Stay true to the dreams of thy youth

Attached below is an Al-Jazeera interview with one of my favorite authors of late. I've actually written on him in a previous blog post, recommending his book The Reluctant Fundamentalist.


Interview: Mohsin Hamid
Al-Jazeera

Mohsin Hamid, the British-Pakistani author of the widely acclaimed The Reluctant Fundamentalist, speaks to Al Jazeera about how only Pakistanis can understand and share the deep sense of sorrow Indians are facing as their financial capital is held under siege.

He also says the attacks in Mumbai could have been portrayed differently by the foreign media.

Al Jazeera: What do you make of the current attacks in Mumbai?

Hamid: I think at the moment there are two possible responses – either we can use these attacks to continue to think that India and Pakistan must be opposed to one another - or we can start to say there is a shared sense of sorrow that actually unites both countries.

Islamabad has had a hotel destroyed … pitch gun battles were fought at the Red Mosque last year … actually the two countries are very similar and hopefully can act in unison in a way they previously never could.

Do you think people in both India and Pakistan are feeling this shared sense of grief?

I think they are. I think we could be at a real changing point ... Because in Pakistan the perception that terrorism is directed at Pakistanis has become common place and the country is really re-aligning in its view on terrorism.

The army is fighting pitch battles in the tribal areas right now – hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis have been displaced in this fighting.

This is not the same as a few years ago when perhaps militants in Kashmir were partly operating out of Pakistan and Pakistan was suffering the consequences. So there is a big change.

In India, however, I think the urge to look abroad also fits in with a desire not to look within.

So there is a great deal of resentment among Muslims in India. For example, I was in a cab in Bombay a year ago and my taxi driver asked me if I was Muslim and Pakistani and I said 'yes'.

He then went into a long rant about how terrible the state of Muslims in Bombay is.

So these problems exist and always looking to Pakistan is a way of hiding from them.

What is the status of Muslims living in India?

They comprise a bit over 10 per cent of the population and [are] increasingly becoming a bit of a marginalised underclass.

The treatment of minorities in Pakistan is no better. I'm not saying Pakistan should be anyone's exemplar in this area but actually both countries have enormous problems with their religious and ethnic minorities and with a state that has chosen violence as opposed to negotiation and integration.

What has been your experience visiting India as a Pakistani?

On the one hand, whenever I go to India I have a great time … I have had a wonderful experience as a writer in India.

But when I go I have to register at the police station – you have to wait for hours and register for every city you go to.

I'm sure in Pakistan the same thing is done for Indians. This is the absurdity of Indo-Pak relations.

What role does Kashmir play in the coming together of the two nations … or not?

Over the last couple of years, under Pervez Musharraf [the former president] but also under Asif Ali Zardari, the current president, Pakistan has been putting forward compromise positions on Kashmir that have been quite close to the perceived historical Indian position - and getting very little traction on the Indian side.

It makes one wonder - is it a case that the Indian negotiators don't trust the Pakistanis? Or simply that perpetuating this conflict is in the interests of the Indian political setup?

I think that is what is unfortunate.

Because the Congress party requires sort of frightened Muslims as a significant vote bank and the opposition BJP has an anti-Muslim sort of position; resolution of this Hindu-Muslim India-Pakistan tension isn't easy under the Indian political system.

But that said, I think the vast majority of people on both sides would like to see it resolved as these terrorists target Pakistanis and Indians, who have a shared interest in seeing it resolved and hopefully it will be.

It has been widely reported in the foreign media that the gunmen in the current attacks in Mumbai are specifically targeting Westerners and Jews. Does this point to a higher likelihood that Muslims are behind it?

Well they're not Muslims … they just call themselves that. But it's preposterous to focus on this.

Who is losing their lives? Over 100 brown people have been killed – Hindus, Muslims and Christians indiscriminately– but the media focuses on the white faces being killed.

The vast majority are Indians, police, soldiers and so on. Clearly they want to attack foreigners they but have no problem with attacking locals too … this has been overlooked.

Are you optimistic about relations between Indians and Pakistanis?

I am and I think it's at a human level.

I have friends and family in Islamabad and when you see the Marriot Hotel blow up in Islamabad as it did this year and when you see the Red Mosque stand-off between the armed forces and extremists being fought for days in central Islamabad - you cannot help but look at the people in Bombay now and feel a kinship.

No one has seen remotely anything like this - except perhaps the people in Islamabad. And that kind of the humanisation of the former enemy, I think, is the reason for the optimism.

I've yet to reflect on the recent election and my experience of extreme excitement and inevitable and forthcoming disappointment... that will come in another post.

That being said, below is a good article written by an Israeli author in Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper. In light of Obama's recent appointment of an ardent pro-Israeli Chief of Staff, I am very skeptical of where Obama may be taking his previously balanced Middle East foreign policy. Emanuel's father, a terrorist in Israel's Irgun group prior to Israel's declaration of a state, recently agreed that people should not be accusing Obama of being an Arab... because he is capable of more than just washing the White House's floors. That being said, I hope this father has not had much of an influence on his son's views of Arabs.

Let's hope Obama won't be a 'friend of Israel'

By Gideon Levy

Well, maybe Obama will not be a "friend of Israel." May the great change he is promising not omit his country's Mideast policy. May Obama herald not only a new America, but also a new Middle East.

When we say that someone is a "friend of Israel" we mean a friend of the occupation, a believer in Israel's self-armament, a fan of its language of strength and a supporter of all its regional delusions. When we say someone is a "friend of Israel" we mean someone who will give Israel a carte blanche for any violent adventure it desires, for rejecting peace and for building in the territories.

Israel's greatest friend in the White House, outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush, was someone like that. There is no other country where this man, who brought a string of disasters down upon his own nation and the world, would receive any degree of prestige and respect. Only in Israel.

Only in Israel does the prime minister place George Bush's portrait in his den, in his private home. Only in Israel does the prime minister travel to visit him in the White House.

That's because Bush was a friend of Israel. Israel's greatest friend. Bush let it embark on an unnecessary war in Lebanon. He did not prevent the construction of a single outpost. He may have encouraged Israel, in secret, to bomb Iran. He did not pressure Israel to move ahead with peace talks, he even held up negotiations with Syria, and he did not reproach Israel for its policy of targeted killings.

Bush also supported the siege on Gaza and participated in the boycott of Hamas, which was elected in a democratic election initiated by his own administration.

That's just how we like U.S. presidents. They give us a green light to do as we please. They fund, equip and arm us, and sit tight. Such is the classic friend of Israel, a friend who is an enemy, and enemy of peace and an enemy to Israel.

Let us now hope that Obama will not be like them. That he will reveal himself to be a true friend of Israel. That he will put his whole weight behind a deep American involvement in the Middle East, that he will try to solve the Iranian issue through negotiation - the only effective means. That he will help end the siege on Gaza and the boycott of Hamas, that he will push Israel and Syria to make peace, that he will spur Israel and the Palestinians to reach a settlement.

We should hope Obama will help Israel help itself, because that is how friendship is measured. That he will criticize its policy when he must, because that, too, is a test of true friendship.

The march of parochialism started right away. The tears of excitement invoked by U.S. president-elect Barack Obama's wonderful speech had not yet dried, and back here people were already delving into the only real question they could think to ask: Is this good or bad for Israel? One after another, the analysts and politicians got up - all of them representing one single school of thought, of course ­ and began prophesizing.

They spoke with the caution that the situation required, gritting their teeth as though their mouths were full of pebbles, trying to soothe all the fears and concerns. They searched and found signs in Obama: The promising appointment of the Israeli ex-patriots' son, whose father belonged to the Irgun, and maybe also Dennis Ross and Dan Kurtzer and Martin Indyk, who may, God willing, be included in the new administration.

But in the background, a dark cloud hovered above. Careful, danger. The black man, who had associated with Palestinian expats, who speaks of human rights, who favors diplomacy over war, who even wants to engage Iran in dialogue, who will allocate more funding for America's social needs than to weapons exports. He may not be the sort of "friend of Israel" that we have come to love in Washington, the kind of friend we have grown accustomed to.

What's the panic all about? The truth needs to be said: At the base of all of these fears is the angst that this president will push Israel to end the occupation and move toward peace.

Let him use his clout to end the occupation and dismantle the settlement project. Let him remember that human and civil rights also apply to the Palestinians, not only to black Americans. And apropos world peace, he needs to start with peace in the Middle East, home to the most dangerous of conflicts, which has been threatening the world for a century now, and is feeding international terrorism.

A true friend of Israel needs to remember that Israel may be "the only democracy in the Middle East," but not in its own backyard. That next to Sderot, which he visited, is Gaza. That "common values" must not include a cruel occupation. That friendship does not mean blind and automatic support.

Let him speak with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, as often as he can and with whomever is willing to talk. And let him do it before the next war, not after it. Let him remember that he has the power to do all that.

Changing the Middle East was in the power of each and every U.S. president, who could have pressured Israel and put an end to the occupation. Most of them kept their hands off as if it were a hot potato, all in the name of a wonderful friendship.

So bring us an American president who is not another dreadful "friend of Israel," an Obama who won't blindly follow the positions of the Jewish lobby and the Israeli government. You did promise change, did you not?