Last week the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee made a rare and candid admission: "Our record is far from perfect … not giving Mahatma Gandhi the Nobel Peace Prize was the biggest omission" of its 106 year history, said Geir Lundestad, permanent secretary of the committee. "Gandhi could do without the Nobel Peace Prize," he added wistfully. "Whether the Norwegian Nobel committee can do without Gandhi, that's a different question."
What is astounding is that Gandhi was short-listed for the prize in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and just a few days before his assassination in 1948, but was never deemed worthy of it. Lundestad attributes this to the Euro-centrism of the Nobel committee back then, and their scant appreciation for the freedom struggles in the colonies. In the case of Gandhi, he said, committee members cited minor reasons like his "inconsistent pacifism" to deny him the prize.
Later the award would go to folks like Kissinger, Peres, and Arafat (only consistent pacifism there). Another dubious recipient, Elie Wiesel, is on record for calling the US invasion of Iraq "a moral obligation". Too bad there is no provision for taking back a Nobel Peace prize!
From the FAQs on the Nobel Prize website, it seems Gandhi could still have been awarded the Nobel posthumously until 1973, a technicality that Mr. Lundestad seems to have conveniently glossed over in claiming that Gandhi was all set to receive the prize in 1948 but didn't because of his assassination earlier that year.
From 1974, the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation stipulate that a prize cannot be awarded posthumously, unless death has occurred after the announcement of the Prize winners ... [Before then, the prize has] been awarded posthumously twice - to Dag Hammarskjöld (Nobel Peace Prize 1961) and Erik Axel Karlfeldt (Nobel Prize in Literature 1931)
The Peace Prize being the most political of all the Nobels, there are some "unworthies" on its recipients list.
Elie Wiesel troubles me a lot. Unlike Kissinger and Arafat, Wiesel is considered a humanist, not a political nomination. Given his own personal sufferings one would expect him to be sympathetic to the sufferings of others. Yet Wiesel has repeatedly made the distinction between one kind of human suffering and another.
Particularly churlish was his dispute in the 1990s with the Holocaust Committee about the inclusion of Gypsies among the victims of Hitler's atrocities. Isabel Fonseca notes this in her fabulous book "Bury Me Standing" on the plight of European Gypsies. (My review of the book here.)
Then his support of the Iraq war. All this makes Wiesel a political figure in my eyes and not a human rights champion as he would have us believe.
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | October 25, 2006 at 08:33 AM
Ruchira: Thanks for the comment and the link. It's a very well written review of what sounds like a fascinating book.
Posted by: Namit Arora | October 26, 2006 at 01:08 PM