I would write a systematic account shortly but seeing the gravity of situation due to a possible misinterpretation this note is being published in urgency.
First of all,I have encountered reporting error or if we trust on the inverted quote to be literally correct, then the origin of the news it self.
Every news paper reported,"In Sanskrit, there are many words equivalent to justice. The two important words are 'nidhi' and 'nyaya'. The former is about institutions and their rules of behaviour while the later is about realisation of the benefits," except only the Times of India which writes,"Sen advocated an approach to problems based on `nyaya' rather than `neethi', distinguishing the two terms for justice by describing `neethi' as a mere set of rules and `nyaya' as the fair outcome and realisation of the benefits of law."The latter is , however, correct.
Prof. Amartya Sen, an advocate of Justice and fairness, can suggest that reservations are welcome, but has skipped the fundamental grounds on which it ought to be decided.
Nyaaya, ie. Justice, of Sanskrit refers to the very basis of neethi, ie, policy, or what Prof Sen calls, mere set of rules as stated above. Now the question is ,if one is bold enough to follow the path of nyaaya, will eventually lead to the justifiable neethi, ie, policy. And that is what the idealist’s view.
Almost all the news papers have quoted Prof. Sen as he has seconded the cast or religion based reservations in IIT or any where, which I think, is a misinterpretation or misquoting of an authority.
Prof. Sen refers to deprived people below the so called creamy layer. And when viewed in this I think his stand will be clear and justifiable. Unfortunately, no news paper has reported this clarification.
To my surprise, editors of all most all the news papers, except one, have broad casted a wrong signals as if Prof. Sen has seconded the quota based on cast and religion.