Dear Yogendra Bhai,

My letter is redeemed by the fact that it prompted you to write. Minor points first: The NKC statement carefully did not take a categorical stand against all reservations; it merely was a plea that quotas not be extended till alternatives had been explored. If we had not taken an interim position we would have been accused of ducking the issue. As for politics, if misrepresenting the Constitution, deciding seat enhancement solely for the sake of quotas and not on other rational considerations, and leaving decisions to politicians, is not politics of the bad kind I do not know what is. Mr. Arjun Singh himself linked the decision to the prospects of the Congress party.

I want to clarify two important things. My argument on diversity and freedom leaves substantial room for the state to enact radical policies; like you I believe it will have to do so, but more intelligently. But should policies in all institutions necessarily have to follow the same model? And in a country where even people who agree on the objective of social justice are deeply divided over the means to achieve it, is not draconian homogenising going to exacerbate social conflict? I think genuine pluralism requires that we find a modus vivendi to balance different and equally important values: social justice, diversity, autonomy, freedom, creativity, efficiency. Perhaps I trust society too much, but perhaps you trust the state too much, and good historical sense requires being wary of both in appropriate measure.

... contd.