Sponsored by

Interview with H.H. The Dalai Lama




This has been your home for 45 years. People call it your home in exile. So what does Dharamshala mean to you?

Actually, we spent our first year in Mussoorie, and then came to Dharamshala. Initially, we felt Dharamshala to be more isolated, particularly from Delhi (laughs). At that time, electricity and other facilities were quite poor. So, it was not very comfortable in the beginning, but eventually we found the open space very useful for our Children’s Village and other establishments. The only thing that brings us a little anxiety is earthquakes (laughs) otherwise, there’s a beautiful scenery and the local people are very peaceful.

But you’ve had tremors and anxieties in your own life.

Of course, it’s like on a long flight, if there’s turbulence, you feel the water coming up in your hands (laughs).

So, the Dalai Lama has the fear of flying? I thought ordinary mortals had that problem. What do you when the plane shakes? Do you pray?

It’s a matter of karma. If I have made the sort of karma that brings my plane down, it will happen.

But, for someone like me who’s a nervous flier, if I knew the Dalai Lama was on my flight, I would worry less. I would hope the Dalai Lama’s karma would take us all to safety.

But my karma failed to protect Tibet (smiles).

Well, not quite. You’re not counting it as a lost cause, yet.

That’s right.

And sometimes as you say and as is believed in your faith, it may take many lives; the karma of one life may not be enough.

True. And like Tibet, other events like the tsunami or the recent earthquake, these are not due to individual karma but come from the common karma of the community.

But that’s odd. Isn’t it why should God punish so many for the karma of some? Why this mass punishment?

I think there is a different answer for that, according to different concepts. There are the theistic traditions, whose central faith is in a creator or God. Then there is Buddhism, there is Jainism and the other ancient Indian traditions which see everything as happening according to karma, the law of causality.

But still, Your Holiness, something like the tsunami or the earthquake or the flooding in New Orleans, you say that it comes from the karma of a community, but a lot of innocents get punished. Is that fair?

Well, you see, again according to ancient Indian thought, we have the concept of rebirth, several lives. So, an event we face can come from karma not necessarily created in this life, but in a previous one. A person can look innocent, but he suffers due to his past karma. That, you see, is the Buddhist explanation, and is so in Jainism as well.

And it may be a coincidence that a lot of them were there, exposed to the same calamity?

That’s right: it’s the same kind of karma that has been created. Also, it is not necessary that people who experience suffering at the same time, in the same area, have created that karma there. They may have done so in different places, even on another planet. But it was the same kind of karma, the same amount of positive or negative karma. So, at another occasion, all these people then suffer, all these sentient beings born at the same time.

Your Holiness, one of the things your aides warned me about was how people ask you the same questions too many times and sometimes you get bored. You’ve been asked many times about reincarnation and rebirth. So, I won’t bore you by asking about that. But let me ask you about your two homes: Dharamshala and Tibet. I was reading Pico Iyer, and he describes how you told him that the saddest day of your life was the day you left Tibet.

It was the 17th of March, 1959. I decided to leave the very day I left, around noon. It was the final decision, there was no alternative except escape. I left at exactly 10 pm that night. I wore ordinary Tibetan dress and carried a gun!

Like a soldier. Was that the only time you carried a weapon?

(laughs) Yes. I was supposed to look like the people who used to guard the Norbulingka Palace, the bodyguards. I followed them; I wasn’t wearing my glasses — I wore them even at that time — and all the time the gun was becoming heavier and heavier.

So the only time the Dalai Lama carried a gun was to escape, not to fight?

(laughs) That’s right. Outside, beyond the outer wall, there was a river, a small river but it had a lot of stones and I was without my glasses. So there I was, stumbling across (laughs). But anyway, the saddest thing was parting from people I had to leave behind; they were from my entourage, mainly monks and also sweepers. They were my playmates and I considered them very close friends. Most of them stayed behind; that parting was terrible. We may never meet again.

And that pain remains?

Oh yes! And then there was my small dog. But the fortunate thing is, that dog was not very friendly to me as I was sometimes strict with him. I took disciplinary action (both laugh).

You have great love for animals. I see a lot of cats here. You’ve talked of how animals are capable of kindness and love, and you’ve said somewhere that kindness is superior to faith.

I think animals demonstrate that most clearly. They have no faith, but if you treat them very sincerely, without trickery, if you’re giving them food because you want to catch them, oh, they know. But if you are sincere, if you show them genuine friendship, they really respond. Except for some small animals, like insects, I really wonder whether mosquitoes have that capacity. When they are not the malaria-carrying kind, I sometimes give them my blood.

You let them bite you?
If I am in a good mood. If I’m not in a good mood...

Then no mosquito will dare come near to wag its tail at you (both laugh).

If I give them my blood peacefully, they just sit. I don’t know if they have the capacity for appreciation or closeness. But, otherwise, most animals have that.

I’m fascinated by this distinction you make between kindness and belief, and how you make kindness the more important.

I think the main purpose of all the major religions is to promote, to strengthen, these humane values, which we all have from birth. Kindness, compassion, the sense of caring, the sense of concern, of community, of responsibility. We all have the potential for these things, right from birth.

And to also control what is not good, what in the Sanskrit tradition are called kaam, krodh, moh, lobh — passion, anger, attachment, greed.

I think these emotions — attachment, hatred, fear, arrogance — they also have their own purpose. For example, one feels attachment so that one may have all the facilities for a happier life — friendship, wealth, fame. We suppose that attachment will bring all these positive things to us. Anger, hatred: they are meant to expel all the factors which are causing us harm

Like a detoxification process?
But where we are misled, is that all these emotions are mixed essentially with ignorance. Attachment or anger seem to help you, but because that view is unrealistic. I met recently with a scientist who works with the mind.

A cognitive scientist?

Yes. He told me that 90 per cent of anger, of hatred, is actually exaggerated. When you see something negative, you develop anger and hatred towards it, but 90 per cent of that negativity is a mental projection. It is not reality. The Buddhist explanation also works on the same concept. When we carry that emotion into verbal or physical action it becomes even more unrealistic. Instead of solving the problem, we sometimes create more of it. On the other hand, there is the sense of compassion. But genuine compassion, not mixed with ignorance, the sense of concern without attachment. When you approach action from these positive emotions, your action becomes more realistic.

To get rid of ignorance, do you need a spiritual teacher, a guru?

No. It’s not necessary. Study. Use your brain. Investigation, experiment, these are very important. Our education, from kindergarten up to university, is supposed to reveal reality in different fields. Usually, between appearances and reality, there is a gap. Our education is supposed to reduce this gap.

And that’s the difference between an enlightened person and an unenlightened one?

Oh yes. I mean, there are big differences between, say, an educated person and an uneducated person. Both want a happy, a successful, life, but their approach is different. Even within a person, at a younger age, when he has less experience, less knowledge, he has a different approach than he does later, when he has more education, more awareness, more experience. Education is the key.

Your Holiness, I was reading an interview of yours from which I am going to steal a question; it was a very good one. The interviewer talked about how you keep saying that this century is better, more benevolent, less violent than the previous one. She then asked you how, if that is so, can one explain Iraq or 9/11 to one’s children? Your answer was that one needs compassion all the time and you took the example again of a dog. If a dog attacks you and is going to bite, you can’t say "non-violence, non-violence".

You have to take the appropriate action, or counter-action.

And that may not be non-violent.

I think in the deeper sense, the meaning of non-violence does not entirely depend on physical or verbal action, but on your motivation. Any action carried by a sense of concern or compassion, no matter what its appearance, even if it looks harsh, is essentially non-violent. On the other hand, let’s say, I want to cheat you. I smile, I use nice words, even bring you a nice gift. It looks non-violent, but that’s superficial, because the main motivation is that I want to cheat, I want to take advantage of you. That is the worst kind of violence. Without anger you cannot expel negativity, but, I think, anger through awareness is more appropriate, more effective, because then there is no exaggeration. You need that force to expel negativity, but you also see reality.

Your Holiness, you also use the example of a man coming to shoot you. You say one has to do something, but instead of shooting him in the head, maybe, one could shoot him in the leg.

Shooting in the head means killing.

But shooting in the hand or leg is self-protection?

That’s right. Also, if that person is alive, then perhaps you may tease him a little about it later (both laugh).

If he’s willing to be teased. Now tell me, Your Holiness, if you apply this example after 9/11, what is it that Bush’s America is doing to the Islamic world or to Iraq? Is it shooting it in the head, or in the foot?

(laughs) I think the best thing is not shooting. Now, again, in these events, I feel they are due to a lack of knowledge or awareness on both sides. Neither knows fully about the other. So, sometimes, miscalculations happen. Awareness is very, very important. For example, take our own case. Tibet was very isolated in the past. Due to a lack of knowledge about the other’s values, your own attitude towards the other is sometimes a bit negative. In recent years, some media people and even writers have created the impression that there is conflict between the western world and Islamic civilisation. I think that is mainly due to a lack of contact, a lack of awareness.

The clash of civilisations?

I think that is a very unhealthy impression. A few mischievous people who come from the Muslim world cannot represent Muslims as a whole. There are many good persons among the Muslims, and Islam is a very important world religion.

Is that the feeling you get when you talk to Muslim scholars — that what is being projected today is not the true face of Islam?

That’s right. I have some Muslim friends. They have told me that any person who claims to be a Muslim and actually creates bloodshed and harm for others is not a true Muslim. That’s what they say.

Your Holiness, would you then say that the American invasion of Iraq was driven by ignorance and the fear which comes from ignorance?

I think so. I would prefer if those nations chose to develop closer relations, specially in the field of education. If people had more education, more awareness of other’s values, I think their attitude would change.

So you think it’s a mistake for the US to be in Iraq, the way they are?

I usually have the view that violent action is in principle wrong, it’s a mistake. However, in the 20th century, with the Second World War, for instance, or the Korean War, there was immense violence, suffering, destruction. But eventually something positive came out of it. But, then, the Vietnam War had the same motivation, the same goal, and it failed totally. With the Afghan crisis and the Iraq war, I usually tell people—and I believe it is so—that it is too early to say whether some good will come of it. Only history will tell.

Would you advise Bush to find a way of leaving Iraq to the Iraqis?

Actually, after that unbelievable event happened, September 11, I wrote a letter the very next day to President Bush. While I expressed my sadness and condolences, I also wrote about the counter measures for such a terrible tragedy—I believe non-violence is the most effective countermeasure and that’s what I wrote about.

It’s tough to teach non-violence to Bush, even for the Dalai Lama.

Of course, he and the White House take full responsibility. I am an outsider and an outsider may not fully understand the reality he faces. Just like the Tibetan problem, which I know, but an outsider may sometimes not understand. So you can’t blame everything on President Bush, poor Bush!

Well, at least there is somebody you can blame all the problems of the world on right now. (both laugh).

You know there is a Buddhist concept—interdependency, interconnectedness. I think it’s very important to keep that in mind. If you look only at one event, then it’s very easy to say: ‘This is wrong’ or ‘This is right’. But if you look at things from a wider angle, then the picture may be different. These are very complicated matters. I blame these negative events on our past negligence about our inner values. I think the reality of the 20th century and now of the 21st century, the reality of the whole planet, is something very different. Everything is interdependent, that is the reality. But we are still using old concepts to deal with it—there’s ‘we’ and there’s ‘they’.

But that is how Bush looks at the world—you are either with us or you are against us.

I think that is too simple.

So Buddhism and Bushism don’t go together?

(laughs) I am probably going to meet Bush in November, may use that with him—Buddhism and Bushism.

I can put that in my memoirs, if I can get the Dalai Lama to quote half a line from me (both laugh). But, Your Holiness, when you look at the US and its allies going to Iraq to fight—in the past, they’ve gone to Vietnam, they’ve gone to Korea. There are other causes around the world, there’s Taiwan, where the Americans have threatened to take military action. Do you feel the Tibetan cause is being lost, it’s becoming more a cause for Free Tibet T- shirts.

The Tibet issue has a different background. I don’t think we can compare it with these matters. First, it is an old issue, going back to the late 1940s and 50s. Tibetans themselves remained isolated in the past. The other side, China, is a very important nation.

But do you think the cause itself is being lost now, that it’s becoming more of an exotic cause?

No. But look locally at the Tibetan cause. Because of a large number of Chinese immigrants. Tibetans have become a minority. For example, today, the population of Lhasa is around 3,00,000 of which two thirds, that means 2,00,000, are Chinese and 1,00,000 are Tibetans. Or take some other autonomous region, like Inner Mongolia. According to some, the Mongolian population is around three million. But the Chinese population is more than 10 million, some say 18 million.

Is there is a lot of forced settlement in Tibet as well?

It’s a similar trend in Tibet. Take the railway link. The link itself, I consider positive. It’s a sign of progress. But if you use it for a political purpose, for example, to bring in more Chinese easily, then that’s demographic aggression and it is very serious. So, if you look locally at the Tibetan cause, you sometimes almost feel hopeless. But, if you look at it from a wider perspective at the global level, most of the totalitarian regimes, whether communist or non-communist, have all now changed, they’re all gone, except for China, North Korea and Vietnam, and to some extent Cuba.

And Venezuela’s heading a little that way now, unfortunately.

Well, I met some Venezuelans recently-the poor really appreciate their new president. It seems he takes real concern for the rights of the poor. But in China compare today’s China with what it was twenty or thirty years ago. There’s been so much change. This is what I tell people-look at Mao’s era: the main concern was ideology. Then Deng Xiaoping’s era-it was the economy. Jiang Zemin’s era-it was the expansion of the Communist Party’s influence, to not only the working class, but also the people from the middle and the wealthier classes. Now in President Hu Jintao’s tenure, he may create a different policy according to the new reality.

And these new realities include the need for political freedom?

I think it’s common sense, to introduce more freedom, particularly of information and the media. Information freedom is very, very important for China, so it can have closer relations with the rest of the world.

Your Holiness, that is the Dalai Lama’s way of looking at the positive side of everything. From my cynical journalist’s perspective, at a time when the Chinese are becoming so powerful—that nobody in the world even questions them—many heads of state are now shy of even greeting you formally. India’s own position is getting closer and closer to China. Doesn’t it look hopeless to you to keep fighting to preserve the Tibetan way of life?

No. From the wider perspective I feel the Tibetan cause is very hopeful. The awareness about Tibet, Tibetan culture, Tibetan spirituality, and also sensitivity towards the Tibetan environment, is growing not only outside, but even among the Chinese. More and more Chinese are showing more and more interest in Tibet’s culture and its delicate environment. There are Chinese NGOs, although they are small, they are showing genuine concern.

You are not worried about India’s getting closer to the Chinese?

No. I welcome it. First, I have always stressed that China, the most populous nation, must be brought into the mainstream of the world. It should not isolate itself. On that principle, India’s relation with China is very important. Genuine friendship on the basis mutual trust between these two nations, the most populous countries on earth, is essential. It’s in the interest not only of these two countries but of the whole world.

So the recent talks now to settle the border-those don’t cause you any concern? It is the Tibetan border,

Look, again, I am not seeking independence. I am seeking some kind of mutually agreeable solution. The border issue is up to the central government.

But if India and China get close to a settlement, would it undermine India’s ability to speak for the Tibetan cause? I know that you have complaints that India has not done enough.

I usually describe India’s policy regarding China in general and Tibet in particular as over-cautious. That will continue (laughs). But in the meantime, I think, that for the past forty-six years, the Indian government and people have helped a lot to keep the Tibet issue alive.

But over-cautiousness isn’t good. Do you think it’s in keeping with India’s stature that India could be more confident?

Yes. In the past, I have had the impression that India, in spite of being a big nation, an ancient nation, the biggest democratic nation, tends to act only in response; not taking the initiative. But perhaps now, with the economy and so many other things growing, India will show more assertion. I think India’s relation with Tibet is something very unique. For millions of Indian minds, Mount Kailash and Mansarovar are very important.

And for Tibetans, Nalanda.

Oh yes, Bodhgaya for Tibetans, India is the home of Buddhism. Emotionally and spiritually there is something very close between us. When Morarji Desai became prime minister, I sent him a letter of congratulation, as is my usual practice whenever there comes a new head of state. In his reply, he wrote: ‘The Tibetan and Indian cultures are two branches of one Bodhi tree.’ I think that’s very true. Tibet’s whole culture came from India. And the Buddhist culture preserved in Tibet for so long is a very important matter for India.

So, you have no anxieties about an India-China settlement; you don’t think that will compromise the Tibetan cause?
No.

Because if you look at the border talks right now, they are very delicate. One of the sticking points is Tawang, where you have a monastery. Some people think that if the border talks are to be settled, then India needs the Dalai Lama to be part of a creative solution. Have you thought about it?

In the long run, in order to develop genuine mutual friendship between India and China, I think the Tibet issue is bound to be involved. So long as a large number of Chinese military forces are stationed in Tibet, I think genuine trust is going to be very difficult. The Tibet issue is still very sensitive to the Chinese government-it is compelled to keep a large number of soldiers there.

You have such a wide following all around the world from Hollywood stars to political leaders. Do you sometimes get the feeling you are becoming bigger than the cause?

I don’t care what people see me as. The thing is I am one of the six billion human beings on this planet. I believe the future of every one of these six billion human beings depends on humanity as a whole. Of course, the largest part of my life is already past. I have maybe two or three decades remaining. Whether they are happy or difficult depends on all humanity. As one individual human being out of six billion, I have to think about humanity.

I’m looking at your shoes now. One of your critics was Rupert Murdoch, who attacked you for wearing Gucci shoes.
Well these are very comfortable-where they were made, I don’t know.

Why do people like Rupert Murdoch attack you? Their allegation is that you have become the rock star of Buddhism.

See, I have three commitments. The first is the promotion of human values. The second is the promotion of religious harmony. The third is the cause of Tibet. As a human being, I try to make my contribution, to share in the betterment of the world. That’s all, whatever other people say. Some say ‘god king’. Some say ‘spiritist’. Some say ‘anti-Buddhist’. These are their own mental projections. For the reality, I usually describe myself as a simple Buddhist monk.

A simple Buddhist monk who combines his two roles so delicately: the political and the religious.

If someone describes me as the living Buddha and does prostrations to me, I can only laugh: it’s not realistic. During the Cultural Revolution, some in the Chinese media described me as a wolf in monk’s robes-I’m just a simple human being, you know, not a wolf.

Your Holiness, let me take you back to politics. You’ve dealt with all the Chinese leaders-Mao, Deng, the present leadership. What’s the difference? Are they, in their minds, not communists?

I think the Chinese are quite realistic and hard working. As I mentioned before, judging by the last five or six decades, I think the new leadership is acting according to the new reality. Sometimes I feel for such a huge country, the leadership naturally has lots of problems, many complications. But, sometimes, in the Chinese case too, I think their policy is over cautious. The two biggest nations really have very similar experiences.

The last thing you would expect is for the Dalai Lama, the greatest living teacher of Buddhism, is to be telling one third of humanity to take more risks (both laugh).Do you suspect some of these new leaders of China also pray sometimes, that they need to think of some God?

According to some, quite a few Chinese high officials privately show faith to different religious traditions. Naturally. When people get wealthier and have all the material facilities, but have something missing inside, they automatically show more interest in spirituality.

I recently had Professor V. R. Ramachandran on this show, who’s one of the world’s foremost scientists on the brain and cognitive studies. I asked if there was God. And he said that if somebody says God is some old man sitting up on high who punishes you for the bad things you do, that’s mumbo jumbo. But if you think of God in a lofty spiritual sense as the final truth underlying every appearance, then he or she is there, it’s a reality. Is that what you’re talking about when you say that in your mind you need to relate to some higher power, even if you’re a die-hard communist?
That is difficult to say. It depends on the individual.

Will Communism defy neurobiology?

I think genuine, honest Communism or Socialism has a lot in common with Buddhism, particularly with Mahayana Buddhism. Sometimes I describe myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist. Marxist economy is not only concerned with profit, but with distribution. It has serious concern for the less privileged-and that means the majority. That altruism is a Buddhist concept too.

But in the Chinese Communist view, the Dalai Lama is a feudal institution.

It’s an old institution, and it’s actually gone. As early as 1969, I publicly made a formal statement that whether the very institution of the Dalai Lama should continue or not is up to the Tibetan people. I have no concern about this institution. The Dalai Lama has been the head of both temporal and spiritual matters in Tibet for over three hundred years. But that’s past. Again, in 1992, when I made a statement about the future of Tibet, I made it clear that when the day comes for our return with a certain degree of freedom, then I will hand over all my authority to the local Tibetan government. Hopefully, that local government should eventually be an elected government. Meanwhile, even while we are outside, for the last four years we have already had an elected political leadership. Since then, my position is something like semi-retirement. I have more freedom now, more free time.

Do you really believe that the Tibetan cause and the Tibetan way of life will survive the end of the institution of the Dalai Lama?

The Dalai Lama institution came about at one point of history; now, at some time, it will disappear. But Tibetan spirituality, the Tibetan tradition, Buddhist culture, will remain. As long as the Tibetan community is there, it will remain.

And Richard Gere will not be the most prominent Buddhist for the younger generation?
I think he, among the artists, is a very genuine practitioner of the Buddha dharma. He first practiced Zen, then he came to Tibetan Buddhism.

I read in your biography that when you first came to India in 1956, you had several meetings with Jawaharlal Nehru. Do you remember something about those meetings?

It’s very interesting: the main person who advised me to return, in 1956 and ’57 was Pandit Nehru.

He said, go back to Tibet?

Yes. Once he came to see me with a copy of a seventeen-point programme. He personally read it out to me and he told me that it should be the basis on which I should carry on the struggle to preserve our culture. He gave me every encouragement to struggle within Tibet. Then in ’59, things became out of control and there was no other way but to leave. But he showed me a special interest and concern because I had listened to his advice to return-the situation had become such a disaster that he felt a moral responsibility to help. In the early 1960s, he really helped a lot-and on some occasions, I also got a scolding from him. He lost his temper (laughs).

Over what?

Once, we were in Mussoorie, I think it was our first meeting after I escaped. I had a long talk with him about what had happened since I returned from India in ’57. Then I requested him for help to stop the bloodshed and the suffering and also told him that we were trying to re-establish the Tibetan government in southern Tibet. That was when he lost his temper. He banged on the chair and said it was impossible. He found a contradiction between the two. But later, in ’59, when we decided to raise the Tibetan issue at the UN, Pandit Nehru was opposed to it. When I went to meet him, I was quite apprehensive of what he might say. But he was completely normal.

You’ve seen all generations of India’s leaders. There’s a fascinating account of Nehru’s meeting with Dwight Eisenhower, where he tells Eisenhower not to be so angry with China, he says: ‘Give Communism time, it will ultimately sort itself out.’ Countered to that is the Chinese view: ‘Postpone every problem, leave it to a wiser generation.’ Now Nehru’s generation, Indira Gandhi’s generation could not solve the India Pakistan problem. Do you think the leaders of today’s generation have it in them to solve it?

I think the overall picture has changed greatly from the early ’60s to the 21st century. I think, world-wide, the concept is coming in of non-violence, of neighbourliness.

But do you see India and Pakistan settling their problems.

Certainly. One of my friends in Pakistan told me that ordinary people and also some political leaders as individuals are very keen to have closer relations with India.

Is this a situation where we might see the Dalai Lama one day getting involved with his moral authority? Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama-somebody might need to get involved to give confidence, to cut through the mistrust of so many decades.

I will tell you my thinking in the matter. When the Iraq crisis was about to happen, some people wrote me a letter telling me to go to Baghdad to do something to prevent the bloodshed. At that time, I thought it was unrealistic. I have no contact with the Arab world or with Iraq. But afterwards, I felt very strongly that if at that time some individual, a Nobel laureate, or a scientist or a former leader, someone like Vaclav Havel, the former Czech president-or some group which does not represent any government, any country, but represents peace-had gone there, met Saddam Hussein, talked, I think it may have made a difference. Afterwards, I suggested to some of my close friends that in future wherever some crisis is about to happen, some individual, including the Nobel laureates, must take an active role. President Havel fully agreed, so did Nelson Mandela. Next month I will hopefully be going to Northern Ireland with some Nobel laureates. So we shall see-not just me alone but as a group.

To build a combined moral force.

If we find some opportunity to serve Pakistan and India, and mainly to address the Kashmir problem, we will be only too happy to make some contribution.

Do you think the time has now come to settle this?

I think in the overall picture both sides now have a more conciliatory attitude.

Do you see a normalisation of the Tibet issue in your lifetime?

Most hopefully. We already have direct contact with the Chinese government; we’ve had it for the last three years. Untill now, our main effort has been to build confidence.

And it’s a happy contact?

The atmosphere of the meetings has shown improvement. Now through closer, more frank discussions, I think, things may change. But we’ll see. It’s entirely up to China.

Your Holiness, I can’t let you go without one question. Your laughter is legendary; it makes so many sad faces light up around the world. Tell me one funny thing that happened recently that made you laugh.

Well, I can’t really remember, but I always laugh if somebody makes a mistake in a gathering. And that happens quite often-you see, people try to be very formal and then something happens and it breaks.

And what is it that pains you, apart from the cause you’ve been fighting for all this time?

Well, that happened just recently-I was dressing one morning and the earth shook and I wondered what had happened. Immediately afterwards, the media said there had been this serious earthquake. I have been very saddened ever since. Now, the weather is becoming cold; we’ve already had some snow-what is going to become of these people without shelter, without clothes?

If the Americans elect George Bush twice it’s their own karma?
(laughs). Yes. Just before the election in America, I met some American friends. They really disagree with his policy in Iraq, but now that they’ve committed to him, they’re compelled to support him.