Some comments on arguments raised by the author: 1.) First the author talks about building IIMs in metropolitan cities, where it will be easy to find infrastructure to attract good faculty. But then, there is an example of Stanford where the university was instrumental in development of the erstwhile backward area into the silicon valley. Aren't these two points in contradiction? 2.) In the comparison of IIMK with XISS, regarding initiatives towards the upliftment of Dalits, it has been pointed out that the latter can do it more efficiently. Can the author kindly produce data to base this opinion on? In fact, if we consider that like IIMK, if every institute took up an initiative towards social development and upliftment, won't the process be supremely efficent, in its reach and effectiveness? 3.) Regarding the point that setting up IIMK has not helped the students/people of Calicut - on the contrary, a prestigious institute like IIMK can actually put Calicut on the industrial/commercial map of India. In fact, a group of IIMK students are currently working on a project in conjunction with the govt. of Kerala to project Calicut as the next IT destination. I believe points like these, and many more, raise a serious doubt on the impartiality and fairness of this article.