2006-07-12 03:42:35 · 9 answers · asked by SUNIL Raj 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Definitely I feel he was worthy and deserving of the prize. In my opinion Mahatma Gandhi was a great reformer who had played a pivotal role in India's Freedom Movement against the Britishers. His stress on truth, non-violence, using swadeshi clothes made by khadi etc. really deserve praise. He was the inspiration for Martin Luther King, the famous black civil rights activist of america. He established several papers like young india etc to awaken people and fight against the britishers. He also did a lot for the "untouchables" whom he called"harijans" i.e hari ke jan i.e people of the lord. He lived in their colonies and even swept their streets. He advocated inter-caste marraiges and played an important role in attracting women towards the national movement. As far as the prize goes , i think just because you win a nobel doesn't(always) mean that you are great. Many people who did great work to promote peace and harmony haven't received the peace prize. But that doesn't mean that the prize is not important. The thing is that we shouldn't judge a person by the number of awards he has received but by his character and how he became an agent of change. Gandhiji himself said that "be the change that you want to see in the world". The Noble Committee is said to have "said" that he was not "non-violent" enough to receive the coveted prize. Anyways we shouldn't worry about whether or not he received the prize as what was more important was that he gave us freedom. Even the U.S had released a stamp referring to him as a "champion of liberty". So my dear friend don't worry that he hasn't recieved the prize, he is still one of the three great personalities of the 20th century as described by the "TIME" Magazine, the others being Roosevelt and Einstein.
2006-07-13 03:57:47 · answer #1 · answered by geoff 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
First of all to correct you, it is The Nobel Peace Prize, named after the Norwegian Dynamite master Dr. Alfred Nobel. I think that the Nobel Peace Prize committee awards post humous awards, I am not sure though. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a great human rights activist who propelled human rights and independence in two nations i.e South Africa and India. All his works earned him his favourite nickname: MAHATMA meaning Great soul. If the Nobel award can be awarded post-humously, then Mahatma Gandhi should earn it, he really deserves it. Just as the slain USA President Sir Abraham Lincoln should get one for abolishing the dreaded Slave Trade.
2006-07-12 06:39:05 · answer #2 · answered by nasnoela 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was not awarded the nobel peace prize because he was the enemy of the British Empire and the Britishers did not want him to get a Nobel Peace Prize. They realized their mistake later though as the Nobel Foundation did not award anyone the Nobel Peace Prize in 1948 (the year Mahatma Gandhi died) stating that " nobody alive was suitable for the award " .
2006-07-12 03:51:08 · answer #3 · answered by Sufi 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He replaced into nominated 5 situations finished. the first time (1937) he replaced into rejected as a results of blended statements being made about him and his political practices. the second one (1938) and nil.33 situations (1939) were given an same effect. The fourth time (1947) replaced into rejected because of the continuing themes with the partitioning of India into 2 countries and the issue with that. The fifth time (1948), the alternative for who ought to easily accept the award replaced into made purely 2 days after Ghandi's lack of life. because he had no heirs, no belongings, and replaced into area no no corporation, there replaced into no position to deliver the prize and the money. the issue replaced into delivered earlier the criminal branch of the Nobel Committee, and they keen to not provide an award that year, because "there replaced into no acceptable residing candidate."
2016-11-01 22:07:49 · answer #4 · answered by harib 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sadly gandhi was assasinated b4 d nobel folks realised tht he more than deserved the nobel peace price. but he does not bother abt prizes, he cares for country,people n his cause. i'm sorely upset even now tht such a great man didn't get tht award but it doesn't matter now anyway..
2006-07-12 03:59:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He DID NOT deserve AT ALL nobel prize for peace.He was ALONE responsible for partition & bloody violance against Hindus & Sikhs.He WAS A MURDERER OF HINDUS.India is paying prize for his STUPID 'non violance' even today in form of Kashmir!
2006-07-12 06:41:41 · answer #6 · answered by babloo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he's totally awesome and too cool to care about winning an award. although he deserved it fifty times over.
2006-07-12 03:46:16 · answer #7 · answered by cookie_monster 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You only know what was thaught in school
2006-07-12 03:46:55 · answer #8 · answered by StraightFromTheHorse'sMouth 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
who beat him that year?
2006-07-12 03:46:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋