Dr. Dhavan has sent the following in response to Venkatesan’s critique. I have his permission to post it on the blog:
“Wrong But Delightful: A Response to V. Venkatesan
– By Rajeev Dhavan
1. What a wonderfully provocative review!
2. The main debate is on whether the Parliamentary debates were fulfilling (see Book pp. 34-5). Clearly they were not.
3. It is the OBC bench that was utterly confused about whether the creamy layer applied to SCs and STs (see Book pp. 227-233) where the contradiction is shown.
4. The important aspect of Nagraj and Coelho is the caveat that, 50% reservations, creamy layer and compelling necessity are essential in respect of future actions even validity of the constitutional amendments is upheld (see Book pp. 238).
5. Alas, you have reviewed only the epilogue (see Book pp.199 ff) and my supposed reversal of roles, but not the book.
6. I love your writing – right or wrong!!”