India and China both embarked on the journey of economic liberalisation in 1991. The Indian polity was still mired in its shibboleth of the primacy of the public sector and, though doing away with a lot of the bureaucratic red tape that had stifled economic growth, still kept control over great swathes of the economy.

A more pragmatic Deng Xiao Ping in China realised the efficacy and energy of the private sector, and unleashed it with his famous slogan “I don’t care if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.”

What happened 25 years later?

In 1991, India had a per capital income of $318, not far behind China’s $366.

In 2016, India’s had grown to $1,941, China has grown more than four times to $8,659.

Not only does the faster economic growth give its citizens a better living standard, but it also, as seen in the stand-off in Doklam, gives more military muscle.

Poor economic policies and poor governance can make or break a country. As an example of the latter, consider Venezuela, the country that has the world’s largest reserves of crude oil. Its President, Hugo Chavez, squandered the oil wealth with poor policies and the country is now in a breakdown mode. Its currency, the bolivar, has depreciated more than 1,000 times against the dollar since 2010. With depleted resources it cannot invest to boost oil production, and use the resources to import food, now in short supply. Lawlessness rules.

One of the persisting shibboleths is that the polity considers itself above the law. This has to change. Otherwise, in another 25 years, we will find India having slipped further behind in economic ranking. Recent news from Bihar suggest that the reason for the resignation (and reappointment) of the CM was because he suspected his alliance partner of trying to broker a deal with the Centre for an amnesty in the fodder scam, in lieu of toppling his Government.

This raises the ominous doubt — is everything negotiable for political reasons? Is there inequality of law for the privilegenstia and for the laity?

This is evident from the case of the postman suspended 29 years ago on the charge of stealing ₹59. It took 29 years, and 350 hearings, for him to be acquitted.

Can a politician accused of looting hundreds of crores get away because of a ‘political compromise’ when the common man suffers the indignity, cost and enervating effort to prove his innocence for ₹59? Can the judiciary not be sensitive to the cost of delays caused by its willingness to grant adjournments at the drop of a hat?

In a recent hearing on the Sahara case, the bench of judges opined that “Indulgence has the propensity to give rise to procrastination, which is the murderer of justice.” Very true. But can this dictum be applied to all cases, and not only those in which there appears to be political interest? Should the judiciary not treat all scams, not just the Sahara one, with equal haste?

Indian stock markets are hitting record highs, on the back of strong domestic inflows from retail investors.

The RBI must, however, do the Goldilocks with interest rates, keeping them neither too hot (to deter investment) nor too cold (to deter savings) but just right.

(The writer is India Head — Finance, Asia/Haymarket. The views are personal.)