, now called FEMA. Again, the law is selectively applied.
As far as torts are concerned, we have no relief whatsoever. All traffic accidents are treated as criminal cases (causing death or injury by rash and negligent driving) and the police get involved. The victims get nothing. Ditto for hooch tragedies. Ditto for spurious medicine, or adulterated foodstuff, including cooking oils.
In other words, The Law is selectively applied. These PRINCIPLES are not universally done away with - for that would mean society would cease to function - but whenever it suits the authorities, these are ignored.
The conclusion: We are NOT fully protected by The Law. Instead, we are coerced by Legislation. Note that socialism depends on legislation for all its "social engineering" and "redistribution." However, property, contracts and torts require no legislation: these are all in the realm of "private law." Your will is private law. Your employment contract is private law. And your just claim for damages inflicted upon you or your property, either willfully or negligently, also comes under private law. These are all "civil" matters. Criminal law is not involved, so the police are not required. (Refer to earlier post "Ban The Police.")
To put things in perspective, the ideals of the Rule of Law do not apply in India because the authorities are lawless.
We are faced with the classic situation in constitutional history: as with the English in 1215, we need to place our The State UNDER The Law. We have made a terrible mistake by placing Legislation ABOVE The Law. That is, for the Rule of Law, sovereignty must lie not in Parliament; sovereignty must lie in The Law - private law, which comes from the past. Our The State must be placed UNDER a Law that they did not legislate. That is the only solution.
Speaking of TOI, did anyone read todays Editorial?
ReplyDeleteKeynes as a hero,what more can I say? The author also thinks that free markets can't determine prices by themselves. He's a professor at Delhi School of Economics but I seriously doubt if he has any knowledge of capital creation or sound money.
you12: Pulin Nayak, the author of the ToI leader on Keynes today to which you have referred, was once invited by me to contribute to the Debate column in the Economic Times. I was then the editor of the ET Debate.
ReplyDeleteHe sent me his contribution (this was before the internet revolution) in an envelope marked "On Government of India Service"! He is a servant of our The State. This explains his statist views. It also indicates that the ToI has become an extension of our The State. Horrible!