rule bending

Critics to India have a lot to say when asked, from the traffic, to the noise, to the pollution, to the dirtiness etc. Is much of this influenced by a culture of rule bending?

When we see videos of traffic police slapping riders, they decide the rules don't apply to them. When we look at drivers who drive on the wrong side of the road, they decide the rules don't apply to them.

When we see people spitting pann on the road, they decide the rules don't apply to them. When we see people toss garbage on the roads, they decide the rules don't apply to them.

When girls get molested or sexually assaulted, they decide the rules don't apply to them. When girls are told to dress in a certain way, they decide to create rules?

When a politician makes more money for himself and cares less about his duties, they decide the rules don't apply to them. When the police beat up those in their custody, they decide the rules don't apply to them.

When a student cheats, they decide the rules don't apply to them. When a

Of course, some of these are less consequential than others but does it point to a cultural norm to break or bend rules? We'd all be better off if everyone followed the rules but one person may themselves be better off if they didn't follow the rules. Where did this come from? Will it last?

Did it come from authority misusing its powers and then it just becoming a cultural thing? Or was it a cultural thing that influenced individual decisions? Or was the benefit higher of breaking the rules than following them? Many of the richest and most powerful are after all rule-benders.

Whether or not it lasts depends on the costs of breaking or bending rules. Rules, rule of law, due-process are often overlooked because we see the elites breaking them and getting away with it.

Critique from Opus 4.5 -

The essay conflates very different phenomena. Traffic violations, littering, sexual assault, and political corruption aren't just "less consequential than others"—they operate on entirely different moral and causal planes. Lumping them together under "rule-bending culture" obscures more than it reveals. A society can have strict norms against violence but lax enforcement of traffic laws, or vice versa. These require separate analyses.

The framing also risks exceptionalism. Rule-bending isn't uniquely Indian—tax evasion in Greece, jaywalking in New York, political corruption in Brazil, the entire 2008 financial crisis. Every society has domains where rules are widely flouted. The more useful question is: which rules, why, and what institutional factors explain enforcement gaps?

The essay also leaves the most interesting thread dangling: "Many of the richest and most powerful are after all rule-benders." This is the heart of the matter. When elites visibly escape consequences, it signals to everyone that rules are for suckers. That's not culture—that's rational response to incentive structures.

The piece would benefit from distinguishing between weak institutions and "culture," which often get conflated when people try to explain why things work differently in different places.