Why Mahatma Gandhi never got the Nobel Peace Prize despite being nominated 12 times

Why Mahatma Gandhi never got the Nobel Peace Prize despite being nominated 12 times

Gandhi Jayanti: In an article, aptly titled, ‘Mahatma Gandhi, the missing laureate’ the Nobel Prize panel explained what led to its contentious decision.

Mahatma Gandhi, a man whose name is most widely associated with peace, never received the Nobel Peace Prize

Gandhi was nominated 12 times for the peace prize, the last time posthumously

The Nobel Prize, in 1999, had explained why the award was never conferred on Gandhi

Fifty years after Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated in 1948, the Nobel Prize panel published an article explaining why the Father of the Nation never received the peace prize. In retrospect, it might seem like a folly like no other, but the Norwegian Nobel Committee had come close to bestowing the award upon Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi’s principles of non-violence and peace are widely acknowledged – not only in India but globally. So perhaps, looking back, it might seem strange that the man whose name is widely associated with peace never received the coveted prize.  

In an article, aptly titled, ‘Mahatma Gandhi, the missing laureate’ the Nobel Prize panel explained what led to its contentious decision. “It is widely held – in retrospect – that the Indian national leader should have been the very man to be selected for the Nobel Peace Prize,” the article stated.

Gandhi was nominated 12 times for the Nobel Prize, including in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and in 1948, a few days before he was assassinated. As the looked back at the inexplicable decision-making, the article delved into whether the “horizon” of the committee was “too narrow”, and whether the committee was not fully able to grasp and appreciate the struggle for freedom among the non-European people. Another factor in question was whether the committee feared ruining the relationship between their country and Great Britain.

When Mahatma Gandhi received the first nomination in 1937, pro-Gandhi ‘Friends of India’ associations wrote him a glowing letter. But the committee’s adviser was more critical. He called him “a freedom fighter and a dictator, an idealist and a nationalist. He is frequently a Christ, but then, suddenly, an ordinary politician”. He also referred to the many critics of Gandhi who felt that he was not “consistently pacifist” and that he should have anticipated some of his non-violent campaigns turning violent, eg the Chauri Chaura incident.

Non-Indian critics saw his as “too much of an Indian nationalist”, the article stated. The question then was whether his ideas were meant to be universal or were primarily Indian.

He was nominated again in 1938 and then in 1938 but Gandhi never even made it to the committee’s shortlist before 10 long years.

In 1947, when Gandhi was nominated yet again, he had made it to the shortlist along with five more candidates. The report, this time by historian Jens Arup Seip, looked into Gandhi’s role in India in the preceding decade that involved three major conflicts – the independence struggle, India’s participation in World War II and the conflict between Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi had all this while followed his principles of non-violence.

Seip’s report was not overtly critical, but not explicitly favorable either. It had then quoted – rather prematurely – a Times of India article that said that is the India-Pakistan partition did not result in “bloodshed of much larger dimensions”, it was because of Gandhi’s teachings.

Two of the committee’s members spoke in favour of Gandhi, the article stated. They were unable to convince three other members. The members had also learnt that Gandhi, at a prayer-meeting, had “given up his consistent rejection of war”. He had said in the meeting that while he always opposed warfare, if Pakistan failed to see its error and work to minimising it, the Indian government would have to “go to war against it”.

“If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan they should leave it. Similarly, Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union,” Gandhi was quoted by Times of India.

The report was incomplete, albeit true, Gandhi confirmed. He had also said that “he had no place in a new order where they wanted an army, a navy, an air force and what not”.

Two of the committee members said that Gandhi was “not only an apostle for peace” but “first and foremost a patriot”. Three of the five members were thus against Gandhi receiving the award.

After his assassination, Gandhi received a nomination posthumously. But the committee could not fathom who to give the prize money to since Gandhi did not belong to any organisation, left no property behind and no will either. The committee, considering the practical consequences, thought that posthumous awards should not take place unless the laureate died after the decision was made. No peace price was given that year since “there was no suitable living candidate”.

“In retrospect, the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee may seem too narrow. Gandhi was very different from earlier Laureates. He was no real politician or proponent of international law, not primarily a humanitarian relief worker and not an organiser of international peace congresses. He would have belonged to a new breed of Laureates,” the 1999 article stated. The article also rejected earlier concerns that the committee feared antagonising the British.

It acknowledged that little is known about the on-goings of the committee’s discussions but they seemed to have “seriously considered a posthumous award” in 1948. It was decided that the award money for 1948 would not be spent at all. “What many thought should have been Mahatma Gandhi’s place on the list of Laureates was silently but respectfully left open,” it said.

Source:- bt (business today)