HUSSAIN MANAWER’S POETIC WORK CAPTURES MATERNAL LOVE AND LOSS
by ASJAD NAZIR
TALENTED poet Hussain Manawer has captivated cross-cultural audiences in an emotional way like no other British Asian has in recent years.
The wonderful wordsmith has captured powerful feelings, moments and real human stories with his work. This Mother’s Day, he unveils his most heartfelt piece to date, which captures real pain, unconditional love and hope in despair. The poetic work If She Was Here, accompanied by music, narrates the pain of losing his mother, getting through grief and how it has shaped him. It talks about the grief of Mother’s Day without your mother, but also the love and blessings that remain.
Eastern Eye caught up with Hussain Manawer to discuss his deeply affecting work, late inspiring mother and coping with grief.
Tell us about the poetic work you have created for Mother’s Day?
I didn’t really sit down to create this piece – it really just came out of me one day when I was finding my way through life. Reiss Nicholas was in the studio next door to me. I poured my art out to him, and before you knew it ambient sounds were being created, and tears were flowing from my eyes as I stood behind the mic in the booth, and released If She Was Here.
What inspired the work?
The inspiration came from the lack of discussion, conversation and societal awareness for all those who have lost a mother on Mother’s Day and how triggering of an emotional rollercoaster this day can be.
How much of an influence was your late mother?
My mum was absolutely everything in my life, she still is. I don’t ever dare do anything she would not be fond of, and I would certainly only behave to please her.
What are your fondest memories?
When I used to work in Primark in Lakeside, one evening she snuck into the store and helped me tidy away my department because she came to pick me up, and I couldn’t leave until it was clean. She was a real friend to me. She was my best friend. Every moment was fond, but that one in particular shines bright.
What quality have you inherited from her?
The main quality I inherited from her was being unapologetically myself.
You have done a lot of work connected to her. How much has that helped you?
The work is healing; it’s therapy, it’s art, it’s absolutely everything I needed and more. It finds ways to comfort me at night, hold me close and help me heal through moments of trauma.
Do you feel like her sparking your creativity is a gift she left for you?
I feel like my mother gave me a career when she left, that’s what she left me, a life.
You have been through the heartbreak of losing a loved one. What advice would you give others going through the same, during these times?
The best advice that I can give is, take the bad days and take the good days. Days, moments, feelings, thoughts and emotions do not define who you are as a person. That is truly the best advice I can give.
How important do you think it is to discuss mental health and wellbeing?
We have no choice at all right now, but to discuss our mental wellbeing as the world is not moving in our favour. We have to do this. We have to save ourselves and our future generations. We cannot let them down.
What else can we expect from you?
You can expect some more releases. I have been working with some of my nearest and dearest friends and colleagues. So, something special is really coming.
Do the high expectations put pressure on you?
It used to, but now to be completely honest with you, Asjad, I don’t let anyone near my mind. There is nobody that can put this pressure on me, no external influences; the gates are up and I am listening to my heart, and my gut. That’s all.
Do any of your emotionally charged works affect you?
I sometimes cry when I write and only see this as affecting me in a positive way.
How will you mark Mother’s Day this year?
I turn 30 a few days before Mother’s Day, so I will go to the graveyard, say a prayer, lay some flowers, breathe, look up to the sky and focus on the future.
Mourners gather for the funeral of Adrian Daulby, who was shot when police responded to an attack on Yom Kippur outside Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation, in what police have declared a terrorist incident, at the Agecroft Jewish Cemetery in Pendlebury, Salford, Britain, October 6, 2025.
MURDER at the synagogue made last Thursday (2) a dark day in British history. Yom Kippur, the holy day of atonement, sees soul-searching Jews cut themselves off from electronic communication for many hours. Some, guarding other synagogues, heard of the Manchester attack from police officers rushing to check on their safety. Others from whispers reverberating around the congregation. Some only found out in the evening, turning on mobile phones or car radios after the ceremonies were over.
“There was an air of inevitability about it,” Rabbi David Mason told me. He was among many Jewish voices to describe this trauma as shocking, yet not surprising. No Jewish person has been killed for being Jewish in this country for over half a century. That victims Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Dauby died seeking to protect others exemplifies the enormous everyday efforts on community security in recent decades. There had been a grim, rising expectation, over the last two years of simmering antisemitism, that such a day might come. David Mason told me he fears a ‘double tragedy’ if the response was to disrupt efforts to build cohesion across communities, rather than galvanising them.
Manchester is the centre of British Jewish life beyond London. The magnificent restoration of the 1798 synagogue which today houses the Manchester Jewish Museum testifies to deep Jewish roots in the city. But as the heavens opened over north Manchester during last Friday’s (3) vigil, there was a fractious cocktail of grief, solidarity and raw anger. Deputy prime minister David Lammy was heckled over Palestine and protest marches. Yet my colleague Avaes Mohammad, attending from nearby Blackburn, told me too how local Muslims were warmly thanked in person by local Jewish residents for being there.
The divisive provocation of an Israeli government invitation to Tommy Robinson was the last thing that Jewish civic leaders needed during such a moment of pain. So, I was impressed with the robust clarity of the Jewish Leadership Council and Board of Deputies in reiterating why Robinson is a dangerous thug who will never be trusted by most British Jews. Israel’s minister for antisemitism and diaspora relations declared that the Board of Deputies had been captured by pro-Palestinian forces of wokeness; a reply that shows why he is ‘minister for the diaspora in name only’ to anyone who knows Britain at all.
For progressive voices, calling out the far right is the easy part. The response from Jewish civic leaders reinforced the crucial boundary between challenging Islamist extremism and Robinson’s attempt to recruit Jews into sweeping anti-Muslim prejudice. It could be reciprocated best by challenging Islamist hatred as strongly as the racist far right.
British Muslim civic leaders understand that challenge. The arson attack on an East Sussex mosque is just one example of how Muslims often suffer most when Islamists convey, through words or deeds, a narrative of extremism and incompatibility. The result is so often more fear, more prejudice and more threat to the status of Muslims as equal citizens of our country.
The lines between politics, protest and prejudice are sharply contested. Many in politics offer wildly inconsistent principles on different issues. A government review, of how police set conditions to ensure the line between democratic protest and intimidation, should be used to demonstrate consistency – whether the issue is Palestine, India and Pakistan, or asylum seekers in hotels.
It is antisemitic to hold British Jews responsible for the Israeli government – in mere words or murderous deeds. Rationally, by the same token, challenges to Israeli government policy and support for a Palestinian state are distinct from antisemitism, unless made in antisemitic terms. But the emotional landscape can be more complicated. A new study from the Institute of Jewish Public Research (JPR) illuminates a lonely two years for British Jews. The pervasive experience of casual antisemitism unifies the Jewish community – but Israeli action in Gaza is a source of pain and division. JPR finds that a majority of British Jews now say that Israel’s military excesses in Gaza offend their Jewish values, yet that they also feel closer emotionally to Israel since the Hamas atrocity. Many British Jews now feel closer to Jewish friends – and try to avoid talking politics or about Israel with others.
Our age has seen a concerted effort to delegitimise expressions of solidarity as mere ‘virtue signalling’, in order to deepen political polarisation, at best, or at worst to socialise violence. Thousands of lives were lost in Northern Ireland in living memory as men of violence claimed to defend one community against another. Before Manchester, there was only one murder at a place of worship in Britain this century: the far-right inspired murder at Finsbury Park Mosque in 2017. Americans seem desensitised to violence in churches and schools. We must never emulate that here.
Responses to Manchester show why expressions of empathy still matter – not only symbolically, but also in practice. Far from being an evasion, empathy can provide the foundation for the deeper work needed to address the roots of hatred. That is a task we must do together.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
While Mandelson was sacked as British ambassador in Washington over Epstein ties, Trump, closer to Epstein than either Mandelson or Fergie, was seated beside King Charles at a Windsor Castle banquet. (Photo: Getty Images)
LORD PETER MANDELSON was sacked as British ambassador in Washington because of his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, and Prince Andrew’s former wife, “Fergie”, Duchess of York, has also been hauled over burning coals over her emails to the late financier.
However, US president Donald Trump, who was closer to Epstein than either Mandelson or Fergie, was placed next to King Charles at a state banquet in Windsor Castle.
As always, the Private Eye cover captured the double standards. “Mandelson crisis. Starmer Acts!,” was the headline, with the British prime minister Sir Keir Starmer declaring at the doors of No 10: “Goodbye, Peter – we can’t have anything to do with a friend of a paedo.”
There is an identical picture of Starmer, but this time he is saying: “Welcome, President Trump!”
The author, Lord Jeffrey Archer, who has got a new book out (End Game), has discussed Trump with the Daily Telegraph.
He outlines what he considers to be the “worst thing in the news?”: “He seems to have gone completely mad. He’s incredibly rude and childish, calling people ‘losers’. He insults other statesmen like Emmanuel Macron, taunting them. It shows no decorum.
Having served myself with a fantastic prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, I know that there’s no way a country’s leader should behave like that. Who does he think he is? I don’t understand why more people don’t see him for what he is. It doesn’t matter if what he says isn’t true, if he says it with such conviction his voters believe him. He claims he’s the greatest US president ever – what about Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington and so on?”
People who knew nothing about Sir Sadiq Khan will reckon there must be something good about the mayor of London after Trump told the UN general assembly: “I look at London, where you have a terrible mayor, terrible, terrible mayor, and it’s been so changed, so changed. Now they want to go to sharia law, but you’re in a different country.”
Sadiq shot back: “I think president Trump has shown he is racist, he is sexist, he is misogynistic and he is Islamophobic.”
It would be better if Sadiq didn’t rise to the bait.
Keep ReadingShow less
British prime minister Keir Starmer delivers his keynote speech at Britain's Labour Party's annual conference in Liverpool, Britain, on September 30, 2025
Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer’s declaration that the next election is “a battle for the soul of the country, exemplifies how Reform leader Nigel Farage’s new frontrunner status made him the main target of his political opponents during this year’s party conference.
"Don't let Trump’s America become Farage's Britain" was LibDem leader Ed Davey’s theme in Bournemouth. That was a confident, liberal message with an appeal to most people in this country. Davey’s literal Trump card is that he is the most prominent politician being willing to openly criticise a US president who three-quarters of the British public disapprove of. It passes the ‘tik-tok test' of being communicable in three seconds to those paying little attention to politics.
Starmer has to work with the leader that the US public chose to elect. So, he tried to make a similar argument, but in more abstract language: contrasting ‘patriotic renewal’ with ‘the politics of grievance’ - and ‘decency’ versus ‘division’. The general public may find that harder to decode than his party audience in Liverpool.
Trump once boasted that his supporters would let him get away with murder on Fifth Avenue. Farage’s opponents fear that the normal rules of scrutiny might never apply to him, either. Yet Farage made unforced errors under pressure - partly because he does not appear to recognise any risk in his close association with Trump. Being unwilling to criticise the US president’s unfounded claims about paracetamol being a cause of autism panders to a narrow conspiracist fringe that could be a red flag to the more mainstream voters who Farage needs to persuade and reassure. The 14 per cent of votes he got last time were from four million people who have often voted for Farage’s parties in the past decade. Making a serious bid for power - trying to turn 14 per cent into 30 per cent - involves targeting another four million voters, who have mostly chosen not to do so before.
Yet, there are few voices for reassurance or moderation in Reform’s internal debate to counter online and ideological pressure to radicalise. Former academic turned populist advocate Matthew Goodwin says the key is that Reform must be more like Trump’s second term than his first. That amounts to a call for the authoritarian rejection of democratic norms.
The radicalisers are winning the war for Farage’s ear. After Farage’s call for mass deportations of those here without legal status was criticised as ‘weak sauce’ by Elon Musk, the Reform leader expanded the threat to up to two million people. He proposed to abolish indefinite leave to remain entirely - including reneging on commitments made to those told Britain was their permanent home.
Downing Street’s initial flat-footed response was to call the Farage plan ““unrealistic, unworkable and unfunded” before the prime minister was persuaded that he needed to make a moral argument.
“It is one thing to say ‘we’re going to remove illegal migrants’, people who have no right to be here. I’m up for that. It is a completely different thing to say we are going to reach in to people who are lawfully here and start removing them. They are our neighbours. It would tear our country apart”, he told the BBC’s Laura Kuennsberg last Sunday (28).
Starmer made headlines by calling the Farage plan ‘racist’ too. That was an unplanned response to the journalist’s question. As Reform appears to be now exempting four million European nationals with settled status from its plan, while threatening up to half a million people - often Commonwealth nationals from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria - in a similar ethical position, the impact is discriminatory, whatever Reform’s unexplained motive for this differential treatment.
Yet Starmer’s strongly worded argument as to why those here legally should not be threatened with deportation seemed to be contradicted by his own home secretary’s keynote speech on Monday (29).
Shabana Mahmood told the Labour conference she would be a tough home secretary - but a tough Labour home secretary. On small boats and asylum hotels, the government must respond to public pressure for change - with an orderly, workable and humane asylum system. Mahmood sees this as crucial to challenging the rise of racism.
Unlike its asylum challenge, the government’s proposals on settlement do not respond to any public appetite for change. The government wants a 10-year baseline for settlement - though most people - including seven out of ten Labour voters - believe that five years is a fair timeline, as our recent British Future report shows.
The home secretary put her speech’s headline message that ‘migrants must contribute to earn their right to stay’ into block capitals on social media before government sources scrambled to clarify that this would not actually apply to those who have arrived in the past five years. The government is yet to begin its policy consultation - but what that dividing line between decency and division should mean in practice will be a crucial and contested question this autumn.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
Keep ReadingShow less
Destroyed buildings in the besieged Palestinian territory last Wednesday (17)
PRIME MINISTER Sir Keir Starmer was, if anything, a little late in coming to the party when he accorded formal recognition of a Palestinian state last Sunday (21).
India did so on November 18, 1988, two days after Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Starmer has followed most of the rest of the world.
His words were clear: “So today, to revive the hope of peace and a two-state solution, I state clearly as prime minister of this great country that the United Kingdom formally recognises the state of Palestine. We recognised the state of Israel more than 75 years ago, as a homeland for the Jewish people. Today, we join more than 150 countries who recognise a Palestinian state, a pledge to the Palestinian and Israeli people that there can be a better future.”
The UK’s move coincided with similar recognition from Canada, Australia and Portugal. Other countries also joining the list are Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Malta and possibly New Zealand and Liechtenstein.
Although Starmer said “we recognised the state of Israel more than 75 years ago”, it would be more accurate to state that the UK was the prime mover in the creation of “a homeland for the Jewish people” in 1948.
Therefore, the UK’s formal recognition of a Palestinian state is not just one more country joining a long list. It has moral and international significance.
To be sure, there is a tiny minority of people in the UK who argue Starmer is in the wrong, but a referendum would show that probably 75-90 per cent of the British people think he is in the right.
Most people are persuaded that in response to Hamas’s brutal killing on October 7, 2023, of 1,195 people (among them 736 Israeli citizens, including 38 children, 79 foreign nationals and 379 members of the security forces) and the taking of about 250 hostages, Israel has and is continuing to commit genocide in Gaza. This is acknowledged by Jewish people brave enough to speak out.
Omer Bartov can hardly be accused of being anti-Semitic. He is Dean’s professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University in the US.
His article, Never Again, in the New York Times in July, stated: “I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.”
He wrote: “My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognise one when I see one.”
He pointed out: “This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel’s actions can only be defined as genocide.”
Last week, a UN commission of inquiry also said Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. Across a three-page resolution, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) presented a litany of actions undertaken by Israel throughout the 22-month-long war that it recognises as constituting genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
And earlier this month, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that the state is failing to provide adequate food to Palestinian prisoners, and must take steps to improve their nutrition. The three-judge bench said the government was legally obliged to provide prisoners with enough nutrition to ensure “a basic level of existence”.
Again, the judges can hardly be accused of being anti-Semitic.
Benjamin Netanyahu
The United States is one of the few countries that continues to give unquestioning support to Israel, which it considers its main ally in the region.
Meanwhile, for the British people, the Gaza war is no longer something far away. As Starmer said: “I know the strength of feeling that this provokes. We have seen it on our streets, in our schools, in conversations we’ve had with friends and family. It has created division. Some have used it to stoke hatred and fear, but that solves nothing.”
Backed by the US, Israel prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has the military power to destroy Gaza completely, which it has pretty much done, kill or starve to death a significant part of its population, and occupy the West Bank.
But there is a price to pay for that – apart from international condemnation which Israel can choose to ignore. It does mean there is no long-term peace for the people of Israel who will have to resign themselves to war without end.
It may be wiser to accept a Palestinian state, help to rebuild Gaza, pull out of the illegal settlements in the West Bank – and, at least, seriously test whether this new path works.
Keep ReadingShow less
A man holds a flag that reads "We want our country back," as protesters gather on the day of an anti-immigration rally organised by British anti-immigration activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson, in London, Britain, September 13, 2025.
WHY ARE we going backwards on racism in Britain? How disappointing to have to ask that in 2025. I have long been an optimist about the future of multi-ethnic Britain, because I felt my country change for the better in each of the four decades since I left primary school. The vocal overt racism on the football terraces of my teenage years was largely shown the red card by the mid-1990s. This century saw much more ethnic minority presence in professional and public life.
But it has got harder to be optimistic this autumn, because of lived experience too. I personally get so much more racist abuse most weeks in 2025 than I ever did in 2005. Black and Asian people have increasingly equal opportunities to reach the top, but a viscerally and unacceptably unequal experience of public space. The worst racist trolls openly boast online of their sense of impunity for racist abuse: a sentiment spilling out in surges of racist graffiti on bus stops, Chinese restaurants, even the playground in my local park.
So it matters that prime minister Sir Keir Starmer has now found his voice again on racism after weeks of anxious silence. He recognised this summer’s surge of racism and insisted that our flags must stand for shared pride, not prejudice. Words do matter in reinforcing social norms. What I want to hear next, in Starmer’s party conference speech in Liverpool, is a commitment to lead a government that will be tough on racism and tough on the causes of racism.
Such a pledge to follow words with action would depend on filling a vacuum in government policy thinking. Starmer’s Sun on Sunday article quickly pivoted to the economy, citing the long shadow of the 2008 financial crash. That is a good explanation of anxiety about the cost of living, the condition of public services and voter impatience with his new government. It does much less to explain the patterns of prejudice, fear and hatred in British society.
Hostile attitudes towards minorities cut across divides by wealth and class. They are more prevalent among older people who have fully paid off their mortgage than young people struggling to find their first deposit. That it was the world’s richest man who championed violence via video-link to the London crowd shows that radicalisation and racism can reach the very apex of the global income distribution. The profile of those people who insist Muslims could never be compatible with western democracy – and believe that a violent convict like Tommy Robinson could be the man to ‘unite the Kingdom’ – has next to no correlation with employment or income levels.
What matters much more is the quantity, quality and distribution of meaningful contact with people from different backgrounds. Political, media and social cues also shape how far those who lack that real-world contact come to fear and hate groups of their fellow citizens as a dangerous, existential threat.
But the centre-left's comfort zone is to code rising prejudice as mainly a by-product of socio-economic anxiety. That risks making racism something to ‘call out’ rhetorically before changing the subject back to wages and the NHS. We need a deeper response. This country did not make our past progress in law, policy or social norms by chance. We need intentional action again to halt regressive forces now. Without a more coherent account of the drivers of prejudice and fear in society, this government will struggle to identify practicable strategies to challenge racism or promote cohesion effectively.
There are nascent efforts to fill the gaps. A low-profile social cohesion taskforce beavers away in Downing Street, though the reshuffle disruption has left it unclear which ministers will lead the policy response. The government has commissioned a working group to define anti-Muslim prejudice, though it will need to overcome its reluctance to explain why this matters to the non-Muslim majority.
My 18-year-old self would be impressed by just how much we now follow up our talk about zero tolerance for racism in football stadiums. He would be baffled, however, by the inconsistency and inaction towards racism outside sport. Like inclusive patriotism, tackling racism should be much more than a 90-minute commitment. The P-word gets routinely used on X (formerly Twitter) to racially abuse home secretary Shabana Mahmood and other public voices ranging from Zarah Sultana on the left to Zia Yusuf of Reform. In more than 95 per cent of cases, the X platform defends unlawful racist harassment. Until there are consequences for the platform protecting and even amplifying its most incessantly racist users, this government will be turning a blind eye to the de facto legalisation of racial hatred in our country.
Being tough on the causes of racism will take complex, contested, long-term work. Being consistently tough on racism itself should be a simple, essential starting point.
Sunder Katwalawww.easterneye.biz
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.