By: Nadeem Ahmed.
The recent felicitation and appreciation received by Malala Yousafzai, the youngest Nobel Prize laureate, astonished and perplexed the intellects of the society. The 16 year old girl who stood up for female education in Pakistan was shot by Taliban, which drew much attention from the global media to proclaim and eclipse the shadow of agonizing ideologies of Taliban.It was undoubtedly a remarkable effort from the young girl to have spoken the impinging truth of her life and to have narrated the sorrowful incidents that had and have been taking place in her country. It is indeed of utmost importance to recognize and salute her for her continuous efforts towards the upliftment of her people.
 |
| Image by college.library on flickr |
At the same time though, as responsible and judicious learners, it is also important for us to know, understand and peruse everything that happens around us which demands our attention. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded annually (with some exceptions) to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Now that’s a title which holds a lot of responsibility, devotion and commitment. There have been a lot of controversies and criticisms of Individual conferment in the past. Omission of various notable and exemplary people from the nomination list has always sensed a vulnerable tactic used by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. This year again when Malala Yousafzai received the Nobel Peace Prize, it was very much augmented with immense gusto by the western medias. Now, undeniably it satisfies all the ‘news values’ and makes it a hype considering the relevance of the news. But,at the same time,is it also a tactical approach with a conspiring manipulative agenda? The reason for such a question is certainly because of the contradictions in the decisions made by the nominating committees. Let’s briefly analyze the history and past of the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision making accuracy.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the global icon of non violence and a prominent figure who propagated the core of the notion of ‘peace’ through his own life was rejected five times between the years 1937 and 1948.
Gandhi’s reluctant opposition to the British government for the Indian Independence and the Non-violent strategy are considered to be a laudable and praiseworthy incidents of World Political History by all scholars, historians, philanthropists, politicians and the like. Even the Nobel Committee itself publicly declared its regret for having not considered Gandhi for the Award. If the Nobel Committee recognizes that Gandhi deserved the Prize what were the reasons that refrained it from conferring the award upon him?
Gandhi’s reluctant opposition to the British government for the Indian Independence and the Non-violent strategy are considered to be a laudable and praiseworthy incidents of World Political History by all scholars, historians, philanthropists, politicians and the like. Even the Nobel Committee itself publicly declared its regret for having not considered Gandhi for the Award. If the Nobel Committee recognizes that Gandhi deserved the Prize what were the reasons that refrained it from conferring the award upon him?
The reason for such an omission cannot been established with substantial claims to any documents of sorts but a reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the logical interpretation of Historical facts. Norway and Britain have had a very strong traditional and political bond and a close cultural relationship making it obvious that any decision from their end wouldn't directly or indirectly distress the British elites. That might possibly be one reason for Gandhi not being recognized by the Committee.
An overt question here is: Does it really matter? Geir Lundestad, Secretary of Norwegian Nobel Committee stated,
"The greatest omission in our 106 year history is undoubtedly that Mahatma Gandhi never received the Nobel Peace prize. Gandhi could do without the Nobel Peace prize, whether Nobel committee can do without Gandhi is the question".There are various other examples too that appear dubious and questionable that sprout from the loopholes in the Committee’s decision making.
Returning to Malala’s case, it seems to be the same kind of a shrewd and tactical plot .By putting Malala in the limelight are they indirectly flashing an ethnocentric prejudice against a particularly targeted community? Malala is only 16 years and she has a long way to go. So why an immediate snappy move? Are they providing a prudent podium for the Western Medias to dilute their perceptions and impose it on others for the progress of their own agendas? Why were the U.S activists in Iraq who risked their lives not given the same amount of attention and respect? Why aren’t people like Cindy Sheehan recognized on a global level? Why aren't the activists in Iran and Syria given the same amount of concern? Why does it have to leave loopholes open for criticism always?
These questions that haunt us are yet to be answered… And the answers they provide are yet to be analyzed and interpreted aptly.
Indiawalo..We need to do Gandhigiri.. Really good....
ReplyDeleteHaha right :D Thank you.
Delete