Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi has never hesitated to fight for her principles. The 57-year-old lawyer and activist has had repeated confrontations with the Iranian government over democracy, freedom of speech, the rights of women and the rights of children. One of the first female judges in Iran, Ebadi lost her seat on the bench after the Iranian Revolution, when the clerics decreed that women could not serve as judges. But that did not dampen her zeal. The Nobel Committee commended her in its announcement as a "courageous person" who "has never heeded the threats to her own safety" and has "consistently supported nonviolence."

Her activism hasn't endeared her to the Iranian authorities. She has been imprisoned for uncovering government complicity in the killings of dissident students and suspended from legal practice, and she has, by her account, escaped two assassination attempts. "Angrily, I am trying to write on the cement wall with the bottom of my spoon that we are born to suffer because we are born in the Third World," she wrote while in confinement. Even though she is the first Iranian to be awarded the Nobel, the government downplayed her achievement, with President Mohammad Khatami saying that the prize would have been more significant if she had been awarded it for scientific or literary achievements. The state-run television did not broadcast her acceptance speech last December because, by not wearing a headscarf, she was in violation of the official dress code for women.

Today, she still practices law and takes on the government. She is currently representing the family of an Iranian-Canadian photojournalist, Zahra Kazemi, who was beaten to death in an Iranian prison in July 2003. Ebadi works within the framework of Islam, attempting to come up with a progressive interpretation that provides maximum space for religious tolerance and women's rights. In the post-September 11 world, this informed the Nobel Committee's decision to bestow her the honor. "It is a pleasure for the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award the Peace Prize to a woman who is part of the Muslim world, and of whom that world can be proud – along with all who fight for human rights wherever they live," the committee stated.

Ebadi has harsh words for the Bush Administration, its war on Iraq, and its bluster about Iran. She told AP that "the Iranian people in the case of a war from the U.S. will be united to stop an occupation of their country."In person, Ebadi exuded a dignity that was formal but still friendly.

I interviewed her in May at Syracuse University. She was at the law school for a speaking engagement. She was wearing dark blue pants with a formal matching top and was without a headscarf, quite a different outfit from what she would be allowed to wear back home. She warmly responded to my questions, only momentarily showing a flash of anger when I alluded to criticism of her work. I followed her around for much of the rest of the day as she fielded queries from law students and gave a speech on Islam and human rights, in which she condemned governments that "hide behind the shield of Islam and continue to oppress their citizens." The interview is put together from my meeting with her and the questions she answered at the law school and after her talk.

You're the first Muslim woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Do you feel it to be a burden to be representing Muslim women?

Shirin Ebadi: I have to begin by saying that the prize does not belong to me alone. This prize truly belongs to all of those who have worked for the cause of human rights in Iran. The awarding of this prize to me is a recognition by the international community of the cause of Islamic feminism. Therefore, Muslim women around the world and all of those who have worked for the cause of human rights in Iran are partners in this award.

Could you tell us your assessment of the state of women in Iran and in the Muslim world?

Let me start with Iran. Sixty-three percent of our university students are female. But you still see violations of women's rights in Iran. A Muslim man can have up to four wives. He can divorce his wife without offering any reason, while it is quite difficult for a woman to get a divorce. The testimony of two women is equal to that of one man. Any woman who wishes to travel needs the written permission of her husband. And the number of unemployed women is four times that of men.

Whenever women protest and ask for their rights, they are silenced with the argument that the laws are justified under Islam. It is an unfounded argument. It is not Islam that is at fault, but rather the patriarchal culture that uses its own interpretations to justify whatever it wants. It utilizes psychology to say that women are emotional. It utilizes medical science to say that men's brains are formed in such a way that they are better able to understand concepts. These are all hypotheses. None of this has been proven. Needless to say, the dominant culture is going to insist on an interpretation of religion that happens to favor men. Before the revolution, there were the first 100 female judges in Iran. I was one of them. After the 1979 revolution, they argued that women cannot be judges, and they made us all into peons in the ministry of justice. But women resisted. We wrote essays, held protests, and organized conferences to insist that women being judges was not incompatible with Islam. After twenty years, they finally accepted the argument and said, OK, women can be judges. So, as you can see, one day they interpret Islam in such a way that women cannot be judges and the next day they manage to reverse themselves.The condition of women in Islamic societies as a whole is also far from desirable. However, we should acknowledge that there are differences. In certain countries, the conditions are much better and in others much worse. For example, the conditions women face even in Egypt differ a whole lot from what their Iranian counterparts deal with. The condition of women in Pakistan is far different from that in Saudi Arabia. This shows that you can have different interpretations of Islam. There is no "true Islam," just different interpretations. Since I brought up patriarchy, let me make one thing clear. I am not singling out men; I am addressing the issue of inequality of genders. A patriarchy does not only not accept the equality of the sexes, it also has a hard time understanding the principles of democracy and its essence. Women are the victims of this patriarchal culture, but they are also its carriers. Let us keep in mind that every oppressive man was raised in the confines of his mother's home. This is the culture we need to resist and fight.

Who have been your role models and inspirations?

I have never been convinced throughout my life that one needs to be imitating others. I even tell my daughters not to look at me as a model. Everyone's condition is different, and the way that each person lives his or her life is different. What is important is that one utilizes one's intellect and not to be 100 percent sure about one's convictions. One should always leave room for doubt.

Two criticisms of your approach have been that you are hesitant to fundamentally challenge the Islam-based sociopolitical system in Iran and that you favor Islamic democracy rather than a truly secular government. How do you respond?

I am Muslim, to begin with. It's perfectly OK that there are certain people who do not accept Islam at all. Therefore, to announce that I am a Muslim can rub some people the wrong way. But my aim is to show that those governments that violate the rights of people by invoking the name of Islam have been misusing Islam. They violate these rights and then seek refuge behind the argument that Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy. But this is basically to save face. In fact, I'm promoting democracy. And I'm saying that Islam is not an excuse for thwarting democracy. Don't forget, I'm not here to promote Islam. Islam has its own preachers.

But some, as you said, criticize me, thinking I'm too tolerant of the clerical regime in Iran. In response, I have to say, I have served time in prison, I have lost my position [as a judge]. Do I need to prove that I am brave? Do I need to be killed? I have never had a governmental position, and I will never accept such a position.

What's your response to the argument that human rights is just a Western invention and are not applicable to the Middle East?

The idea of cultural relativism is nothing but an excuse to violate human rights. Human rights is the fruit of various civilizations. I know of no civilization that tolerates or justifies violence, terrorism, or injustice. There is no civilization that justifies the killing of innocent people. Those who are invoking cultural relativism are really using that as an excuse for violating human rights and to put a cultural mask on the face of what they're doing. They argue that cultural relativism prevents us from implementing human rights. This is nothing but an excuse. Human rights is a universal standard. It is a component of every religion and every civilization.

Democracy doesn't recognize east or west; democracy is simply people's will. Therefore, I do not acknowledge that there are various models of democracy; there is just democracy itself.

You've said that any person who is doing what you are doing "must live with fear from birth to death. But I have been able to overcome my fear." How?

How can you defy fear? Fear is a human instinct, just like hunger. Whether you like it or not, you become hungry. Similarly with fear. But I have learned to train myself to live with this fear. Every time I am fearful I think to myself, the reason they do this is to discourage me from doing what I do. Hence, if I discontinue my work I will have succumbed to my fears. Finally, I believe in God. This helps make me strong.

I wanted to move on to President Bush's war on terrorism. Here's a quote of yours: "One day they help the Taliban rise to power and the next they attack Afghanistan with the excuse of ousting the Taliban regime." If the United States is fighting the war on terrorism in the wrong way, then what is the right way to fight Islamic fundamentalism and Al Qaeda?

Certainly, the fight against terrorism is a legitimate fight. And certainly whoever commits terrorism should be brought to justice. Unfortunately, the United States and a few other governments have used the war on terrorism as a way of violating human rights. I am referring to the case of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. This violation of the rights of prisoners has been so unbelievable that the United Nations has reminded the United States repeatedly that the treatment of prisoners should take place according to the preestablished conventions of the United Nations.

I also want to raise this important question of whether the punishment of terrorists has led to a decline in the acts of terrorism that we have witnessed. Unfortunately, the answer is a negative, since terrorism seems to be on a rise, not a decline.We need to do away with what is causing terrorism in the first place. Terrorism is based on two major pillars: One is injustice, and the other is a certainty of attitude, the notion that their version of the story is the correct one. This way of thinking – this self-certainty – is based on not being educated. Once you get exposed to other cultures, civilizations, and ways of thinking, this self-certainty should evaporate. How do you do away with this? By promoting education throughout the world. And we need to do away with injustice throughout the world, which is a major culprit. When a person is humiliated, when his rights are being violated, and he does not have the proper education, naturally he gravitates toward terrorism. We also have to acknowledge that certain groups and countries benefit from waging war. Instead of dealing with the causes of terrorism, they let terrorism serve as a justification for war. Unfortunately, violence begets violence. And this is how the war on terrorism seems to be going at this juncture. A lot of people are losing their lives. Many children are losing their parents. Too many houses are being destroyed. And, unfortunately, the arms industry seems to flourish.

When you say that countries are benefiting, do you have any particular countries in mind?

The countries with important military-industrial complexes that engage in producing arms, including the United States.

People's ignorance of the region and Western imperial interests over oil are the main reasons why we are where we are now in the region. I have said many times that I wish there was no oil in the Middle East, and more water. People would have been much happier than they are right now.

In January 2002, President Bush named Iran as part of the "axis of evil." What effect has this had in Iran, especially on democratic forces?

I have never agreed with President Bush's argument regarding the axis of evil. Unfortunately, fundamentalists in Iran have used this as an excuse to brand us as allies of Mr. Bush. When we criticize in Iran the actions of the government, the fundamentalists say that we and the Bush Administration are in the same camp. The funny thing is that human rights activists and Mr. Bush can never be situated in the same group.

And what effect has the Iraq War had on Iran and other Muslim countries?

First and foremost, people have lost their sense of trust in U.S. foreign policy. Despite the fact that the United States has been in Iraq for many months, there is still no security to be found there. The Iraqis have not been able to enjoy around-the-clock water supply and electricity. And yet oil seems to flow perfectly. On the other hand, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has created solidarity and unity among the Iraqi people because they all now have a common denominator, which is the expulsion of the United States from Iraq. And the people of Iran and the Muslim world in general have turned against the United States because they never like a foreign occupying force in their midst.Even pro-Western countries are quite worried about the actions of the United States because they, too, have lost their sense of trust in the U.S. I am 100 percent sure that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has led to a decline in American legitimacy.

But President Bush has said the Iraq War would further the cause of freedom and democracy in the region. What's your view?

The United States insisted that it was justified in invading Iraq because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There was discomfort in the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. To influence public opinion, to counter criticism, the United States then came with a second reason to invade Iraq – that it had invaded Iraq to advance democracy and human rights. North Americans do not understand that you do not throw down human rights like bombs on the Iraqis. I want to take my American friends back to the end of World War II, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was formulated. A group of thinkers met to come up with ways and means to prevent yet another war. Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt played a crucial role in assembling this group of people. And that is why the name of the United States is synonymous with the cause of human rights around the world. Now what has happened to the glorious American civilization that has brought us to the present phase when we see those despicable pictures of mistreated Iraqi prisoners? What do you think Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt would have said if she were alive in this day and age? The present Administration should apologize to the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt for what it has done, for the atrocities committed.

When Ariel Sharon traveled to India last September, it was the first visit of an Israeli Prime Minister since the two nations achieved independence more than 55 years ago. Although his plans to commemorate Sept. 11 on Indian soil were cut short by suicide bombings back home, the trip indicated the burgeoning love affair between the two countries.

In recent years, the two nations have been sharing intelligence and cooperating over military affairs at an unprecedented level. India's second-largest arms supplier is Israel, which provided between an estimated $1.5 billion to $2 billion worth of military hardware to India in 2002. India is Israel's best customer, representing roughly half of its total sales in 2002. So it is no coincidence that ten out of thirty members of Sharon's delegation to India were executives of Israeli defense corporations. In addition, Israel has provided extensive counterterrorism training to the Indian military in the recent past. The Jerusalem Post reports that nearly 3,000 Indian soldiers were sent to Israel for training last year.

A big reason for the new-found intimacy is the Indian government's desire to solidify its friendship with the United States. Indian officials have been bending over backwards to ingratiate themselves with the pro-Israel lobby in Washington in order to work Congress and to gain access to the neoconservatives who dominate the Bush administration's foreign policy.

India's National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra first announced Sharon's visit in May at the annual dinner of the powerful American Jewish Committee. In words designed to please his hosts, Mishra extolled the "common vision of pluralism, tolerance and equal opportunity" shared by India, Israel and the United States. His speech also clearly delineated the shifting alliances created by the war of terror. The three countries, he declared, "have to jointly face the same ugly face of modern-day terrorism" and that "such an alliance would have the political will and moral authority to take bold decisions in extreme cases of terrorist provocation." The speech must have undoubtedly been effective since the committee now plans to set up a liaison office in New Delhi.

They're not alone. The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) organized a conference bringing together security experts from the United States, India and Israel, in New Delhi last year, and is set to do another such conference this month in Israel.

A group of neoconservatives, drawn from rightwing pro-Likudnik outfits such as the Center for Security Policy and JINSA, are setting up a think-tank to bring India and the United States closer. According to foreign policy analyst Conn Hallinan, the move to create the U.S. -India Institute for Strategic Policy has the support of Bush administration officials like Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. Last July, the U.S.-India Political Action Committee, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the American Jewish Committee organized a reception on Capitol Hill together.

"The Indian community is learning very well from its colleagues within the Jewish community how to penetrate ... through the solid wall of the political processes here," Representative Gary Ackerman (D-NY) told the Gannett News Service. "On the Jewish side of the equation, right now, Israel could use a billion new friends."

The courtship of Tel Aviv has already begun to yield tangible benefits. Last July, Israel and India joined together to successfully lobby the House to require the Bush administration to regularly report to Congress on Pakistan's moves to halt cross-border infiltration of militants and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. They also worked together to persuade Washington to lift its objections to Israel's plans to sell India an early-warning airborne radar system.

The clout on foreign policy is also translating into a greater willingness to influence U.S. domestic politics. Indian-American groups campaigned alongside Jewish-American organizations to defeat Rep. Cynthia McKinney in 2002 due to her supposedly pro-Pakistan and anti-Israel positions.

The U.S. government has publicly given its blessings to the India/Israel alliance. Commenting on Sharon's India visit, State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said, "(W)e're always glad when our friends make friends with each other and work together." On Jan. 12, President Bush announced plans to lift a number of restrictions on sharing technology with India, provided India strengthened controls on access to such information. And if all went well, as Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) put it on a recent visit to India, the United States could very well "make India a strategic partner, much like Israel."

This marriage of convenience against the "Islamic peril" may make intuitive sense to a layperson, but it actually represents a dramatic about-face for the Indian government. For much of its post-independence history, India has been less than friendly towards Israel, viewing it as yet another religious state like Pakistan. The Indian government under Jawaharlal Nehru tended to side with the underdog in international affairs, making it a vocal opponent of apartheid and the first non-Arab country to recognize the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Additionally, Indian leaders were unwilling antagonize its own large Indian Muslim population (currently 140 million) and key oil suppliers in the Arab world.

Since the early '90s, however, successive Indian governments have moved a great distance away from the nation's original ideals of secularism, Fabian socialism and non-alignment. As part of this ideological transformation, India established full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992. The current ruling coalition, headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), espouses a Hindu-oriented nationalism and sees a natural affinity with Israel. In their view, both countries are fighting the common enemy of Islamic terrorism funded by hostile Muslim countries. Even though there has been a dramatic thawing in India-Pakistan relations in recent months -- with peace talks scheduled for mid-February -- it has had little effect on the deepening embrace of Israel. Many on the Indian right admire Israel's willingness to be ruthless in its dealings with the Palestinians.

Apart from the superficial and short-run benefits, the downside of this realignment is considerable. Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri, expressing alarm at the India-Israel defense relationship, vowed to "do whatever is required to make sure that the minimum credible balance (with India) is maintained." -- words that suggest an acceleration of an already ruinous subcontinental arms race. Pakistan test-fired a missile on Oct. 2, reportedly in reaction to the India-Israel radar deal. Arnaud de Borchgrave reports in The Washington Times that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are forging nuclear ties partly in response to Pakistan's fears about the burgeoning India-Israel alliance. Furthermore, a U.S.-India-Israel entente may also complicate India-China relations, which have improved recently.

On the domestic front, the warm welcome extended to Sharon has added to the grievances of Indian Muslims, already seething at the anti-Muslim genocide that was carried out last year in the state of Gujarat. Such an alliance could also make precarious the position of more than 3 million Indian emigrants working in the Middle East, as well as India's oil supplies.

More importantly, India's camaraderie with Israel will encourage the equation of Hindus with Jews in the minds of Muslims around the world, making India the target for global jihadi groups, as former Indian government official B. Raman has pointed out. Does India really want the world to equate the status of Kashmir with that of Palestine?

The reality is that even in purely realist terms it is unwise for India to get any closer to its newfound buddy. But try telling that to the Indian government, which seems to determined to sacrifice the nation's security to expedience and bigotry.

Amitabh Pal is managing editor of The Progressive magazine.