The usual goal of a country's economic management advocated by almost everyone (including libertarians) is growth in GDP; in other words, a bigger pie. Usually, one ignores how the pie is divided. Suppose, for a moment, you start with a different primary goal for economic policies: to reduce poverty (with enhanced GDP as a secondary goal), and if what you see indicates that poverty doesn't seem to have decreased (or, it seems to have increased; "seems" is the key word here ;-) after traveling 15 years down the garden path, then you are apt to question the wisdom of the reforms as they are being pursued. I believe this is what Dilip has done:
There's no doubt in my mind: reforms must happen. But 15 years after the process began, I can't help feeling that something is wrong about the way we are pursuing them. For I am yet to see the one effect they must have, first and above all: a visible lessening in the level of Indian poverty. Fewer poor Indians around us. I can't see that.
So, in spite of Dilip's support for reforms (after all, he is not questioning them; he is only wondering about better ways of doing them), Ravikiran gives him a gratuitous remedial lesson in how to talk about "reforms and the poor"!
In any case, one could argue that Dilip has achieved something fundamentally very significant with far-reaching consequences: He has made card-carrying libertarians acknowledge -- and talk about -- certain economic policies and defend them on their impact on the poor.