Short Story: A Delightful Old Lady

Mark saw the old woman wave at them and ignored her. She must be waving at someone else he told himself as he struggled with little Anna in his arms and the big rucksack on his back. When the old woman waved for the second time, John spotted her and said, 'Look Mummy, she's waving at us.'

Karen turned around to look in the direction John was pointing and was rewarded with a few more waves. There was no doubt about it. The old woman standing behind the wicket gate was indeed waving at them or rather beckoning them to her.

'Mark, she's waving at us,' Karen needlessly told Mark who was by then looking in the old lady's direction.

Mark hesitated and said, 'she looks harmless. Shall we go take a look?'

'Why not?' Karen said rather crossly because she knew that John would be upset if they didn't. She was quite tired after trekking through the tea covered hills that loomed all around them. If she had a choice, she would have rather they continued their trek back to their hotel at Peermade, which was at least 30 minutes away.

As John led the way, Karen said doubtfully, 'may be she wants to ask us for money!' There had been no scarcity of beggars ever since they had landed in India two weeks ago.

'Doesn't look like it,' Mark muttered, more to himself than to Karen, as he continued to lead the way to the small cottage, which had peeling cream paint and a red roof.

'Hi!' Mark told the old woman much before he was within her hearing range. But he nodded as well and so she smiled in reply and opened the wicket gate a little bit.

She had a squeaky high pitched voice. 'I saw you people walking with the big bags and the baby and I thought you must be very, very, tired. Why don't you come in and have some tea?'

Mark was perplexed. Where he came from, people didn't invite you for tea just like that. He gaped at the old woman who was wearing a faded red pullover that came up to her knees and a skirt with some funky pleats. Karen must have been really tired because from behind she said, 'That's so nice of you. I'd like some tea. Thank you so much.'

The old woman opened the gate fully wide and walked back to the cottage, halting after every few steps so that she could turn around to see if they were following her. Mark realised that what she wore underneath her red-pullover was a saree and not a skirt.

The cottage's veranda had an assortment of potted plants, some of which definitely needed trimming. The veranda led to a small drawing room furnished with a set of three plush settees covered in red. The walls were lined with cupboards crammed with books and toys. 'Do please sit down,' the woman said. Without losing the permanent wide grin plastered on her face, the woman rang a bell. Mark and Karen sat on the edges of the largest settee wondering what was coming next. John sat in between them. Karen had Anna on her lap. The bell was rung once more. A young woman in a dirty saree materialised with a smile and a pair of enquiring eyes. A five year old child had been clinging to her saree till a moment ago, but now the child was waiting for her mother just beyond eyeshot of the guests.

'Kavitha, some tea for these fine people,' the old woman told the maid and was rewarded with a perplexed look. The order was repeated in Malayalam.

'Actually I would like a Four X,' Mark declared, only to get a sharp dig in his side from Karen.

'I beg your pardon. I don't understand,' the old woman told them. 'What would you like?'

'Oh never mind him,' Karen waved gaily at the old woman.

'I was just joking. Four X is the amber fluid we drink in Queensland,' Mark clarified.

'Never mind him,' Karen repeated yet again.

'Bring us three cups of tea,' the maid was ordered. She left the room for the kitchen, picking up her waiting daughter on the way.

'It's so good to see someone from England,' the old woman told them. 'My husband was the first Indian hired by the Beckley's Estate.'

'Actually we are Aussies, not Pommies,' Mark said. The old woman gave him a blank look.

'I have never been to England, but my husband went there once, just after the war.'

'My name is _______.' The old woman said a name which neither Mark, nor Karen caught.

'I'm sorry....I didn't get your name,' Karen said politely, her voice trailing off towards the end and waited for the old woman to repeat her name. She did not. Instead she waited for them to introduce themselves.

'I'm Mark. This is my partner Karen, my son John and my daughter Anna.'

'I'm so glad you decided to stop by for tea.'

They were all silent for a while. 'Things have changed so much, not necessarily for the better, you know..'

A sudden thought occurred to the old woman. 'Let me make sure Kavitha does not add milk and sugar to the tea,' she told them and disappeared through a door which led to the kitchen.

'Ma, can I have a lolly?' John asked as soon as the old woman left.

Instead of answering, Karen pointed at a cupboard filled with toys. 'John, oh look at that elephant! Isn't it beaut?'

'Ma, I want a lolly!' John insisted.

Mark got up and walked around, stretching himself.

'Ma, a lolly!'

'Mark, can you please take out that elephant for John?'

'I don't think we should. It looks dirty enough. The whole place is full of dust.' He walked over to a cupboard filled with books, peered inside and said, 'these books. They are so dusty and falling apart. I don't think anyone has read them in ages.'

'I want a lolly!' John said even louder. Mark quickly opened the toys cupboard and took out the elephant. For good measure, he took out a duck as well. The elephant was given to John and the duck to Anna.

John sat down on the carpeted floor and started to bounce the elephant up and down. Anna dropped the duck to the floor from where she sat on Karen's lap. Karen picked up the duck and gave it back to Anna who held on to it.

The old woman appeared with Kavitha behind her carrying a tea tray. Kavitha's daughter had tagged alongside her mother, but once again stopped just behind the curtains. 'I'm so glad I checked on Kavitha. I've told her so many times that English people like to be served tea without milk and sugar mixed in it, but she had forgotten!'

Kavitha put the tray on the table in front of Mark and Karen and went back to the kitchen.

The old woman poured out the tea.

'Milk?'

'Yes please.' 'Yes please.'

'Sugar?'

'Yes please.' 'Yes please.'

'What would your children like? Shall I get them some biscuits?'

Before Mark or Karen could reply, the old woman said, 'Kavitha can go to the shop and buy some biscuits, but it will take some time.'

'Oh! No drama. Please don't bother.'

'I was planning to buy some biscuits, but ...'

'How is you tea?'

'Ace,' Mark said.

'Pardon me?'

'It's very good.

'Do you have a lot of English visitors?'

'No, not really. Not many people come this way!'

'Don't you like the elephant?' the old woman asked John who had abandoned the elephant and was planning to renew his demand for a sweet.

John did not reply, but looked around wildly, his eyes darting from the toys cupboard to his mother.

'Would you like another toy little boy?'

The old woman walked over to the cupboard and picked out a soldier and handed it over to John.

'John, say thank you,' Karen reminded John who mumbled his thanks.

'He is such a sweet little boy. How long are you in India for?'

'Three weeks. We've done two already. Up north. Delhi, Jaipur, Agra and now we have a week in Kerala.'

'What do you do in England? Do you work for a bank or a company?'

'I manage a station. In Australia. We're Aussies you know.'

'A station? Is that a station for trains? A railway station?'

'No, for sheep. A large sheep farm.'

'You must be joking. You are not a shepherd. You must be a station manager at King's Cross or Charing Cross or Paddington.'

'It doesn't matter, does it? How long have you lived in this cottage?'

'For the last sixty years. After my husband retired, Beckley's gave him this cottage. When my husband was alive, we used to have a lot of visitors. We...

'We ought to be going,' Mark said as he put down his cup.

'John, let's put the toys back.' Mark tried to take the elephant and the soldier from John who held on to both of them.'

'Oh, let the little boy keep the toys.' The old woman turned to Anna and said, 'you can keep the duck.'

'But we can't do that,' Karen objected. 'I'm sure they are exy!'

'Please take them. There's nobody to play with them. I rarely get any visitors these days.'

'You could always give them to someone else.'

'There is no one else.'

The old woman rang the bell once again and Kavitha came in, picked up the tea tray and left, collecting her daughter from behind the curtains on the way back.

Mark and Karen continued to look hesitant.

'Would you like a plastic bag for the toys?'

'A bag would be good.'

The old woman shouted something at Kavitha's retreating back. Within a minute, Kavitha came back with a polythene bag and gave it to Mark.

'Can't do without plastic, though we call ourselves greenies.'

'I beg your pardon?' The old woman had the most politely puzzled look on her face.

'Never mind. Never mind. We got to be going. Thanks so much for the lovely tea.'

As they walked out, Karen said, 'she was such a delightful old lady, wasn't she?'

'Yup, but she was starting to yabber and she thought we were Pommies!'

'I didn't understand half of what she said.'

'Nether did I. And I doubt if she understood more than one-fourth of what we said.'

Karen giggled. 'Still, she was such a sweet, delightful old thing.'

'I guess John and Anna are the only children she has seen in a very long time!'

As they walked away, Kavitha and her daughter watched them for a while through a window. Then Kavitha went the sink and started to wash the tea cups and saucers. After she washed the cups and saucers, she kept them on the floor and told her daughter, 'here, you take this towel and wipe these cups and saucers dry.'

Why This Step-Motherly Treatment For Polygamy?

As India intensively debates the demand for decriminalisation of homosexuality, there is growing consensus everywhere that two consenting adults ought to have the freedom to do almost anything they like as long as they don't harm anyone else. In most Western countries homosexuality is not a crime and homosexuals have the right to marry or enter into civil partnerships. Whilst this is encouraging, I find it surprising that a a similar debate is totally lacking with respect to polygamy. In my opinion, if two consenting adults can do what they like in the privacy of their bedrooms and beyond, three or four or more consenting adults should have a similar right.

Polygamy is a generic term used to describe a situation where an individual (male or female) has multiple spouses. When a man has many wives or partners, it is called Polygyny. When a woman has many husbands or partners, it is called polyandry. Among organised religions, only Judaism and Christianity have strict prohibitions against having more than one spouse. Polygyny is most common among Muslims who have religious sanction for this practice. Polyandry is a lot less common, especially in the modern world. In India it used to be practised on a large scale among matriarchal tribes such as the Khasis of Meghalaya and matrilineal communities like the Nairs and Menons of Kerala. Recently I read a CNN news item regarding the practice of polyandry in Himachal Pradesh.

It is not only among Muslims that you see polygyny being practised. The US has the Mormons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who used to practice polygyny on a large scale. Some of them still do.

The ban on polygamy is enforced through the criminalisation of bigamy and adultery. A person commits bigamy when he or she undergoes a marriage ceremony when already married. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code penalises a person who undergoes a marriage ceremony whilst having a having a living husband or wife, with imprisonment of up to seven years. If the spouse in the second marriage was unaware of the first marriage, the punishment is higher (imprisonment of up to ten years) under Section 495.

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code says that “Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor.” In other words, only a man can be guilty of adultery and then only if his lover is a married woman. The woman in the adulterous relationship will only be guilty of abetting the offence of adultery. The offence of adultery, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, is meant to protect married men from other men who may steal the affections of their wives.

Now consider this scenario. A married man or woman has an affair outside his or her marriage. The parties in the illicit relationship don't bother to get married. In any event such a marriage will be void and so unless there are religious reasons, there is no incentive in going through a marriage ceremony for a second time. Is there any offence being committed in this example? No, not unless a married woman is having an affair outside her marriage, in which case her lover will be guilty of adultery.

Therefore, the criminalisation of bigamy prevents married people from registering relationships they may be involved in outside their marriage, but does not actually prevent the relationship (unless it amounts to adultery). In my opinion, polygyny and polyandry ought to be legalised, just as homosexuality ought to be decriminalised and homosexuals given the right to have a civil partnership. Every marriage and civil partnership must be registered and the register should be available to the general public for inspection and accessible through the internet. Bigamy and adultery should not be criminal offences, though they should be a ground for divorce. Just as a spouse whose partner cheated on him or her can get a divorce, a spouse whose partner contracts a second marriage should be able to get an immediate divorce. A person who got married without knowing about his partner's first marriage should be able to get compensation for fraud. Criminal law should have no place in the bedrooms of consenting adults.

It may be argued that if polygamy were to be legalised, polygyny will become common, considering the weaker position women occupy in Indian society, whilst polyandry will only take place in poor communities where there is a scarcity of resources. This is a feasible argument, but I believe the answer lies in empowering women by educating them etc. and not in interfering in what consenting adults do.

Book Review: The Other Side of Israel: My Journey Across the Jewish/Arab Divide by Susan Nathan

Susan tells her readers how, when she was visiting a South African relative at the age of sixteen, she saw a black servant reprimanded for not wearing white gloves while serving them food. An incensed Susan followed the servant to the kitchen and had sex with him on the kitchen table.

Many years later, fifty year old Susan, recently divorced, made aliyah and moved to Israel from the UK, leaving behind two grown up children. Susan was following a path followed by many other Jews. The Jewish Agency in London processed Susan’s application in a week and bought her a ticket to Israel. When Susan landed in Israel, she was put in Rana’ana, one of the best run immigrant absorption centres where she was taught basic Hebrew and the nitty-gritty's of life in Israel.

Soon Susan became unhappy with her life in Israel. She realised that she had performed aliyah at the expense of the Arab citizens of Israel who are treated as second hand citizens. Slowly her romantic notions of Israel and life in Israel evaporated. Israel was a sanctuary for the Jews of the world, but it had a lot of skeletons in its cupboard.

Never shy of taking direct action, three years after reaching Israel, Susan packed up and moved to Tamra, an Arab town of 25,000 people in the Galilee, located between Haifa and Nazareth.

Tamra

Susan paints a vivid picture of Tamra. Electricity and telephone cables are slung haphazardly across the streets. Rubble and rubbish can be found everywhere. Children play in the streets. The drains are overwhelmed by the occasional showers.

Susan rents some space from an Arab family living in Tamra. The grandmother in the family is so very good at making the most of what they have. They grow vegetables in the little patch of land they have. The head of the clam or Hamula stands for office in the municipal elections and wins. Susan votes for him.

Susan finds that Arab festivals are similar to Jewish ones. An Arab engagement party is not much different from a Jewish one. Customs, especially in the case of deaths and burials are very similar. Bodies are buried on the same day by sundown. Arabs have 3 days of mourning whilst Jews mourn for 7 days.

I’ll leave it to you to read the book and enjoy Susan’s description of Tamra, the elections and everything else.

Discrimination in different shapes and sizes

To an outsider, Israel appears to be an open society where all citizens have equal rights. It is a democracy where every citizen is entitled to vote and practice a religion of his/her choice. But it is not as simple as that. Israel, a nation formed on the basis of a UN resolution, does not treat its Arab citizens on par with its Jewish nationals. Discrimination is at times subtle, but at times it is in-your-face. Israel is a made-to-measure-democracy, where a Jewish majority at all times is fixed. ‘Fixed’ as in ‘match-fixing' fixed.

Each page in Susan’s book (two hundred and seventy odd pages) details a form of discrimination or harassment practised against the Arabs. I am not even going to try and capture all of the story here. However, let me tell you that Susan’s book has the ring of truth and honesty and is capable of making even the most committed Israel fan re-appraise his or her stand.

Land policies

The Zionists migrated to an empty barren land, described as a “land without people for a people without land”. Just as the European migrants to the Americas found bison and native Indians, the Jews did find some people in Palestine (lots of people actually), but they were not particularly civilised or in any way worthy of being treated on par with the immigrants. Which was a relief actually since it made it easy to de-humanise them and grab their land.

It worked out like this. The UN resolution which created Israel and a Palestinian state gave 55% of the land to Israel and 44% to the Palestinian state. This despite the fact that the Arabs were a majority in Palestine at that time and the Jews actually owned only 7% of the land. I don't agree with Susan that the 55:45 split was particularly unfair since the State of Israel was supposed to be a haven for Jews from around the world, not just for the Jews already there. It was assumed that there would be continued migration of Jews into Israel, which was to be a predominantly Jewish state.

However, I agree with Susan that happened after that was not particularly fair. In the course of the 1948 war, Israel did its best to chase Arabs away from their homes. Internally displaced Arabs had their lands and homes confiscated. The Israeli government's programme of extensive confiscation of Arab land has continued ever since. There's an Israeli bureaucratic term for Arabs who are internal refugees - “Present Absentees”. There are 250,000 of such present absentees in Israel.

Israel has put in place a land policy which Susan describes as “land apartheid”. Except for 7% of Israeli land owned by Israeli Arabs, the rest is owned by the government which leases it to Israelis. So far, over 400 Arab villages have been destroyed by the Israeli government.

Whilst there's plenty land available for Jews, the Israeli government tries to cram in as many Arabs as possible in the least amount of land. With the agricultural land surrounding Arab villages and towns confiscated, many young Arab couples can't find land to build homes for themselves. Susan gives the example of her own town, Tamra, where only 1000 acres of land is available for building. This means 88 people per acre. 6000 acres of Tamra's land has been zoned, that is designated for farming or as green land. We are told that Tamra has run out of land to bury the dead. According to Susan, the message to Arabs from the state is clear. They are not welcome in Israel.

The famous Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem has been built on the ruins of the abandoned village of Ein Kerem.

Ayn Hawd is yet another village taken over by the Israeli army after the villagers abandoned it during the 1948 war. 35 villagers, members of the Abu al-Hija family, went back and occupied a small portion of the land that was theirs. Ever since then, Israel has been trying to evict them from that land. To do so, a large area including the land occupied by the village has been declared to be a national park and later, an archaeological site as well. To put more pressure, the land was also declared to be part of a firing range. Laws designed ostensibly to protect vegetation prevent the villagers from grazing their cattle. The villagers are denied access to electricity or water. A veteran from Ayn Hawd described to Susan how it used to take him 3 hours to get to school. Ayn Hawd is not a one-off, but has been replicated across the country.

Tree planting programmes

The Israeli government has an avowed goal to 'green' Israel. This one involves planting pine, olive, carob and the like trees wherever possible, especially over destroyed Arab villages, so that one cannot find any trace of them. The Jewish National Fund (set up in 1901 in order to buy land in Ottoman ruled Palestine) is an NGO which, inter alia, collects money for the planting of trees in Israel. If you donate $18, you can have a tree planted in Israel. It might be on land once occupied by an Arab village.


Education

More than Israel's land policy, I found Susan's description of Israeli education policy very troubling. To start with, Arab students have a different curriculum from Jewish students The government spends £105 a year on every Arab student, whilst £485 is spent on Jewish students. A mind boggling £1,340 is spent every year on Jewish religious (Yeshiva) students. This is because both the education ministry and the religious affairs ministry support these students.

Infrastructure and other facilities available in Arab schools is markedly inferior to Jewish schools. For example, even though all schools are required to be air conditioned, many Arab schools are not.

Palestinian Arab history is not taught in schools. There is no mention of the 'Nakbah' suffered by the Arabs of Palestine, other than as part of the Israeli citizenship curriculum explained below in the section 'Oases of Hope'.

In Susan's opinion, the worst aspect of the system is that all teachers are vetted by the security services. Shin Bet has a large network of spies, even in schools. Since students know that their teachers have obtained security clearance, they don't respect them. I don't fully agree with Susan. Does she expect the Israeli government to hand out jobs to people who could be a security threat? However, keeping in mind the fact that almost all Arabs in Israel are bound to have grievances, I assume the teachers who obtain security clearance are bound to be totally spineless.

School books promote stereotypes. Susan went through a textbook which talks of little Gideon and little Avner wanting to be astronauts. There was only one instance of Arabs being mentioned. Young Mohammad and young Yousef are shown to be asking their uncle how to be good camel drivers.

Susan says there is no Arab University in Israel, but towards the end of the book, she makes a reference to Al-Quds University in East Jerusalem, a minor contradiction I guess. Israeli universities don't permit dissent. Arab students find it tough to get admission to universities. There are extra points for students who have done well in Hebrew, but none for doing well in Arabic. In 2003, there was a reform which was meant to make it easy for underprivileged students to gain admission to universities. The measures were intended for underprivileged Jewish children, but the main beneficiaries were the Arabs. The reforms were countermanded within a short time.

Susan tells us of Samiha, a very smart student who could not apply for medical school after she passed out since she was too young. The minimum age limit is set so that Jewish students who join medical school after their 3 year military service are not disadvantaged. So Samiha applied to law school where she was supposed to be a shoo-in. Samiha's application was rejected, for reasons unknown.


Arab Politics

Susan finds Arab Politics to be feudal. A family is usually dressed up as a political party. Susan thinks Israel is to blame for this state of affairs. In Israel, Arab politicians are considered hostile unless they join a Zionist party. Arab parties are excluded from coalitions. So Arab politicians stick to municipal elections.

I don't fully agree with Susan, though, a share of the blame should lie with Israel. I don't really understand why Arabs who form 20% of the population and have the right to vote shouldn't be a decisive force in Israeli elections.

Is it apartheid?

Susan makes a good case to say that Israel's treatment of its Arab minority is apartheid. The petty elements of apartheid are not present. Arabs can sit on the same benches as Jews. They can ride the same buses. However, the discrimination in core areas such as land, education etc. amount to an apartheid of sorts, according to Susan. I can see an element of truth in what Susan says.

The Israeli Left

Susan has nothing but contempt for the Israeli left-wing which reserves its sympathy for Palestinians in the occupied territories and don’t really care about Arabs within Israel. For example, Haaretz, the left-wing Israeli newspaper, has much better reports on Palestinians from the occupied territories than on Arab Israelis. Israeli left wingers say they had no choice but to come from Europe, take a country not theirs and dispossess thousands of Palestinians. Any mention of equal rights for Arab Israelis is anathema to everyone in Israel. There is no concept that rights are basic and universal.

Susan has lengthy descriptions of how left-wing Israelis don't do enough for Israeli Arabs. There is an interesting description of an interview by Sara Leibovitch-Dar, a Haaretz journalist, which ultimately was not published in English. There are interesting quotes from left-wing Israeli's - “If we let the Arabs back, they will be everywhere.”

Susan's friend Daphna Golan, Law Lecturer at Hebrew University, runs an organisation called Btselem which fights human rights abuses in the occupied territories. Daphna wants a Palestinian state, but Susan would rather focus on rights of Arab Israelis

Comparisons with Germany

Ein Hod is a communal settlement of artists built over the remains of the Arab village of Ayn Hawd mentioned above. Samira, whose parents used to live in Ayn Hawd, went to Ein Hod to 'take a look.' She was practically chased away. Susan contrasts the treatment Samira received with that of Rabbi Rayner's experience in Germany. Rayner, an eminent liberal Rabbi from London went to Germany to take a look at the house where his folks used to live. He was graciously invited in and allowed to look around.

Hijab

Susan has an interesting opinion on the hijab, one of the most reviled garments in recent times. Susan says the hijab gives her dignity. She doesn't feel repressed. Instead, she feels free and proud to be a woman. When Susan used to live in Tel Aviv, she skimpy clothing meant that when men spoke with her, they had a conversation with her body and not with her.

Armed Extremists on the loose – with army protection

Susan has a few horror stories of how armed settlers are carrying out a limited form of ethnic cleansing in Israel in order to rid it of its Arab population. She runs into a rifle carrying settler while in a hospital ward who boasts that he has just requisitioned a home in East Jerusalem. 'All of East Jerusalem belongs to the Jews,' he boasts. Later Susan finds a bunch of settlers trying to evict an Arab family from their East Jerusalem home. Having occupied a flat about the Arab family, the settlers work in relay teams in making life a living hell for the Arab family. The hallway is used as a toilet and there is constant noise. To top it all, the settlers have military protection.

The Israeli Army – a culture of hatred and some hope

'What’s the difference between an Israeli soldier who bulldozes a house with people inside and a terrorist?' Susan asks her readers rhetorically.

The Israeli army incubates a culture of hatred, according to Susan. Even nice, law abiding teenagers become machines of hatred once they are in the army. Even the well intentioned among the soldiers cannot make a difference. Susan gives the example of Bar, who joined the army in the hope of doing some good. Bar was on duty at a West Bank checkpoint which had been closed in retaliation for a suicide bombing a few days earlier. Schools had just reopened and a number of school children in their new uniforms and their parents had lined up to cross over. Tempers started to fly when they realised that they won't be allowed across. Soldiers scream at the children to stay away from the gate. The frightened children do stay away. Bar decides to be polite and she is shoved aside by the queuing Arabs.

Irit, Principal of the Waldorf school, tells Susan that she hasn't recovered though she left the army 12 years ago.

Yet, more and more soldiers are objecting to the army's treatment of the Arabs. Many soldiers feel shame. They don’t want to belong to Israel. They say ‘its not mine. I’ll go to India or live in Europe.’

Language Intolerance

Susan tells us of an Arab employee being sacked by McDonald’s for speaking in Arabic with a fellow employee. Apparently there was a company direction that forbid employees from speaking Arabic. Why is there such a prohibition? Because the sound of Arabic might scare customers!

When the Rule of Law leads to injustice

South Africa during the apartheid era was one of those rare instances where the rule of law resulted in gross injustice. Apartheid was sanctioned by law and every other injustice practised by the state had legal sanction. Something similar takes place in Israel. There are laws which are meant to benefit only Jews. But they wouldn't say that. The law will instead say that it applies only to those who are eligible under the law of return or to those who are mandatorily required to perform military service.

Israel does not have a written constitution, though it was promised in the declaration of independence. Susan has an interesting explanation for this. According to Susan, a written constitution would lay down basic rights and guarantees for all citizens, including Arabs, enforceable in a court of law. Israel is not very keen on this.

The commonly accepted definition of a Jew is one born of a Jewish mother. Under the Law of Return, any one with a Jewish grandparent is eligible to perform aliyah, the idea being to get as many Jews as possible into Israel. Susan contrasts the Law of Return with the demand by displaced Arabs for the Right to Return to their homes, a right they have been denied so far.

Under the Citizenship Law of 2003, Palestinian spouses of Israeli Arabs won't be given Israeli ID or citizenship. A harsh law, it has not prevented Arabs in Israeli from marrying Palestinians, though they can't live together after marriage.

The public sector is almost exclusively reserved for Jews. The Israeli Electricity Board has over 13,000 employees, of whom 6 are Arabs. Please remember that Arabs form 20% of Israel's population.

Water scarcity in the West Bank

The West Bank sits atop the most prolific aquifers in Palestine. However, it faces acute water shortages, since water from the West Bank is used to fill up Israeli swimming pools and sprinkle Israeli lawns.

A difficult life

Life is a lot more difficult for Israeli Arabs than for its Jews. Most service providers will not travel to Jewish towns or villages. Susan has interesting stories of how telephone companies won’t sent their repairmen to Tamra which is not listed on El Al's database.

At Ben Gurion airport, Arabs are searched more rigorously and are treated rudely. Susan's friend Dr. Manna’s son and his Jewish girl friend were forced to miss a flight because they were required to undergo additional security checks. A woman travelling to Germany for a cancer operation was asked to turn up early so that she could be subjected to extra security checks. Susan compares this to a black man in South Africa not being picked up by a whites-only ambulance and dying as a result of that. I don't agree with Susan on this. I think El Al is perfectly entitled to carry out additional security checks on any of its passengers. How can El Al ensure that a bomb is not attached to the wheel chair carrying the cancer patient if not by carrying out additional checks? Let's face it, there is a much higher chance of an Arab passenger turning out to be a hijacker than a Jewish one. However, there is no excuse for being rude to Arab passengers.

It is not surprising that Arabs in Israel tend to say “Ma la’assot” or “What to do?” quite often.

Oases of hope

Amidst all this, there are many signs of hope. Mahapach, an NGO in which Susan is involved, does a lot of work for disadvantaged communities, especially oriental Jews, the Mizrarahim.

Eitan Bronstein runs an organisation called Zochrot (meaning remember) which posts signs on places built over destroyed Arab villages.

Israeli schools teaches all senior students before matriculation and military service an Israeli citizenship curriculum. Both Arabs and Jews learn the same lessons, which examine Israeli history including the Nakbah.

Arun Gandhi and non-violence

Mahatma Gandhi's grandson finds a mention in Susan's narrative. Susan says (rightly in my opinion) that Arun Gandhi fails to understand the depth of Palestinian anger when he advocates non-violent resistance to Israeli occupation. Susan attended a lecture by Arun Gandhi where he apparently talked of his childhood in South Africa with his Grandfather. Though Arun Gandhi was born in South Africa in 1934, I don't think he lived in South Africa at the same time as Mahatma Gandhi since Gandhi returned to India in 1915. As far as I know, Arun Gandhi lived with the Mahatma for two years only (1946-1948) in India. I assume Susan misheard what Arun Gandhi said.

Conclusion

I still believe that the UN resolution which created Israel was fair and just. I also think the Israel is entitled to permit Jewish immigration into Israel, since Israel is meant to be a haven for Jews. However, the UN resolution did not give the Israelis a mandate to carry out ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel. Israel was meant to be predominantly Jewish and not exclusively Jewish. This selective amnesia, in my opinion, has been the root cause for the state sponsored discrimination against Arabs. I believe that Israel should allow all displaced Arabs to return to their homes from refugees camps in Israel and from outside.

Towards the end of the book, Susan examines the two state theory and wonders if it is the best option available for Israel. An alternative would be for a single state incorporating Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Susan approvingly quotes Dr. Saed Zidan, Prof. at Al-Quds University, East Jerusalem who feels that Israel could become a confederation of an Arab state and a Jewish state. Everyone will stay where they are, but enjoy equal rights.

Palestine in a rough place where dialogue does not always work. I can imagine Jews saying that if they had lost the 1948 war or the 1967 war, the Arabs would have thrown them into the sea. In any event, they would have been treated worse than how Arabs are currently being treated in Israel. But arguments such as these will not offer a solution to the Palestinian problem. Just as the USA made peace with native Americans by conceding that they had been wronged and compensated them with money and land, Israel must make good the losses suffered by its Arab population and make peace with them.

I don't think a single state incorporating Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is practical. There is too much hatred between Jews and the Arabs for that to work. In my opinion, even a confederation will not work since it would require Arabs and Jews to have a common foreign policy and a single army. I just don't see the Israeli army with Arabs and Jews working together. The two-state solution set out in the UN resolution is in my opinion, the only solution in this troubled land. To make it work, Israel must first rein in its right wing Haredim and settlers. Once all Jews in Israel accept that they are not entitled to the whole of Palestine and that Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jews, Israel will be in a position to offer a meaningful solution to the Arabs.

Aravind Adiga's Booker Prize - A Time for Introspection

Aravind Adiga has won this year's Man Booker Prize with his debut novel “The White Tiger”. As soon as I heard this news today morning, my initial reaction was ‘Good for Him!’ Yes, you guessed right. I didn’t really expect Adiga to win the Booker. In fact, I thought Adiga’s book was not even as good as Amitav Ghosh’s Sea of Poppies and I didn’t expect the Sea of Poppies to win the Booker either though it was a lot more realistic. My money was on Sebastian Barry’s Secret Scripture. I thought Philip Hensher’s Northern Clemency might have a chance as well.

I had read White Tiger when it was released a few months ago. And I didn’t like it all that much. I was planning to write a review of the White Tiger for Desicritics one of these days. I would have done it earlier if I thought it stood a chance of winning the Booker, but I didn’t give it a chance at all.

After I heard the good news (for Adiga that is) I cast my mind as to why I hadn’t liked the book all that much. The protagonist Balram Halwai, semi-educated, a self-made man, a murderer, a rags-to-riches story, writes a series of letters to the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao. In these letters, Halwai raises all sorts of questions which probe the dark underbelly of Shining India. The first question which popped in my head was, why on earth would a self-made made like Halwai write to Wen Jiabao? Even if such a person were to start writing letters, and there was no reason why he should, it was never going to be to Wen Jiabao. I could envisage an Indian writing a letter to the American President or to the British Queen or the Secretary General of the United Nations. But no, not to the Chinese Premier. Here you have a rich man who has exploited the system, given bribes, committed a murder and made a success of himself, wanting to reform the very system he has mastered and asking questions usually raised by charity workers or journalists. No, it didn’t make sense to me. And I have read more than one review by an Indian which seemed to take a similar approach.

I did come across a lot of very flattering reviews in various western newspapers which seemed to gloss over the contradictions I have mentioned above. But I ignored them. I still didn’t think Adiga stood a chance. Michael Portillo, the chairman of the judges, described The White Tiger as “in many ways perfect. It knocked my socks off,” he said. I’m sure it did knock Portillo’s socks off. Otherwise, Adiga would not have won the Booker.

Why was my analysis so much way off the mark? Did I have a problem with the undue harshness with which Adiga probed India’s dark side? I don’t think so. I am very much aware that India has a very dark side, of a proportion that can easily eclipse the shining bit. There are quite a few books showing India in a bad light, that I have liked. Rohinton Mistry’s “A Fine Balance” comes to my mind instantly. May be it is easier for an outsider to focus on the story and ignore the sort of the contradictions I have pointed out above. Or maybe, I am just too critical of fellow-desis. I’ve heard friends say that a book which fails to show India in a negative light will never win the Booker. Did Adiga win the Booker because he washed India’s dirty linen in public? I’ll never know, but I do look forward to Adiga’s next work which might redeem him in my eyes.

Book Review: Devil May Care by Sebastian Faulks

After Ian Fleming’s death in 1964, various authors have tried their hand at recreating James Bond in the image moulded by Fleming. The latest writer to throw his hat into the ring and take up the challenge of imitating Fleming is Sebastian Faulks, the highly acclaimed author of books such as The Girl at the Lion d'Or, Birdsong and Charlotte Gray. Faulks’s Devil May Care is the 22nd authorised Bond book after Fleming’s death, written to commemorate Fleming’s 100th birthday.

Before I get to the crux of the matter and start commenting on Devil May Care, I should confess that I have read only two of Ian Fleming’s works (Thunderball and the Man with the Golden Gun) before. Moreover, I read them when I was in my teens, over 15 years ago. So, when I compare Faulks with Fleming, I will be doing so on the basis of my memories, which may not be very accurate.

Devil May Care, set in the late 1960s, comes with the usual Bond paraphernalia. It’s got a couple of glamorous women (there’s a twist to this number, but I’ll leave it you to read and find out), an evil villain and his even more evil side-kick, various fights to the death from each of which Bond survives with a few injuries. One of the fights involves the mandatory car and motorbikes whilst another is on a train (remember the Spy Who Loved Me?). The evil villain – Dr. Julius Gorner is as evil as ever, his objective being to flood the UK with drugs and provoke the USSR into nuke-bombing the UK. Dr. Gorner’s side-kick Chagrin is North-Vietnamese and has undergone an operation (at the hands of the Soviets) which makes him immune to pain. On the whole, it is a typical Fleming thriller and does keep you entertained (if you like books of this genre, that is).

Faulks is said to have written this book in 6 weeks (the same speed with which Fleming wrote) with the intention of imitating 80% of Fleming, keeping a decent 20% for himself. After reading this book, I would say the ratio is more like 60% Fleming and 40% Faulks. To begin with, there are too many bits of the book which read like real literature rather than pulp fiction. May be Faulks couldn’t help himself, but he shouldn’t have used sentences like “the large open space of the place de la Concorde was gleaming black and silver in the downpour.” When a Bond girl (one called Scarlet) tells Bond ‘you cold bastard, I should never have trusted you,’ Bond hasn’t been particularly nasty. Instead, he has only made a very sensible and practical suggestion. Bond does drink a lot, but he never asked for a martini, shaken but not stirred. The words ‘my name is Bond, James Bond,’ never appeared. Finally, Bond says No to sex, something I have never encountered in either of two Fleming books I have read or in any of the Bond movies I have seen.

The story is set in Iran, Russia (from the Urals to Leningrad), Paris , London and Helsinki . Which brings me to one of the few things I did not really like about this book. Faulks describes Iran as a desert country. ‘As soon as he stepped from the plane, Bond felt the intense heat of the desert country.’ I don’t claim to be an expert on Iran, but I doubt if it is can be called a desert country, even though a decent chunk of it is desert and it is very warm in summer. The head of the Tehran station is a cosmopolitan Persian who likes to have fun with women and opium. Darius tells us that despite his sophistication, he can be a tribal Bedouin if needed. I find this problematic since I tend to associate Bedouin with Arabs and not with Persians. Finally, Scarlet is supposed to be an investment banker from Paris who does mergers and acquisitions. To begin with, the term ‘investment banking’ was imported to Europe from the US in the late 1980s. Till then, the European term was ‘merchant banking’. Remember, this story takes place in 1967 or so. When one read Fleming, one got the feeling that the Caribbean where Fleming set his stories in, was a place which Fleming knew intimately. This is hardly surprising since Fleming used to live in the Caribbean. I didn’t get the feeling that Faulks was very familiar with the places in which this story is set.

Faulks get some bits of Fleming’s Bond right. He manages to convey the sort of chauvinism which Bond has always shown. For example, Bond regards the lands between Cyrus and India as the thieving centre of the world. Bond agrees with Felix that the French are riddled with Communists at all levels and are not to be trusted. An evil CIA double agent turns out to be gay in a decent burst of homophobia. Descriptions of gizmos, giant ships (hovercrafts actually) and hidden fortresses are also very good. One of the best bits of this book is a tennis match between Bond and Gorner which Bond wins, though it is actually rigged in favour of Gorner by a marvellous technical innovation.

Let me stop now rather than give away the entire story. On the whole, this is a pretty good Bond thriller and I’ll leave it to you to read and find out for yourself.