Why was Mahatama Gandhi not given the Nobel Peace Prize ?

Question

You just have to go to http://www.almaz.com/nobel/peace/peace.html and check out how many people you have heard of to have contributed to peace between 1901 and 1948 you will surprised that you may not even have heard of 80% of the guys and I still I guess you must have head of Gandhi and his peace movements

Answer 1

Actually Gandhi was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Nobel committee back in 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1947 and a few days before he was murdered by Ghodse in January 1948 but he never won the Nobelist title and there many reasons to be accounted for this controversy.

Up till 1960, no Nobel Peace Prize was ever awarded to a non-European or non-American. World order and political sensibility was very narrow minded at that time and it could be very much argued that his non-designation as Nobel prize winner was probably biased, if not to say racist.

Gandhi's peace movements back in 1940s was very much a world affair. It brought much sympathy to the Indian cause and encouraged retaliation against British imperialism and imperialism itself. Norway did not want to in anyway provoke British authorities and strain relations with British Crown. So Gandhi could be nominated but could never win.

In 1937, when the Mahatama was nominated, the latter not only enjoyed appreciation for his highly idealistic peace movement but also faced fierce criticism from the committee's adviser, professor Jacob Worm-Müller, who described him as 'an ordinary politician'. Mahatma was also criticized over his ultra-nationalist stance exemplified by his 'Satyagraha' movement in Transvaal, South Africa which was behalf of only the Indian there, not on behalf of the blacks who were ever worse off than the his fellow Indians.

Eight years followed after Gandhi's last nomination in 1939 was was more ceremonious than of recognition. In 1947, when Mahatma was nominated again, this time Nobel Committee's adviser, the historian Jens Arup Seip had a very critical appreciation of Gandhi's contribution to global peace. He underlined Gandhi's political prominence, notably inside conflicts with the Indian National Congress.

But the greatest setback or perhaps, biggest ground for criticism and which severely undermined his chances for the Nobel consecration was the Indian Partition in 1947. His highly political yet pacifist role is still today regarded as utterly controversial. The bloodshed, suffering, injustice and fanaticism that arose from the Indian Partition was one of the worst ever witnessed in world political history. It was a too controversial aspect of Gandhism to left neglected for the Nobel committee.

Another aspect was his 'pro-war' declarations against Pakistan which constantly grabbed headlines back in India. By 'pro-war', I must beg to differ by the phrasal meaning of it. I actually mean Gandhi's reaction to the continued negativism from Pakistan and said in a declaration, published in the The Times, on September 27, 1947, under the headline 'Mr. Gandhi on 'war' with Pakistan': "...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..."

We cannot see how well the committee actually argued in favor of Gandhi in that particular situation.

There was once in 1948 considerations that the Nobel Prize could be awarded posthumously to Gandhi but it went back to forgotten pages of old history books.

Nobel Peace Prize or not, Mahatma Gandhi will be always regarded as the greatest icon of pacifism. The political fact of his philosophy cannot be ignored but must be wholly understood, to precisely appreciate the wonderful philosophy of Gandhism.

Answer 2

The Nobel committee's advisor, Professor Jacob Worm-Müller, who wrote a report on Gandhi, was very critical of the Mahatma.

"He is undoubtedly a good, noble and ascetic person - a prominent man who is deservedly honoured and loved by the masses of India...(But) 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," the evaluator noted, according to the documents made available on the foundation's website.

The advisor pointed out that Gandhi was not consistently pacifist and that he should have known that some of his non-violent campaigns towards the British would degenerate into violence and terror.

Moreover, Worm-Müller expressed doubts whether Gandhi's ideals were 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."

Answer 3

The Nobel prize is a joke in this age it is given to failures and Liberals exclusively.

Answer 4

Since most of the early award winners were westerners or of western descent its probally the simplist answer....racism. Up until Albert John Lutuli, who was from Africa, the winners are from western countries and are white.

Answer 5

The omission of Mahatma Gandhi has been rather widely reported, which includes in public statements via various individuals of the Nobel Committee.[29][30] The Committee has shown that Gandhi became into nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, ultimately, some days formerly his dying in January 1948.[31] The omission has been publicly regretted via later individuals of the Nobel Committee.[29] In 1948, the year of Gandhi's dying, the Nobel Committee declined to award a prize on the floor that "there became into no ideal living candidate" that year. Later, whilst the Dalai Lama became into presented the Peace Prize in 1989, the chairman of the committee reported that this became into "partly a tribute to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi".[32]

Answer 6

Because it is not peacefull to starve yourself to achieve peace

Answer 7

because his followers would have created a bigger peace then

Answer 8

It is because he was a bit of a looney.