The letter YSS: Pragmatic idealism for social change from the YSS executive director argues that nearly 70 percent of Indians in the country have benefitted from the Barisan Nasional government's socio-economic policies and programmes.

The only regret is that 30 percent have failed to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the government's pro-liberal policies. These findings are from YSS' '... micro and macro studies undertaken over the last eight years coupled with direct community actions'.

Without sounding argumentative, I would like to know more about these surveys, how the micro and macro surveys and community work were put together to arrive at these interesting but highly controversial figures.

Also, what was the methodology used in the surveys, how was the sample size decided, where were the surveys conducted, the nature of questions and what were the basis for combining different approaches to arrive at certain universal findings.

Well, even if income figures have gone up for Indians in comparison to one or two decades ago, did the YSS make a provision for comparing and contrasting Indian income improvement with other ethnic groups?

If there is no relative comparison, how could one then speak of Indian advancement; it might be true absolutely but not relatively. Progress of ethnic communities must be seen relatively and not by comparing one class of Indians with other classes of Indians.

Using gross income figures without factoring the rate of inflation will be very misleading. As YSS might be aware, despite the rise in money income, Indian workers have lost in real terms. More information is needed for YSS to make the claim that the majority of Indians have benefitted from government policies.

Rather than merely looking at the income level of families, perhaps the YSS should have investigated the Indian ownership question, whether Indians are obtaining licenses and contracts like the Malays and Chinese and to what extent Indians are represented in the middle-sectors of the economy.

Looking at the narrow wage/income question actually tells us very little about the true state of Indians in the socio-economic realm.

Although it is agreed that income is one important criteria for judging the progress of the Indians, other criterion must also be taken into account. These include the political status of the community, how effectively are they represented, the question of why bright Indian students being denied places in public universities on the grounds of the 'merit system', why are Indians are denied job opportunities and promotions in the public sector, why Indian places of worship are often targeted for removal in the name of 'development' and not the least why Tamils schools are in a terrible state of affairs.

How is it that the come the BN's generosity has not been extended to the Indians in the above areas?

It is simplistic to make a fantastic claim that the majority of Indians have benefitted from government policies by focusing on a narrow area of concern and neglecting fundamental areas of inquiry.

The YSS should have first asked an important question - how to conceptualise Indian progress and on what basis. This would have possibly allowed the outfit to take a more serious view of the Indian situation rather than relying on the nebulous and unscientific 'micro and macro studies ... together with direct community involvement'.

It would be important for YSS to make public the nature of its study and how it came to the present conclusion. Perhaps a public forum would be an ideal place, where concerned Indians could meet to share and exchange information. I hope the YSS would consider and accept this request.

And by the way, academicians do not have the luxury of operating in a atmosphere of comfort. We face the same pressures and challenges like the rest, if not more. Our responsibility is not to our immediate bosses or those in power, but to our conscience.