Gold, privilege and perils of a limited-access society

The unfolding Ranya Rao gold smuggling case has captured public attention, not just for the audacity of the crime but for what it reveals about the functioning of state institutions and the privileges enjoyed by the powerful. As more names tumble out and the scandal deepens, two fundamental concerns emerge. First, the ease with which individuals with access to power circumvent security protocols and manipulate the system. Second, the inability of state institutions to enforce the rule of law, especially when influential figures are involved. While this incident may seem extraordinary, it is, in fact, just another example of a routine pattern – one that is symptomatic of a deeper malaise in the Indian state-citizen relationship.

One of the most troubling aspects of this case is how effortlessly established security protocols were bypassed. Airports, which are supposed to be among the most secure spaces, have frequently been used as conduits for illegal activities by those with the right connections. This is not an isolated event; it reflects a systemic loophole where power and influence can dictate security outcomes. It begs the question – how many such cases go unnoticed? The problem is not one of inadequate technology or lack of enforcement mechanisms but of selective application of rules, where power brokers ensure their allies are shielded from scrutiny.

The inability of institutions to uphold the rule of law is perhaps the most damning aspect of this scandal. Over the years, numerous cases have exposed how law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies are either compromised or pressured into submission when dealing with the influential elite. The justice system, designed to function impartially, is often manipulated to serve those in power. This has created an environment of cynicism, where the common citizen knows that accountability is not a universal principle but a selective one. The complicity of state institutions in shielding the privileged is a well-documented phenomenon. Whether it is financial fraud, land scams, or illegal mining, powerful figures routinely escape unscathed while lesser offenders bear the brunt of the law. The perception of a two-tiered justice system – one for the elite and another for ordinary citizens – erodes trust in democratic institutions and the fairness of governance.

India’s independence was what Antonio Gramsci might have described as ‘a passive revolution’ – the transfer of political power without the concomitant socio-economic transformation. There was a structural schism. It was historically inevitable that following independence, the feudal roots of Indian society coalesced with the traditional bonds of kinship and religion on the one hand, while incorporating within its fold the western-educated liberal intellectual class on the other, to constitute a new ruling class. The obverse was that a predominantly rural and agrarian population, for the vast majority of which livelihoods were a struggle, became the ruled. 

A feature that stands out about public governance in India is the distance between those who govern and those who are governed. The Indian state, regardless of the government and its ideological underpinnings, has been characterised by a power coalition in which personal relationships – who one is and who one knows – form the basis for social organisation. This de-facto nature of the Indian state has, over time, resulted in a limited access society in which there is little or no participation by citizens in the polity; opaque or less than transparent institutions structuring decision-making processes; the absence of impersonal economic and social rights; and often, the widespread use of coercion and/or violence to appropriate resources and goods.

Push for accountability

At its core, this scandal is a reflection of India’s status as a ‘limited access society,’ in which access to opportunities, resources, and even justice is determined by one’s proximity to power rather than by merit or fairness. Despite India’s aspirations to become a global economic and technological powerhouse, the persistence of colonial-era hierarchies and entitlements continues to hinder progress. The belief that some individuals are above the law is a direct legacy of a system designed to privilege a few at the cost of the many. This mentality is deeply embedded in various aspects of Indian governance and social structures. Bureaucratic red tape selectively applied to disadvantage common citizens while granting special privileges to well-connected elite, police excesses against marginalised groups while political figures evade even the most basic scrutiny – these patterns reinforce the notion that justice and accountability are conditional.

The Ranya Rao case should serve as a wake-up call, for policymakers and the general public. If India is serious about transitioning from a developing to a developed nation, dismantling these entrenched systems of privilege and impunity must be a priority. Two steps can be taken to address this: Reforming institutional accountability – Strengthening institutional accountability requires independent oversight, structural reforms, and the depoliticisation of enforcement agencies. Independent oversight bodies must be granted greater autonomy and power to act against influential offenders without political interference. Eliminating discretionary privileges – VIP culture, which allows certain individuals to bypass standard protocols, must be systematically dismantled. Whether in security, tax enforcement, or regulatory compliance, uniform application of laws must be a non-negotiable principle.

The Ranya Rao scandal is not just about gold smuggling; it is a symptom of a much deeper governance crisis. India cannot aspire to be a developed nation while retaining the feudal privileges of a bygone era. The transition from tradition to modernity requires a fundamental shift in how power is perceived and exercised. At its heart, this is about fairness, about whether a nation can establish a system where laws apply equally to all. This is not just an administrative or legal challenge; it is a moral imperative. If this scandal results in yet another cover-up, it will only reinforce public cynicism. But if it triggers a movement toward accountability and reform, it could mark a turning point in India’s democratic journey. The choice is ours to make.

(The writer is Director, School of
Social Sciences at Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences)