19th February 2017
(A bit of background first.)
Yesterday I expressed some frustration with Indians who purportedly want liberty but have sworn to abjure the political process (or worse – to lick the boots of socialist parties and foreign agencies to fund their fake liberal efforts).
Liberty is is a political concept. To imagine that liberty is about think-tanks or writing articles/ books reflects a gross misunderstanding about the concept of liberty. There is no way to ensure liberty but to be in the political fray. It is about directly connecting with the people in their daily lives.
Till Swarna Bharat Party was launched in June 2013, India never had a genuine liberal party. But now there is such a party. At this point, in early 2017, I have a clear position on this: if you don’t join or directly support SBP, you are illiberal – since you are effectively supporting the opponents of SBP, the enemies of liberty.
Many of the “liberals” who engaged with me over the past around 20 years were fundamentally pseudo-liberal. For instance, most of those who participated in the 2004 five-day workshop I had organised went on to support – and I count meeting corrupt socialist party leaders to seek funds as support, as well – hardcore socialist Congress or BJP.
Some of them even made a song and dance about the need of a liberal party (e.g. Parth’s 2002 article) but did next to nothing about it – and in fact have actively kept away from any such work for well over a decade. Many of those who (much later) joined the Freedom Team of India, swearing to fight for liberty politically, likewise turned out to be limp liberals (those who do not engage in politics) or worse – direct supporters of BJP or AAP.
There is one liberal, however, whose position was unambiguous in the past but has probably become a bit unclear over the past few years: Gurcharan Das, whom I hold in the highest esteem. I’m writing this open letter to him with a request to clarify his position.
Why open, why not in private? I think some matters need to be deliberated publicly, and this is one of them.
OPEN LETTER TO GURCHARAN DAS
As you are aware, in 2013, after a series of implausible events, a group of liberals formed the Swarna Bharat Party. Prompting this was the December 2012 agreement with Ramdev to form a party under the logo of sone ki chidiya and the ideology and manifesto whose drafting I had led since 1998. Implausible as it sounds now, the agreement was that this party would be driven by me and the liberals. I would also lead the team of trainers of the party – we would coach the candidates of the party in liberalism and ethical leadership.
This agreement to form the new party continued well into April 2013 when I led a 4-day national reform summit at Patanjali in the big hall where Ramdev holds his public sessions and talks. Ramdev’s team put out many videos about me on his TV channels during late 2012, well into 2013. I also shared the platform with him on major events whenever we were together, such as at Jantar Mantar in December 2012 to protest the killing of Nirbhaya.
It was only when the day that had been scheduled for the launch of the party came closer that Ramdev backed out. Last year I came to know that Ramdev had been threatened with severe consequences by Ram Jethmalani. Ramdev backed out because he is dishonest to the core. His empire is made out of straw with significant violations of the law and he has amassed significant amounts of black money. Had Ramdev been honest, he could never have been blackmailed by BJP.
Now, you became personally aware about my work to have a liberal party established in India -from around 2000, when we first met. I had started this work in February 1998.
Till mid-2013 I had no doubt about your commitment to having such a liberal party for India. For instance, you joined Sharad Joshi’s Swatantra Bharat Party as national executive member in 2004 as part of my efforts in 2003 and 2004. You also helped raise funds (around Rs. 4-5 lakhs, including from your friends) for the Swatantra Bharat Party.
When Swatantra Bharat Party didn’t work out I proposed the Liberal Party of India in mid-2005. You were one of the first charter members. Nothing came out of that effort, however, which died a premature death within a few months.
Later, in 2007-08 you asked Indians to read the book that I had written (started in early 2005 to support Swatantra Bharat Party), Breaking Free of Nehru, in which I explain how a liberal party could be formed if we are able to find sufficient leaders.
I’m grateful to your support for my limited efforts since you came to know about me.
Your personal search for a liberal party continued, regardless of various failed attempts by liberals. For instance, in 2012 you published India Grows at Night in which you made a strong case for a liberal party for India. You wrote:
I advocate the setting up of a secular, liberal political party in India. Now that the middle class is growing rapidly and none of the existing parties addresses its needs; the timing is also right as the nation’s centre of gravity has shifted to the right. Such a party is needed to transform India into a strong, liberal state.
In 27 January 2013, a few weeks after I had personally briefed you about my work with Ramdev and the decision to form a liberal party, you wrote this in Times of India: An aspiring young India needs a new liberal party. In particular, you wrote:
A young aspiring, secular India needs a new liberal party of the 21st century which trusts markets rather than officials for economic outcomes, and relentlessly focuses on the reform of the institutions of governance. Only thus, will the country begin to move away from crony capitalism and towards rules-based capitalism. It may not win votes quickly but it will bring governance reform to centre stage and gradually prove to voters that open markets and rules-based government are the only civilized ways to lift living standards and achieve shared prosperity.
On 1 June 2013, we launched Swarna Bharat Party without the participation of Ramdev. This has turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as Ramdev would have weighed heavily on the party given his association with black money and corruption.
On 16 June 2014, the Election Commission registered Swarna Bharat Party. Although we are obliged to swear allegiance to socialism due to legal requirements that derive from the Indian Constitution, we have the most liberal manifesto possible. It is comparable to other high quality manifestos from across the world.
In a 4-day meeting held in Delhi in July 2014 (which you also attended briefly, but by then you had started supporting Modi) I made clear to participants that we had the option to scrap SBP and merge with any other sensible alternative. However, the assembled group decided that SBP must go ahead. No other party (Navbharat, Swatantra Bharat, Lok Satta or another nascent effort called Bharatam) came even close to SBP in terms of its objectives, approach, and sophistication of the manifesto.
On 26 January 2016, SBP launched its new website and added a payment gateway in April 2016. We actively started working on the ground since late 2015 and have by now made incremental progress in various parts of India. Swarna Bharat Party is now a seriously growing liberal party. We are actively considering contesting a few parliamentary seats in 2019.
I am writing all this to remind you about your support for my work and your commitment to a liberal party for India – till around 2013-14.
But somewhere during that period you deviated from the straight and narrow – since Modi came on the scene. You have been extremely solicitous about Modi, and have effectively exonerated him of his many crimes and the destruction of the law and order machinery in Gujarat. You have personally met him on numerous occasions.
But actually, there has been no change to anything substantive in India over the past 70 years, and definitely not with the advent of Modi.
Objective data suggest that liberty in India has gone backwards since Modi came on the scene (see this). And the reckless manner in which demonetisation was implemented has laid bare the plans and livelihoods of millions of people. I personally know of a number of persons whose businesses have suffered grievously from the ill-thought out consequences of this policy.
My question for you at this stage is this: what makes you think that Modi will do anything liberal when BJP’s manifesto and all antecedents of Modi and BJP directly contradict such an expectation? Further, have you now formed a clear view that BJP will suffice for India and that no liberal party is needed now or in the future?
Between 2004 and 2017 nothing has really changed in terms of the logic for a liberal party. Modi’s presence has not changed anything, as nearly three years of dismal performance attest.
I know you believe that political action is about what it’s practicable, or as you say, “politics is the art of the possible”. And I have no doubt that politics is the art of the possible. But I also believe that what is possible is determined by human action and is not something given to us in stone.
I do not accept the reality of India and am determined to participate in a process to change it. I am determined to make a new future for India possible. Politics may well be the art of the possible, but leadership is about making a new future possible. No progress has ever taken place without leaders who make new things happen.
As a liberal, I am foundationally – by the logic of liberalism – a leader, not a follower. I think for myself and, in particular, I do not believe in following failure. As Einstein said, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. India can’t keep doing socialism and expect different results. I do not accept even an iota of the socialist ideology. BJP and Modi are arch socialists and I have nothing to do with them. I am determined to change the Nehruvian demand for socialism in India.
Since February 1998 I have acted upon my belief that India needs a liberal party. I have been supporting people like Anil Sharma (whom you referred to me) in their similar quest. When I came to the view that India needs a liberal party I did not know anything about any antecedent efforts or anyone in India who had ever thought on similar lines. I decided what I needed to do and started working on it. That’s what leaders do, they don’t wait to act on matters that are of essential importance to them. I also resigned my job in the IAS so I could create the freedom and space to pursue the political option.
What I now find intriguing is why, since 2014, you have chosen to repose so much faith in the BJP and Modi. You should have known that these organisations have a foundational DNA that is illiberal. The RSS is not going to become something different no matter what you may otherwise wish. Regardless of whether Modi had a hand in the massacre of hundreds of innocents in 2002, Modi was a member of this illiberal outfit and is a Hindutva fanatic to the core. On top of that, his manifesto and policies continue to be as socialistic as that of his predecessors.
I therefore invite you to clarify your position publicly. And if you are still a liberal and believe India needs a liberal party, I invite you to join Swarna Bharat Party and “put your money where your mouth is” (please note that this is not a request for any money – although that is something that all parties need in order to grow; this is a request for you to join the party – it costs a mere Rs.100 to become a life member).
I believe you need to choose and make publicly clear where you stand. India now has a real and functional liberal party, howsoever small. No doubt should remain in anyone’s mind about which side you are on – given that SBP is no longer a thought bubble but a party with real roots on the ground.
If you join SBP, it will send a strong signal to everyone in India (and the world) that India cannot succeed with Modi/BJP. Today, a lot of people across the world are confused. They think Modi can change India. He can’t – that’s something that’s been crystal clear to me since the very beginning. If I had thought that BJP had the capacity to change India, I’d have joined it in 2000 itself and never left India. I was very close to (the late) Ashok Saikia, a right hand man of Vajpayee, and could have easily obtained a key role in BJP decades ago – if I had wanted such a role. But BJP is not – and was never – the answer for India.
As a thought leader, you can clarify these matters to the world.
The position you take on this will also become your legacy.
18th February 2017
As everyone knows, I admire Hayek’s work. That doesn’t at all mean that he is any kind of “god” to me. I mostly agree with his economics, but his politics was abysmal.
It is also important to note that my agreement with his economics is post-facto, well after I had formed my own views about economics.
Hayek’s work is never taught in any economics course (I had started my economics studies at the post graduate level – which is purely mathematical: and in the three continents I studied, there was no mention of Hayek in any standard economics textbook). My understandings about economics – including about the price system – were formed in almost total ignorance about the very existence of Hayek.
Yes, one of my teachers at USC cited Hayek’s article, The Use of Knowledge in Society – to illustrate his maths. I found Hayek’s article well written and around three years later became the first to get permission from the AER to publish it on the internet (in 1998). Although I had become incidentally aware about Hayek, I never had any time till well after my PhD to read his work. Even the formal course that I took to study classical economists did not include any consideration of either Mises or Hayek.
Despite all this, I hold Hayek in great esteem for his excellent understandings about law and economics.
But Hayek has proved to be a dismal failure and, indeed, a nuisance when it comes to the spread of liberty across the world. (Yes, I later came to know about Mont Pelerin, etc. but its influence on the real world is grossly over-rated).
The discovery and spread of liberty across the world for the past 330 years or so had little or nothing to do with Hayek. There are hundreds of illustrious names that contributed. ALL the real contributors to liberty have always been POLITICALLY active – e.g. Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Maddison, Franklin, Burke, Macaulay, JS Mill. See The Discovery of Freedom.
Hayek’s contributions to actual human liberty are next to minimal. When a person like me had not even heard about him (and I note that not a single professionally trained economics graduate from an average university in the West has heard about him) it is hard to conceive of Hayek as having advanced liberty in any meaningful way.
HAYEK’S GREAT BLUNDER: HIS ADVICE TO ANTHONY FISHER
Hayek’s advice to Fisher has set back liberty across the world by decades. It has given a short cut to lazy “liberals” in countries like India to avoid engaging in the political process.
I first heard about this advice from Parth Shah when I first met him (in San Francisco) in 1999.
Now, since February 1998, I had unambiguously (and without any prompting from anyone – nor any awareness of others in India who might support liberty) chosen the path of political action. I wanted a party that is founded on the principles of liberty and good economics. I had no doubt whatsoever in my mind that this was an urgent necessity in India.
Parth said that, in accordance with Hayek’s views, he believed that there needs to be a think tank in India to promote liberty. We agreed to disagree on this. In my view then (and today) there can be NO change in India without political action, and think tanks are not the vehicle for political action.
Indeed, it puzzled me that Hayek (or anyone in his right senses) thought that Thatcher was in any way “CREATED” by Fisher. Thatcher would have mocked this utterly preposterous idea. Thatcher was a creation of her own understandings and beliefs – let this basic fact never be even remotely confused by anyone. It is fundamentally wrong to imagine any chain of causality between the IEA and Thatcher.
ALL change is ALWAYS political. And politics is about beliefs, commitment, social engagement and persuasion. It is extremely personal and human. No one can be a politician without fire in their belly, and that fire is not let by some random think tank article/s.
If Fisher had any real calibre, he would have transformed England politically in the 1960s itself. Of course, he chose the easy way out and started IEA. Running think tanks is a short cut, and can NEVER work.
Time and again I’ve been proven right on this fundamental point. The USA has tens of liberty-oriented think tanks, yet we get some really hopeless politicians (and policies) in the USA. That’s because doing politics is hard, and doing think tanks is easy. I find that a lot of self-aggrandising think tanks and academics run down American politicians in their writings, but these “better than thou” writers don’t understand how hard and complicated real politics is. They are therefore always unpleasantly surprised with real life. They are nuts to imagine that they can EVER influence American politics.
All the think tanks of the world, together, can’t put Humpty Dumpty together again. Doing that requires BEING in politics.
Empirically, there is ZERO correlation between think tanks and liberty. All ADVANCE IN LIBERTY HAS BEEN (AND WILL BE) POLITICAL. PERIOD.
My great regret is that although I’ve been involved in trying to get a liberal party up and running in India since the past 20 years, not ONE person from (or trained by) ANY Indian think tank has stepped forward to fight for political liberty in India. Most of these people have, instead, licked the boots of socialists and foreign donors for their survival. Foreign funding in matters related to liberty is particularly obnoxious.
Nonetheless, Parth seemed to be reasonably willing to try out a liberal political party idea – at least at first. In 2000, Parth let me hold a small meeting in his place where I discussed the prospect of India’s first liberal party being established (no, Swatantra was not a truly liberal party: let me make that clear once again).
Then in May 2002 he published an article saying that India does need a liberal political party. It appears he had realised by then that running a think tank was not going to work.
To a small extent he provided some assistance when, in 2004, the liberals (whom I’d invited to a 5 day workshop) supported Sharad Joshi’s Swatantra Bharat Party. But since then there has been close to zero contribution of CCS to any liberal political work. Parth’s write-up on a liberal party was clearly the typical hot air that such think tank “intellectuals” spout: meaningless nonsense. Lazy words.
For 20 years I have come across an abundance of “liberals” in India who have cited Hayek’s advice to Fisher as a reason to do NOTHING about liberty in India. Apparently, India doesn’t need a liberal political party and some random think tanks (that have ZERO impact on politics) can do the work.
That’s pure tripe.
Let this remain on public record – that HAYEK WAS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG on this matter. Anyone who cites Hayek on this issue is fooling himself/herself and is NOT a supporter of liberty or doesn’t understand what it means. He/she should stay away fro me. Much appreciated.
Btw, I had written about what classical liberalism really means here – and it is ALL political.
18th February 2017
Yesterday I had a debate with a friend who argued that minimum wages are good. I explained to him that the concept of minimum wage is racist and driven by the eugenic desire to kill blacks and monitories. He didn’t think that’s the case. Well, ignorance doesn’t make someone right.
I’ll be providing him with a link to this blog post of mine, plus this, below – an important extract from a peer reviewed article published in JEP.
Thomas C. Leonard – Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era – Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 207–224
The Eugenic Effects of Minimum Wage Laws
During the second half of the Progressive Era, beginning roughly in 1908, progressive economists and their reform allies achieved many statutory victories, including state laws that regulated working conditions, banned child labor, instituted “mothers’ pensions,” capped working hours and, the sine qua non, fixed minimum wages. In using eugenics to justify exclusionary immigration legislation, the race-suicide theorists offered a model to economists advocating labor reforms, notably those affiliated with the American Association for Labor Legislation, the organization of academic economists that Orloff and Skocpol (1984, p. 726) call the “leading association of U.S. social reform advocates in the Progressive Era.”
Progressive economists, like their neoclassical critics, believed that binding minimum wages would cause job losses. However, the progressive economists also believed that the job loss induced by minimum wages was a social benefit, as it performed the eugenic service ridding the labor force of the “unemployable.” Sidney and Beatrice Webb (1897 , p. 785) put it plainly: “With regard to certain sections of the population [the “unemployable”], this unemployment is not a mark of social disease, but actually of social health.” “[O]f all ways of dealing with these unfortunate parasites,” Sidney Webb (1912, p. 992) opined in the Journal of Political Economy, “the most ruinous to the community is to allow them to unrestrainedly compete as wage earners.” A minimum wage was seen to operate eugenically through two channels: by deterring prospective immigrants (Henderson, 1900) and also by removing from employment the “unemployable,” who, thus identified, could be, for example, segregated in rural communities or sterilized.
The notion that minimum-wage induced disemployment is a social benefit distinguishes its progressive proponents from their neoclassical critics, such as Alfred Marshall (1897), Philip Wicksteed (1913), A. C. Pigou (1913) and John Bates Clark (1913), who regarded job loss as a social cost of minimum wages, not as a putative social benefit (Leonard, 2000) .
Columbia’s Henry Rogers Seager, a leading progressive economist who served as president of the AEA in 1922, provides an example. Worthy wage-earners, Seager (1913a, p. 12) argued, need protection from the “wearing competition of the casual worker and the drifter” and from the other “unemployable” who unfairly drag down the wages of more deserving workers (1913b, pp. 82–83). The minimum wage protects deserving workers from the competition of the unfit by making it illegal to work for less. Seager (1913a, p. 9) wrote: “The operation of the minimum wage requirement would merely extend the definition of defectives to embrace all individuals, who even after having received special training, remain incapable of adequate self-support.” Seager (p. 10) made clear what should happen to those who, even after remedial training, could not earn the legal minimum: “If we are to maintain a race that is to be made of up of capable, efficient and independent individuals and family groups we must courageously cut off lines of heredity that have been proved to be undesirable by isolation or sterilization ….”
The unemployable were thus those workers who earned less than some measure of an adequate standard of living, a standard the British called a “decent maintenance” and Americans referred to as a “living wage.” For labor reformers, firms that paid workers less than the living wage to which they were entitled were deemed parasitic, as were the workers who accepted such wages—on grounds that someone (charity, state, other members of the household) would need to make up the difference.
For progressives, a legal minimum wage had the useful property of sorting the unfit, who would lose their jobs, from the deserving workers, who would retain their jobs. Royal Meeker, a Princeton economist who served as Woodrow Wilson’s U.S. Commissioner of Labor, opposed a proposal to subsidize the wages of poor workers for this reason. Meeker preferred a wage floor because it would disemploy unfit workers and thereby enable their culling from the work force. “It is much better to enact a minimum -wage law even if it deprives these unfortunates of work,” argued Meeker (1910, p. 554). “Better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind.” A. B. Wolfe (1917, p. 278), an American progressive economist who would later become president of the AEA in 1943, also argued for the eugenic virtues of removing from employment those who “are a burden on society.”
In his Principles of Economics, Frank Taussig (1921, pp. 332–333) asked rhetorically, “how to deal with the unemployable?” Taussig identified two classes of unemployable worker, distinguishing the aged, infirm and disabled from the “feebleminded … those saturated with alcohol or tainted with hereditary disease … [and] the irretrievable criminals and tramps….” The latter class, Taussig proposed, “should simply be stamped out.” “We have not reached the stage,” Taussig allowed, “where we can proceed to chloroform them once and for all; but at least they can be segregated, shut up in refuges and asylums, and prevented from propagating their kind.”5
The progressive idea that the unemployable could not earn a living wage was bound up with the progressive view of wage determination. Unlike the economists who pioneered the still-novel marginal productivity theory, most progressives agreed that wages should be determined by the amount that was necessary to provide a reasonable standard of living, not by productivity, and that the cost of this entitlement should fall on firms.6
But how should a living wage be determined? Were workers with more dependents, and thus higher living expenses, thereby entitled to higher wages? Arguing that wages should be a matter of an appropriate standard of living opened the door, in this era of eugenics, to theories of wage determination that were grounded in biology, in particular to the idea that “low-wage races” were biologically predisposed to low wages, or “under-living.”7 Edward A. Ross (1936, p. 70), the proponent of race-suicide theory, argued that “the Coolie cannot outdo the American, but he can underlive him.” “Native” workers have higher productivity, claimed Ross, but because Chinese immigrants are racially disposed to work for lower wages, they displace the native workers.
In his Races and Immigrants, the University of Wisconsin economist and social reformer John R. Commons argued that wage competition not only lowers wages, it also selects for the unfit races. “The competition has no respect for the superior races,” said Commons (1907, p. 151), “the race with lowest necessities displaces others.” Because race rather than productivity determined living standards, Commons could populate his low-wage-races category with the industrious and lazy alike. African Americans were, for Commons (p. 136), “indolent and fickle,” which explained why, Commons argued, slavery was required: “The negro could not possibly have found a place in American industry had he come as a free man … [I ] f such races are to adopt that industrious life which is second nature to races of the temperate zones, it is only through some form of compulsion.” Similarly, Wharton School reformer Scott Nearing (1915, p. 22), volunteered that if “an employer has a Scotchman working for him at $3 a day [and] an equally efficient Lithuanian offers to the same work for $2 … the work is given to the low bidder.”
When U.S. labor reformers reported on labor legislation in countries more precocious with respect to labor reform, they favorably commented on the eugenic efficacy of minimum wages in excluding the “low-wage races” from work. Harvard’s Arthur Holcombe (1912, p. 21), a member of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Commission, referred approvingly to the intent of Australia’s minimum wage law to “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese.” Florence Kelley (1911, p. 304), perhaps the most influential U.S. labor reformer of the day, also endorsed the Australian minimum -wage law as “redeeming the sweated trades” by preventing the “unbridled competition” of the unemployable, the “women, children, and Chinese [who] were reducing all the employees to starvation …”
For these progressives, race determined the standard of living, and the standard of living determined the wage. Thus were immigration restriction and labor legislation, especially minimum wages, justified for their eugenic effects. Invidious distinction, whether founded on the putatively greater fertility of the unfit, or upon their putatively greater predisposition to low wages, lay at the heart of the reforms we today see as the hallmark of the Progressive Era.
Not all progressives endorsed eugenics, and not all of those who endorsed eugenics were progressives, traditionally defined, still less proponents of minimum wages. Taussig was not especially well-disposed to minimum wages, but his intemperate remarks measure the influence of eugenic ideas upon economics in the Progressive Era.
6As Lawrence Glickman (1997, pp. 85–91) argues, the progressive view of wage determination drew upon the labor union theory of the 1880s. Frank Foster of the American Federation of Labor, for example, argued (as quoted in Mussey, 1927, p. 236) that “it is not commonly the value of what is produced which chiefly determines the wage rate, but the nature and degree of the wants of the workers, as embodied in their customary mode of living.” Likewise, the influential and pioneering labor reformer Carroll Wright (1882, pp. 4–5) , one of the first Americans to call for a legal minimum wage, asserted that “[t]he labor question” is a matter of the “wants of the wage-laborer.”
7 Progressives also argued that there was a “female” standard of living, something that was determined by women’s biological nature, or by their “natural” roles as mothers and helpmeets (Leonard, 2005).
16th February 2017
I’m keeping this for the record – and won’t add names here, but one day I will.
I’m sick to the bone of these FRAUDULENT LIBERALS of India who spend their entire life soliciting funds from foreign agencies or currying favours from socialist Indian political parties.
And they have the audacity to tell me they are following Hayek’s advice! What bogus nonsense. These bootlickers ought to be ashamed of themselves.
I condemn them outright – as enemies of India. Traitors to the cause of liberty.
16th February 2017
All through the past 20 years, I have come across numerous alleged supporters of liberty in India. I say “alleged” since they are hypocrites and liars. A good number of them support criminal Congress or criminal BJP. Many are boolickers of these corrupt socialists – their income comes from working for such criminal parties. Some run institutes that are funded by government dole. (And, of course, some jumped into the AAP bandwagon).
I won’t name all of them – there are too many of them. They bring great shame to India.
However, there was this recent obnoxious experience with a guy called Jerry Johnson that I do want to place on the public record. Such scamsters are busy billing themselves as promoters of liberty. They need to be pinned down for what they are.
The information below is self-explanatory.
It may also be noted that this alleged supporter of liberty works for one of India’s most corrupt businessmen – Ambani. Jerry effectively supports criminal organisations like BJP and socialists like Modi but apparently has differences with India’s ONLY ethical and classical liberal political party.
And when challenged to be specific, he keeps quiet. He libels India’s ONLY liberal party (including those who are working for it), but happily consorts with the criminals who are destroying India.
Such is the moral standing of such people.
Ayn Rand would turn in her grave to be associated with such turncoats.
MY 13 FEBRUARY 2017 EMAIL TO HIM