In 1948, the Nobel Prize panel published an article explaining why Mahatma Gandhi never won the peace prize. Although it might seem like a folly like no other, the Norwegian Nobel Committee had come close to acclamating the Nobel Prize to Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi's principles of non-violence and peace are widely recognized, not only in India but globally. So, looking back at the man whose name is widely associated with peace, it might seem strange that he never received the coveted prize.
In an article called The Nobel Prize panel, the Nobel Prize panel detailed the reasons behind its decision to award the prize. The article looked back at the inexplicable decision-making and found that the 'horizon' of the committee was too narrow, and that the committee was not fully able to understand and accept the struggle for freedom among the non-European people. The issue of whether the committee feared ruining the relationship between their nation and Britain was a major problem, he said.
In 1937, when Mahatma Gandhi received the first Nobel Prize, pro-Gandhi groups wrote him a glowing letter. He's frequently a Christ, but then suddenly an ordinary politician. He also referred to the many critics of Gandhi who believed he was not pacifist and that he should have anticipated some of his non-violent campaigns turning violent, e.g. the Chauri Chaura incident.
Non-Indian critics viewed him as 'too much of an Indian nationalist'. 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 again, he had made it to the shortlist along with five more candidates. The report, this time by historian Jens Arup Seip, looked at Gandhi's role in India in the past 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 of this while following his principles of non-violence.
Seip's report was not highly critical, but not explicitly favorable either. It had then quoted an article in Times of India that said that 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 favor of Gandhi, the article said. They were unable to convince three other members. The members also learned that Gandhi had given up his consistent acceptance of war at a prayer-meeting. While he always opposed war, he had said if Pakistan didn't see its error and work to minimize it and would have to go to war against India if it didn't see its error.
Gandhi was quoted by Times of India as saying.
Gandhi said the report was incomplete, albeit true. 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'.
Gandhi said he was 'not only an apostle for peace' but 'first and foremost a patriot'. Three of the five members were so far against Gandhi that he refused to receive the award.
After his assassination, Gandhi received a nomination posthumously. But the committee could not fathom who to give the prize money, since Gandhi did not belong to any organisation, left no property behind and no will either. The committee, considering the practical implications, said posthumous awards should not take place if the laureate died after the decision was made. No peace price was given this year since there was no suitable living candidate.
It acknowledged that little is known about the ongoings of the committee's discussions, but they appeared to have'seriously considered a posthumous award' in 1948. It was determined that the award money for 1948 would not be spent at all. Laureates were silenced but respectfully left open on the list, it said.
Is the stock market closed today in India? If so, why? Examinating BSE, NSE trading holidays.