One of the few writer-journalists, Pico Iyer, whose reportage, essays, books; we keep going back to, talks on exile, Buddhism and definitely the future of journalism.
You were born in California, you have an Indian origin, and you have lived in Japan as well, so have you ever felt at home?
In all these places, I did. And I think, more and more people nowadays are in this situation of having many homes, even if that means many homes within a country. So, you can either feel alienated everywhere, or feel at home everywhere. And I have always been an optimist, who looks at everything from the perspective of the glass being half full, so I think it’s been a good training to adjusting to whatever my environment may be.
I remember watching this interview of yours on YouTube, where you mention that you make a certain distinction between exile by necessity and exile by choice. Can there be an exile by choice?
In my case, I am living in Japan, and trust me; it is the most alien country in the world. I have lived there 25 years on a tourist visa, and I have lived there by choice, away from my friends, family and bosses in California. The point I was making during that interaction was that I have been very lucky to get that chance to live anywhere I want. But I know I am part of a very tiny minority, because most people lose their homes out of poverty or war or dictatorship. So, mine’s been an exile by choice, but true, not many have the luxury of affording it.
What’s your take on the concept of ‘global village’? Does the idea of people of different race, ethnicities, cultures and so on living in a single area work for you?
That’s the idea. But I think too often, we are living in a global city, where all of these people are sharing the same space, but are also at war with one another. I think ‘global village’ is made to sound very beautiful, with people thinking of greens when you say village and the ideas of village elders floating in their minds, but in truth, it’s much more factious in these big cities. But again, this is the age of movement, where people are moving to spaces alien to them. So, our task in hand is to take all these different cultures and turn them into a whole somehow.
In this “ideal global village scenario”, where do you place culturally closed countries like China or Iceland?
These countries will have to wake up, I suppose (laughs). They have to change. Iceland has changed a lot already. I remember when I was first visiting Iceland I was sitting in a cafe, and when a journalist came up to interview me, he was so shocked to find an Indian face. And then I went back four years later, there were Pakistanis, Moroccans all over. And even Japan is a very culturally closed country. Whenever I go back, they would strip search me because they are horrified to find an Indian face in their country. So, they are losing out in this global era, as is China and Iceland as well. Soon, they will see the writing is on the street how they have been left out like a beached whale.
And as startling as it may sound to people who do not know, you have actually known the Dalai Lama personally for 35 years now…
Let me correct you, 39 years to be precise…
Wow!
And I am so lucky that every November, I get the chance of travelling across Japan with him for a week, sitting as close as I am with you. To be a part of all his closed door meetings is a sheer privilege.
Now, in another interview of yours, you had mentioned that the Dalai Lama actually treats Buddhism as science, and not religion. But traditionally, aren’t science and religion meant to be at loggerheads?
Yes. And he says that we should listen more to science, than to religion. His last book is titled Beyond Religion, as you may know. And when I was travelling with him to Japan two months ago, he was telling me, “You shouldn’t listen to me in the 21st century. You should be listening to the scientists.” And I think he feels that Buddha himself was a scientist, very empirical and almost like a doctor. Many regard the Buddha as this physician, who is scientifically diagnosing the situation and prescribing a cure, and also Buddhism as the science of the mind. So, what the Dalai Lama says is that the Western Science is now covering matter, Buddhism is covering the science of the inner space; the mind. And therefore, they are complimentary and both have something to offer. You know, he always says to people, “Don’t just pray, and don’t just recite all the time. Be more factual.”
“The disgust towards the government, I think (laughs)… I think that is universal. Even in the United States, my friends are dissatisfied with the government. Nobody really approves of Mr.Obama there.”
Coming to your book on Tibet, which was released in 2008, you had written there that Tibet is ever slipping into extinction. How do you look at Tibet today?
Every year becomes more difficult for Tibet. And the challenge for Tibet which the Dalai Lama has really tried to address is how to keep its best parts alive; its culture, its language and its religion, which are cherished globally. And that’s one of the miracles of our lives. When my parents grew up, no one in India could dream of going to Tibet or a Tibetan shop, let alone see a Lama or a Dalai Lama. Now, they are really a part of the global community, and that’s a good thing about globalisation. But the sadness is within Tibet itself.
Do you think the way Dharamshala has been dressed up and marketed as the Tibet of India is an integral part of this process of globalising Tibet?
Yes. So much. Dharamshala and all these other places represent the settlement of the Tibetan societies in India, and makes Tibet so much more accessible to us. I remember when I checked into this hotel in Dharamshala, the first two people who greeted me were Tibetans, who were working there.
Hmm… we know that the Dalai Lama has always been a crucial factor in China-Tibet relations. But apart from him, who do you think can play a game changing role in the changing dynamics between the two countries?
It’s a very difficult question. I think it depends on the Dalai Lama a lot, because nobody has his sort of experience. And he has lived for a year in China, in the different provinces. So, nobody can bring that sort of expertise to the table in this situation. And his hope is the new generation of Tibetans, like their new Prime Minister, Dr. Lobsang Sangay, who has been educated in Harvard, and who could bring in a new perspective to it. But in terms of firsthand experience, the firsthand knowledge of China that the Dalai Lama has, it’s hard to match.
The Dalai Lama has always preached democracy, he has always stood for the people’s rights. Then why isn’t Tibet full fledgedly accepting democracy, even though they look up to him and his teachings?
Well, I think that has been one of the more difficult challenges in his life; to depose himself. You see, in the Tibetan context, they see him as God; as the reincarnation of God. So, you and me can have no qualms about talking to him about anything, but for the Tibetans, it’s too momentous to talk to the Dalai Lama. So, he is trying, ever since he came to India as well, but it’s too big a challenge. And in Tibet, he is the body of truth. I can understand their psychological emotion as to why they hold on to him so much. It’s a tough for them to accept democracy in such a situation, you know.
“The whole journalism world is so embattled. I still read everything on hard copy. ”
If we move from the Dalai Lama to the politicians, you have interviewed more than a handful of them during your journalistic career. Politicians are always making promises about the future. Have you ever met one who talks of the present?
The Dalai Lama. That is what he offers, which is a much more compassionate and realistic view. Unlike the politicians, he is never running scared of the crisis in hand, he is never running for office, he doesn’t have to woo any constituency. So, in a way, it’s the ideal solution one can bring into the political arena. Now, I often think that the beauty of the Dalai Lama’s life is that he is not just another monk in the temple practising kindness and wisdom. That’s fine, we have got many doing that. His particular uniqueness is that he is bringing those values to Washington, to the European parliaments, and Beijing and India. I think that’s a great lesson, and you have Desmond Tutu also, who is his great fan. And both of them are probably the most realistic propositions. And something that people don’t realise is that the Dalai Lama is not a vague optimist with his head in the clouds. He has been leading his people for 73 years now, since the age of four, in difficult circumstances. So, he has never had the luxury of saying large words. He has to find what’s going to work right now. No politician has that kind of experience of leading his people for 73 years.
As a journalist, specifically with TIME magazine, you have travelled to most difficult corners of the world, like Sri Lanka, Haiti, El Salvador. All of these regions have their own problems. Do you find any common strand which joins these nations?
The disgust towards the government, I think (laughs)… I think that is universal. Even in the United States, my friends are dissatisfied with the government. Nobody really approves of Mr.Obama there. But I think what aggravates the situation in these countries is the material deprivation. In California or Japan, you are dissatisfied with the government, you are most likely to laugh it off. But in countries like Haiti or El Salvador, you don’t have much in the way of material prosperity as well. I go to those places to understand how they cope with all the challenges, because I believe I have lived a life of relative ease. We, who live a life of ease need to educate ourselves. One of my sadness about the USA is that despite being the most privileged country on earth, 70% of the population does not have a passport. So, they have no clue in what condition their neighbours are living in. President Obama has travelled to various countries, and is wonderfully aware, but I don’t think his constituents are.
With the emphasis shifting from print to a more online form, how do you think the world of journalism is shaping up?
The whole journalism world is so embattled. I still read everything on hard copy. The hard copy spaces haven’t changed much, except that Newsweek is no more on print, and as a journalist myself, I am terrified. I am not too good in transitioning from print, and my school of journalism seems to be becoming irrelevant now.
During your generation, journalists used to be writers. Today, a journalist is more of a social media guy who finds news in hashtags. How does this augur for journalism, in the larger picture?
I think writing, which inspired us, was not necessarily writing about the moment, but about something much larger, and writing that never dies. If you see, the writers we most cherish; like Orhan Pamuk or Naipual, their writings would be cherished even 100 years down the line…
Earlier, journalistic writings were seen as records of history…
The first draft of history as we call it…
Exactly. So, do you think with journalistic writing concentrating more and more on the moment, are we losing out on that historical quality of the journalistic text?
I think the spaces are becoming fewer and fewer. It’s still happening, you still have the New Yorker or the New York Times magazine. They send these really expert writers to a place of an event to churn out a 6000 word piece a month later. I think that will last, but you are right, we are just running to keep up. And we’ll never be able to keep up with the pace at which the world is accelerating and moving forward…
So, in such a situation, how does a journalist, in the true essence of the term, not lose the plot?
Oh no, I am not going to give out any tips here (laughs)… If you do not lose sight of the larger picture, you are most likely to not lose the plot. Like when Salman Rushdie couldn’t come to Kolkata for the Lit Meet this January, there were hundreds of local journalists covering all that… Now, in such a situation, the best thing you could do as a journalist is step back, step right out of the action to view the scene in a much larger scenario. Now, then he can offer something much more lasting and something that could be called in a similar scenario later on. And he is not going to be stale by tomorrow. The more we are imprisoned in the moment, the more short-sighted we are. And as for the reader, true they will want to read what happened to Salman Rushdie today, but tomorrow they will go back to Paris Hilton. So, as a journalist, we should try to produce text or pieces in other forms, which people could go back to, say a year late.
