In separate, strongly worded letters to the Prime Minister (for full text, see Editorial Page), Mehta and Beitelle reiterated their “commitment” to the principle of social inclusion but questioned motives behind the quotas calling them detrimental to the development of a knowledge society.

“It is often said that caste is a reality in India,” wrote Mehta. “I could not agree more. But your government is in the process of making caste the only reality in India...When we deprive any single child, of any caste, of relevant opportunities, we mutilate ourselves as a society and diminish our own possibilities. But, as you understand more than most, globalization requires us to think of old objectives in new paradigms...I believe that the measures your government is proposing will inhibit achieving both social justice and economic well being.”

Echoing this, Beitelle also commented on the Prime Minister’s silence when the commission was being ridiculed by politicians (HRD Minister Arjun Singh and CPM’s Sitaram Yechury).

“These aspersions on the competence and capability of the commission have been received in silence by your office. Such intemperate remarks should not have been made about a commission set up by the Prime Minister himself,” wrote Beitelle.

The quota decision and the “palliative” measures to defuse the resulting agitation, Mehta said, violate “four cardinal principles” that institutions in a knowledge based society will have to follow. “They are not based on assessment of effectiveness, they are incompatible with the freedom and diversity of institutions, they more thoroughly politicize the education process, and they inject an insidious poison that will harm the nation’s long term interest.”

“We can either move forward and create centres of academic excellence or go along with the demands of identity politics based on caste and community, but we cannot do both,” said Beteille, adding that there was a deliberate, “cynical misrepresentation” of the recent amendment to the Constitution.

“They are enabling provisions and not mandatory ones as they are being made out to be. To be sure, the government may make policies to extend caste quotas, but it is not required by the Constitution to do so,” said Beteille.

A point also underlined by Mehta: “...even in its present form it is only an enabling legislation. It does not require that every public institution have numerically mandated quotas for OBCs. To hear your government consistently hiding behind the pretext of the constitutional amendment is yet another example of how we are foreclosing the fine distinctions that any rigorous approach to access and excellence requires.”

Mehta also underlined the political interference with education. “As an academic, I find it to be an appalling spectacle when a group of Ministers is empowered to come up with admissions policies, seat formulas for institutions across the country. While institutions have responsibilities and are accountable to society, how will they ever achieve excellence and autonomy if basic decisions like who should they teach, what should they teach, how much should they charge, are uniformly mandated by government diktat?... Though your objectives are different, your government is sending a similar message about our institutions: in the final analysis, they are playthings for politicians to mess around with.”

Taking a dig at the political class, Mehta said: “I recognise that in a democracy one has to respectfully accede to the decisions of elected representatives. But I also believe that democracies are ill-served if individuals do not frankly and publicly point out the perils that certain decisions may pose for posterity. I owe it to public reason to make my reasons for resigning public. I may be wrong in my judgment about the consequences of your government’s decisions, but at this juncture I cannot help concluding that what your government is proposing poses grave dangers for India as a nation.’’

FULL TEXT OF THE TWO RESIGNATION LETTERS

Dear Prime Minister

Not everything that is lawful is wise