2006-09-01 05:55:09 · 5 answers · asked by evelyn 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
It wasn't his time...
2006-09-05 02:45:53 · answer #1 · answered by exbuilder 7 · 9⤊ 0⤋
No reason
Long History
There are over one hundred peace prizes in the world. The exact number depends on how one chooses to define the term "peace". None of the other peace prizes are as well known as the Nobel Peace Prize.
Time and again, as Secretary to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, I am asked the same question by representatives of the other awards: why does "everyone" know about the Nobel Peace Prize, while so few know about their prize? Or, to put it differently: why does the world take such an interest in what a committee of five internationally relatively unknown Norwegians may decide about who has done most for peace?
I think there are three or four reasons why the Nobel Peace Prize enjoys such prestige. For one thing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, known until 1977 as the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Parliament (Storting), has been engaged in this task ever since 1901.
In that year the Peace Prize, like the other Nobel Prizes, was awarded for the first time. It was shared between Henri Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross, and Frédéric Passy, the leading international pacifist. Even that first award was controversial, with criticism going in two directions. Passy's supporters were critical of Dunant. Admittedly the Red Cross alleviated suffering once war had broken out, but what did the organization actually do to prevent war? Those who favoured Dunant objected to his having to share the prize with Passy. Critical questions of this kind have come from various sources through the years but, unlike nearly all the other peace prizes, the Nobel Peace Prize is firmly established, work on it having gone on continuously since 1901.
2006-09-01 05:59:32 · answer #2 · answered by god knows and sees else Yahoo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Someone else got more votes every year. Why did the ambassador of hate Yassir Arafat win?
2006-09-01 06:02:15 · answer #3 · answered by Sharon C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), the greatest icon of non-violence, was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five times, even posthumously in 1948, as revealed by the diaries of former members and chairpersons of the Nobel Committee reveal.
In fact, when the fifth nomination got mired in technicalities as there was no precedent of giving away the award posthumously, the Commmittee took the unusual step of not awarding the Peace Prize for anyone.
The entries in the diaries make startling revelations regarding the thinking of the Nobel Committee on awarding the Prize to Gandhi. One such fact is that in 1947, he was not considered because he was a ''patriot''.
Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on January 30, 1948, two days before the closing date for Nobel Peace Prize nominations. The committee got six nominations in favour of Gandhi, but the matter got entangled in the technicalities as to whether the Prize can be given posthumously or not. That year the Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded to anybody with the official statement that, "there was no suitable living candidate".
Gandhiji personified non-violence in the twentieth century and was the most natural choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. But, still the Nobel Peace Prize eluded him. Many questions have been raised on the issue, but there have been no convincing answers.
Was the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee too narrow? Was the committee unable to appreciate and take cognisance of the struggle for freedom among non-European people? Or were the Norwegian committee members perhaps afraid to award the Prize, which might be detrimental to the relationship between their country and Great Britain, at that time?
Gandhi was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, lastly, a few days before he was assassinated in January 1948. The omission has been publicly regretted by later members of the Nobel committee, when the Dalai Lama was awarded the Peace Prize in 1989. The chairman of the committee said this was "in part a tribute to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi".
Oyvind Tonnesson, Peace Editor, Nobel e-Museum on the official website of the Nobel committee, has mentioned that according to the Nobel Constitution, under certain circumstances, the Nobel Prize can be awarded posthumously.
However, vague reasons were given in the case of Gandhi, that he did not belong to an organisation and that he left no property behind and no will, and as such who should receive the prize money?
According to the web-site article, the director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, August Schou, sought the opinion of Swedish prize awarding institutions in case Gandhi was awarded posthumously. The answers were negative.
Posthumous awards, they thought, should not take place unless the laureate died after the committee's decision had been made.
"Friends of India" associations in Europe and the US at that time were advocates of Gandhi's name for the Nobel. In 1937, a member of the Norwegian Parliament Ole Colbjornsen (Labour Party), nominated Gandhi for that year's Nobel Peace Prize.
However, the Committee's advisor, Professor Jacob Worm-Muller, wrote a rather critical report on Gandhi. He admired Gandhi as a person but was critical of him as a statesman.
He wrote, "He is, undoubtedly, a noble and ascetic person - a prominent man who is deservedly honoured and loved by the masses of India...", adding that there were, however, "sharp turns in his policies, which can hardly be satisfactorily explained by his followers... He is a freedom fighter and a dictator, an idealist and a nationalist. He is frequently a Christ, but then, suddenly, an ordinary politician."
Gandhi had many critics in the international peace movement. The Nobel Committee adviser referred to these critics in maintaining that he was not consistently pacifist, that he should have known that one of his non-violent campaigns towards the British would degenerate into violence and terror.
This was something that had happened during the first Non-Cooperation Campaign in 1920-1921, for instance, when a crowd in Chauri Chaura, the united provinces, attacked a police station, killed many of the policemen and then set the station afire.
In his report, Prof. Worm-Muller expressed his doubts as to whether Gandhi's ideals were meant to be universal or primarily Indian. "One might say that it is significant that his well-known struggle in South Africa was on behalf of the Indians only, and not of the Blacks whose living conditions were even worse."
In 1947, the nominations of Gandhi came by telegram from India, via the Norwegian foreign office. The nominators were B G Kher, Prime Minister of Bombay, Govind Ballabh Pant, Prime Minister of the United Provinces, and G V Mavalankar, the President of the Indian Legislative Assembly.
The Nobel Committee's advisor, the historian Jens Arup Seip, wrote a new report that is primarily an account of Gandhi's role in Indian political history after 1937.
"The following ten years," Seip wrote, "from 1937 up to 1947, led to the event which for Gandhi and his movement was at the same time the greatest victory and the worst defeat-India's independence and India's partition."
From the diary of committee chairman Gunnar Jahn, it can be inferred that when the members were to make their decision on October 30, 1947, two acting committee members, the Christian conservative Herman Smitt Ingebretsen and the Christian liberal, Christian Oftedal spoke in favour of Gandhi.
One year earlier, they had strongly favoured John Mott, the YMCA leader. It seems, they preferred candidates who could serve as moral and religious symbols in a world threatened by social and ideological conflicts.
However, in 1947 they were not able to convince the three other members. The Labour politician Martin Tranmael was very reluctant to award the prize to Gandhi in the midst of the Indian-Pakistani conflict.
Both Tranmael and Jahn had learnt that, one month earlier, at a prayer meeting, Gandhi had made a statement that indicated that he had given up his consistent rejection of war.
Based on a telegram from Reuters, The Times, on September 27, 1947, under the headline "Mr Gandhi on 'war' with Pakistan" reported, "Mr Gandhi told his prayer meeting that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice...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 had immediately sent a rejoinder that the report was correct, but incomplete. At the meeting he had added that he himself had not changed his mind and that "he had no place in a new order where they wanted an Army, a Navy, an Air Force and what not".
Jahn in his diary quoted himself as saying, "While it is true that he (Gandhi) is the greatest personality among the nominees, plenty of good things could be said about him, we should remember that he is not only an apostle for peace; he is first and foremost a patriot... Moreover, we have to bear in mind that Gandhi is not naive. He is an excellent jurist and a lawyer."
2006-09-01 07:02:33 · answer #4 · answered by Jubei 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was knowing it........................ Ohhh, it is just in the tip of my tongue............... Aeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..................Well, i knowwwwwwwwittt,,,,,, Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Igot it
Who is this Mahatma Gandhi?
2006-09-01 06:01:47 · answer #5 · answered by Faheem 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋