It is doubtful that the point about unnecessary state intervention is adequately appreciated. While government funding should indeed be linked with government intervention, as the recent Supreme Court judgement on minority-run schools funded by the government declares, state intervention also characterises institutions where there is no state funding. Third, in all social services, the issue remains one of subsidising the targeted poor groups, rather than offering across the board subsidies through low user charges. Unless this is adequately addressed, all state governments will find it difficult to handle the criticism of the poor being crowded out. Fourth, the Left Front is still not sold on the idea of competition. Private entry into professional higher education has been permitted, but is anathema not only in general higher education, but also in primary education. Had that not been the case, the government wouldnt have been so fixated on banning private tuitions by government school-teachers. That is a non-issue. The issue is making government school-teachers accountable and offering choice and competition to students. For instance, subsidies can be routed directly to poor students through vouchers rather than through the schools. Perhaps the Left Fronts confusion stems from the fact that reforms are driven by fiscal compulsions rather than logic.