The Indian Libertarian

Summary

This is the May 15, 1959 issue (Vol. VII, No. 8) of The Indian Libertarian, a Bombay ‘Independent Journal of Economic and Public Affairs’ incorporating the ‘Free Economic Review,’ edited by Miss Kusum Lotwala under the banner ‘We stand for free economy and libertarian democracy.’ In the rendered pages the issue is framed by the 1959 Sino-Tibetan crisis: the editorial ‘China Is Angry with India Over Tibet’ rebukes Nehru’s friendship policy with China and recounts the Tibetan revolt and the 1951 Sino-Tibetan agreement, while S. Ramanathan and Anthony Ellenjimittam treat the Dalai Lama and the flight from Lhasa. Domestic commentary turns on a critique of Nehru and planning — M. N. Tholal’s ‘Humpty-Dumpty Nehru’s Fall,’ M. A. Venkata Rao’s ‘Limits of State Action,’ H. V. Kamath, K. Kumar Sekhar on Congress leadership, and ‘The Impact of the Plan on the Common Man’ — alongside reprinted classical-liberal essays by Frank Chodorov and Silvio Gesell and a ‘Diamat’ piece by Philip Spratt. The argumentative center is classical-liberal: skepticism of state planning and Nehruvian foreign policy, and a defence of market freedom.

Essays

Editorial: China Is Angry with India

The editorial ‘China Is Angry with India Over Tibet’ contrasts Nehru’s professions of Sino-Indian friendship with Chinese hostility over Tibet, arguing that the reforming zeal of the Chinese has been restrained and tactless and sympathising with the Tibetan people. In the rendered pages it places on record the autonomy clauses of the 1951 Sino-Tibetan Agreement and faults the absence of a clear charge against Chinese conduct.

• Rebukes Nehru’s friendship policy toward China over Tibet.
• Sympathises with the Tibetan people and the autonomy question.
• Cites the autonomy clauses of the 1951 Sino-Tibetan Agreement.
• Calls for naming a clear charge against Chinese conduct.

Limits of State Action

By MA Venkata Rao

M. A. Venkata Rao’s ‘The Limits of State Action’ is a classical-liberal essay on the proper bounds of the state, arguing against the rapid inroads of planning into economic life and defending individual initiative and the market. In the rendered pages it warns that the language of the planners pits the common man against freedom and that state action must be confined within strict limits.

• Argues the state’s action must be strictly limited.
• Warns against the rapid inroads of planning into the economy.
• Defends individual initiative and the market.
• Classical-liberal reading of the ‘intellectual’ apathy toward freedom.

---

Generated by the v1.5 extraction pipeline. Awaiting editorial review.