October 11, 2009

Plato & Aristotle Situation

A commonly used comparison that human use to show that the student could turn out to be greater than the teacher himself is Plato and Aristotle where one turned out to be greater than the other. But now, there is another situation where we have seen almost the same in the 1900s, in the 20th century. Mahatma Gandhi, who's name was actually Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi but was given for his accomplishments, the title "Mahatma" or the Great Soul.

This post was inspired from the Foreign Policy's article here. They listed ten people who deserves to win the Nobel Peace Prize but never got it. One was Mahatma Gandhi, who was a spiritual and a political leaver of the Indian independence movement where he represented the nonviolent method. He played a leading role in the Indian National Congress in the 1921 and many social and economical discriminations were stopped which are all included in his accomplishments. He took the "untouchables" to a greater level, a balancing unity of the Hindus and the Muslims were all formed from his times.

Gandhi has made it to the list three times and still was not able to receive the prize. I looked up on Nobel committee's own site to see a report on the issue that I have been writing about. The question that they suggest is: Was the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee too narrow? Were
the committee members unable to appreciate the struggle for
freedom among non-European peoples?" Or were the Norwegian
committee members perhaps afraid to make a prize award which
might be detrimental to the relationship between their own
country and Great Britain?

His nomination of five times from 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and on 1948 all were taken time when Dalai Lama was nominated in 1989. If Dalai Lama could have received this, why not Gandhi? The committee had never given why they had not given it to him and recently, the sources which might shed some light on the matter were unavailable. His turth force of stayaghar was idealistic to many that still follow. in 1937, Ole Colbjørnsen (Labour Party) nominated Gandhi for the Peace Prize. The explaination that came for that was "He is, undoubtedly, a good,
noble and ascetic person – a prominent man who is
deservedly honoured and loved by the masses of India." They also wrote that the "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."

Many noted that he was much more of an Indian nationalist. Some noted that his ideas were only for the Indians not the universal people. Then the next nomination counted him as how he would handle the Indian politics. They noted that his stuggle in South Africa was also for only the Indians. The Norwegian Nobel Committee did not want to give in the Nobel to Gandhi for that year. They noted him for the "greatest living exponent of the modral order". At this time, the Nobel committee told about the other conflicts between the Muslims and the Hindus. It was required that they suggest a greater mean for this conflict for him to receive the Peace Prize. Christian conservatives suggested that it was not Gandhi who should receive the Peace Prize. They found him convience a "war method" that he was saying.

The article noted "Up to 1960, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded almost exclusively to Europeans and Americans" The way to get the prize is also too narrow. The committee's rule to play with Gandhi for his win even had an impact that in 1947, they had not given the prize at all. Mahatma Gandhi's place was left open not giving it to anyone.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment