In 'M'sian academia must gnaw on its political leash' (May 15), Prof P Ramasamy argued that the academic community should play a more pro-active role and engage in such political discourses as may be necessary to de-hegemonise the present ideological and political system and expose its unequal and unjust manner of control and domination.

At the same time he conceded that a particular academic's "response to deal with these will be determined by what is termed as our prevailing mental map - that is how we interpret and analyse the events in the backdrop of our political and ideological socialisation over the years."

In the light of this, I ask whether, between a bumiputra and the non-bumiputra academic, there can exist a common view on the necessity to oppose (say) politics of racial hegemony?

A non-bumiputra academic's view, like that of the writer, is probably straightforward - a colour-blind absolutism that any form of racial discrimination or its corollary, hegemony is wrong.

But what about a bumiputra academic intellectual's position? He is often in a dilemma.

In the first place, he probably had the opportunity to attain his academic qualifications and position by reason of the affirmative or, as the writer would have it, hegemonic policies. How could he then, as beneficiary, oppose the policies that patently benefited his community, and him personally? From whence is the objectivity to come from?

At the far reaches of his mind, he understands the feelings of those reversibly discriminated by these policies. He may even have a gnawing discomfit in the thought that although the target group is intelligent yet these policies have presumptively determined them disadvantaged and unable to achieve parity without assistance. He wonders about the psychological impact.

He may, as an intellectual, understand deep down that the fundamental challenge any person faces in life arises not from his racial condition, but from our common human condition.

Because we share this problem of human condition that may be same in essentials but different only in details, we should try to transcend racial and cultural differences, to forge a mutual empathic understanding of our respective experiences and travails, and confront the challenges of existence together from common perspective, in unity and not across racial and cultural boundaries.

Yet - here is the paradox - how does he discard the immediate personal benefits of such policies and counter them based on the deeper existential view for benefit of all in long term?

As with academicians, so the same argument here applies mutatis mutandis to politicians in respect to hegemonic political policies.

To the writer, I would of course ask how our local academics can effectively play a role to counter hegemonic order when they themselves are divided as a result of such order in prior existence itself? They may as well continue researching further knowledge which does not lead to a political practice that makes a difference, but make a difference to their promotions up the academic hierarchy.