digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Mahatma Gandhi - Why He Didn't Win the Nobel Peace Prize

nobelprize.org — Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) has become the strongest symbol of non-violence in the 20th century. It is widely held – in retrospect – that the Indian national leader should have been the very man to be selected for the Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated several times, but was never awarded the prize. Why?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • IrishJoe, on 10/24/2007, -9/+128One word: Racism. During his life, Gandhi wasn't white enough for the Nobel committee. "Up to 1960, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded almost exclusively to Europeans and Americans. In retrospect, the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee may seem too narrow." He had dark skin, lived in India and was a Hindu. The Nobel committee of the 1940s couldn't see past that.
    • 7Mystery, on 10/17/2007, -5/+18 Well said, Joe.
      • crazydiode, on 10/17/2007, -1/+25award to Nelson Mandela, Ann Sun Syu Kui, the Dalai Lama is in fact award to the Mahatma. That is indeed the Mahatma's legacy. I believe that is what he would have been proud of...
      • sanman, on 10/16/2007, -2/+4Gandhi was just a useful mascot for every group who felt angry at a supreme victorious Britain emerging from WW2. Germans, French, Italians, Irish, communists, leftists of all shapes and sizes -- who didn't have it in for the gloating victor of WW2?
        • potp, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1i didnt know that WW2 started in 1920's. the period in which Gandhi started his struggle in India.Get your history facts right retard.
    • reddevil3, on 10/18/2007, -25/+47Gandhi himself was a racist towards black people when he was in South Africa.
      • dravidian, on 10/17/2007, -3/+13So? He grew out of it. When he was in SA he was a young brainwashed brown guy brought up by the colonial system to dislike himself and other colored people, and love everything British.
        • ahoy, on 10/17/2007, -7/+5Did he really grow out of it? I was never shown... I was however shown proof of the racist essays he wrote etc. When was he in SA? Was this after he shaved his head etc?
          • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9When he was a lawyer who wore fine European suits. i.e., before he did his whole nonviolent resistance thing.
      • enchantedsky, on 10/17/2007, -6/+6Gandhi spoke the truth: Indians are harder working than Blacks. Look at Blacks today, live in ghettos, listen to hip hop music, robbing people, live off the government welfare checks, lazy, etc. An average Indian runs a convenience store, drives a taxi cab, works in IT, is a computer scientist or is an engineer ---- but then comes home to a posh suburban homes. They are a model minority just like their Eastern Asian counterparts. Blacks always love to claim that the Whites are always against them, when in reality, why are other minorities doing so much better in the United States?

        Why is it racist to point out the truth?
        • redxxx, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1At least they're not Mexicans, right?
        • neodorian, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2"Why is it racist to point out the truth?"

          Because you are describing specific people of African descent and applying your own limited experience to an entire, much larger group of individuals in order to discriminate against them. That is the very definition of racism. You need to get out more if you think that this stereotype applies to all people who would identify as black and is somehow caused by them being black as opposed to Indian or whatever.
      • known, on 10/28/2007, -2/+1 A. As per Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India,
        Hinduism is the only religion in the world that intrinsically
        still preaches and promotes Racism aka Casteism.
        http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/13/india15303. ...

        B. Hindu parents covertly teach their children to coerce
        other children as per caste hierarchies.
        http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2051 ...
      • known, on 10/28/2007, -2/+1 A. As per Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India,
        Hinduism is the only religion in the world that intrinsically
        still preaches and promotes Racism aka Casteism.
        http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/13/india15303. ...

        B. Hindu parents covertly teach their children to coerce
        other children as per caste hierarchies.
        http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2051 ...
    • jmpeagle, on 10/16/2007, -0/+20no, they just didn't want to piss of the Brits who he was leading a non-violent rebellion against
    • sethosayher, on 10/16/2007, -2/+5Didn't Tagore win a Nobel Peace Prize in the early 1900s?
    • bluechips23, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3Well said Joe. In other words, the Nobel Committee guys during those period were simply douchebags.
    • Sabretou, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3If I know Gandhi correctly, he would have chastised the Committee for making stupid awards for people. "Go do something productive!" he would have yelled.
    • alexkorova, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2Norwegian Nobel Prize committee is not the same as the regular Swedish Nobel Prize committee.
  • jonolan, on 10/17/2007, -2/+57It was politically expedient. Norway has never wanted to piss off Britain by awarding the prize to the godfather of Indian independence.
  • BassMastr, on 10/16/2007, -21/+10They tried to call him twice, but he was Gandhi...

    Soooo glad the Internet is anonymous.
  • Andy.D, on 10/18/2007, -1/+13Great find. I've wondered about this myself, but the explanation makes perfect sense.
    • dopplerdog, on 10/16/2007, -1/+10If they can give it to war criminals like Kissinger, then it's probably best they didn't give it to Gandhi.
    • 2square, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1what explanation?
  • slashbot, on 10/18/2007, -19/+47Makes you wonder when Ghandi doesnt get it but Arafat and Al Gore do.

    Nice political prize this has become
    • Chestnutridge, on 10/16/2007, -4/+10There was always a political aspect to the choices. Gandhi was quite controversial. Churchill called him a "half naked fakir" and never accepted the idea that the Indians were up to ruling themselves. When Teddy Roosevelt got it for mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese war many people objected because of his bellicose personality. Also, remember Arafat didn't get it alone but with Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister for the Oslo peace deal. Just as Kissinger and the North Vietnamese Foreign Minister won it for ending the Vietnam War. Neither peace deal worked out, but I guess they were given the award for trying despite very questionable records for all concerned.
      • deadnewton, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1why do some countries try to "fix" other countries where they themselves are screwing up...look at the castrated democrats sitting with their tail between the legs....
    • ZenMojo, on 10/16/2007, -12/+12You're comparing Al Gore to Yasser Arafat? What the ***** is wrong with you?
      • slashbot, on 10/16/2007, -8/+14You're right. Arafat probably deserved it more.
        • theprogram4, on 10/16/2007, -3/+4i almost pissed my pants laughing at that one!
    • SharkyTech, on 10/16/2007, -8/+6Al Gore deserved it far more than some fundie fraud like Mother Teresa. She won it for peace and then proceeded to prove what a mad fundie she was by declaring at the presentation that abortion was the greatest threat to world peace. Most, if not all of the money donated to her by westerners was used to fund the establishment of more fundamental convents around the world as well as her own high-quality medical care, the hospital hardly saw a cent.
    • SuperMoses, on 10/16/2007, -1/+8"but Arafat and Al Gore"

      Ya, way to group Al Gore with Arafat. At least Al Gore has the scientific consensus to back him up. Arafat won it because they were hoping that him and Rabin were going to come to a peace agreement. Unfortunately Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli shortly after the Oslo Accords.
      • Pake, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2"At least Al Gore has the scientific consensus to back him up."
        I wouldn't exactly say that entirely. True scientist are skeptical and while majority believe in global warming, many will argue Al Gore over the causes and the statistics that Al Gore tries to pass off as facts.
        • SuperMoses, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4The premise of the documentary was that current global warming is largely due to human activity. This perfectly agrees with the scientific consensus. This is also what people claim Al Gore "made up"... despite the fact that he didn't "make it up". The science was there first, Al Gore just used the science. Did he present some things inaccurately? I don't know, I'm not a scientist..what I do know is that his conclusion is no different than the conclusion of the scientific consensus.
        • wrongonce, on 10/17/2007, -3/+1AGW is not a consensus amongst scientists.
          Consensus is not proof of anything.
          The concept of a "consensus" came about as a result of a person measuring how many articles mentioned GW and %age of these that sit on the side of AGW. One would have to accept that publications on GW would therefore be a statistically acceptable way of measuring all scientists' view on GW. Not even close.

          He did present some things inaccurately.

          His conclusion is different even from the IPCC report.
          • SuperMoses, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Al Gore's conclusion that current global warming is largely due to human activity is the scientific consensus. The consensus did NOT come about as a result of "a person" measuring how many articles mentioned GW... the majority of scientific societies have put out their statements on global warming after looking at all of the evidence. Consensus is when the large majority of scientists agree on something based on the facts.
        • Kitoea, on 10/16/2007, -0/+0Why would scientists' personal views matter more than the % of articles that found scientific evidence for global warming? This isn't a popularity contest - it doesn't matter what scientists like, or even what they think, but what the overall evidence supports when the scientific method is applied properly (hence peer-reviewed articles, to weed out the ones that plainly violate the rules - faulty methods, invalid measurements, lack of control, etc).
          • SuperMoses, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1That is how the consensus is formed. Based on thousands of peer-reviewed research papers. Not on scientists' "personal view".
  • neogarfield, on 10/17/2007, -2/+32Excellently put CrazyDiode!

    But you might want to know that Gandhi was never truly for the partition of India. He wanted Jinnah as the President of a united India, but was overruled by the other members of the Congress.

    And I believe that Gandhi does not require a Nobel. His contributions are world renown, and why should there be something as silly as a Nobel prize to seemingly "ascertain" his goodness? Gandhiji is much much more than that.

    They say he worked only for India. But what about his valuable messages? What about the immeasurable advice about non-violence which is practiced throughout the world today, and saving many lifes, and destruction? The reports have missing spaces, which have to be filled in by ideas already said by IrishJoe and Jonolan - racism, fear of Britain, and so on...
  • reeder, on 10/16/2007, -5/+39It's never too late, Nobel Prize committee.
    • Chestnutridge, on 10/16/2007, -2/+27Yes it is. The rules, as devised by Alfred Nobel, specify that the winner must be living.
      • akkibaba, on 10/16/2007, -6/+4You're wrong. From the Nobel Foundation website :
        "From 1974, the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation have stipulated that a prize cannot be awarded posthumously, unless death has occurred after the announcement of the Nobel Prize."

        They had plenty of time from the 1948 to 1974 to award a posthumous Nobel prize to Gandhi.
        • apsk121, on 10/16/2007, -8/+4He died in 1948? How did they have time until 1974 then?
        • akkibaba, on 10/16/2007, -0/+7Because the "No Posthumous Awards" clause was put in only in 1974. Did you not read my post?
  • FreakyD, on 10/17/2007, -16/+3That reminds me, I'm hungry
  • jeanette3654, on 10/16/2007, -3/+8Because he was for real? It seems you have to be a lying,bloodsoaked,NWO operative to win(see recent "winners") Arafat, Kissinger etc. Now they seem to give it to anything that stands still long enough.
  • Bartboy919, on 10/16/2007, -6/+9CAUSE HE DIED! http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/ ...
    • insanepandas, on 10/16/2007, -2/+11Yep. He was nominated several times and would have most likely have won it eventually. But... he was assassinated and the Nobel Prize isn't awarded posthumously. It's not a conspiracy, get over it.
    • bsdfree, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2Why can't it be awarded posthumously? Just because it hasn't before, it doesn't mean it shouldn't ever. If there were to be an exception, I can't think of anyone more suitable than Mahatma Gandhi. Awarding it now won't bring me to respect the Nobel Peace Prize, but it will certainly will bring a little more respect.
      In any case, though, it doesn't really matter - no prize can augment or lessen Gandhi's great contributions to the world.
  • detokaal, on 10/16/2007, -8/+18He wasn't the front man for a left-leaning political view point - all he did was promote peace.
  • markperia, on 10/17/2007, -0/+15He doesn't need a prize to validate his contributions to the world. The lessons he gave us in life still lives on after his death. No "peace" prize can truly substantiate that.
  • graviplana, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2I really enjoyed this post. Dugg.
  • CheapDigWannbe, on 10/17/2007, -6/+10Don't get so pissy, looking at recent events it seems that Novel Prize is no longer worth a rat ass.
    • mllawso, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1Yeah, I know what you mean. Every windows workstation these days has it installed.
  • spartacus51, on 10/16/2007, -1/+0Because it just wouldn't have been fair to give a guy on a hunger strike $1m. All the Kobe beef and Lobster you could ever want, and you can't eat it? :(
    • foodbar, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0Because, of course, Kobe beef and Lobster are all you can buy with a million dollars. You can't make a million sets of shoes, for example.
  • InkyHLV, on 10/16/2007, -1/+5History is full of people who don't get the recognition they deserve. Nobel Peace Prize or not he is still an amazing man who proved that an organized, peaceful resistance was an effective alternative to a bloody revolution. Ghandi has a great man and just because Al Gore got a Nobel Prize and Ghandi didn't doesn't change the fact that I admire Ghandi more and hold his work in much regard then that of Al Gore's.
  • 955701, on 10/18/2007, -4/+16Because it would have made the award celebration dinner party awkward.
    *ducks*

    "soup sir?", "no thank you"
    "appetizer, sir?", "no thank you"
    "salad?", "no thank you"
    "beef?", "no thank you"
    "bread stick?", "no thank you"
    "would you like me to eat your food, then breath in your general direction?", "no thank you"
  • RxDaniel, on 10/17/2007, -4/+26His mistake is that he actually went out and did stuff to help people when in reality he should have made a movie about other people trying to help people.
  • LinuxGalore, on 10/16/2007, -10/+5Ghandi was a nationalist not a lets all be nice to each other pro-peace leader. Yes he promoted the use of none violence to change society but most people would not know he was a pretty nasty racist unless they did a bit of reading. The question should be "do you want a racist to get a Nobel prize for promoting non violent nationalism".
    • badqat, on 10/16/2007, -3/+0Sort of like asking "do you want a fat-assed, private jet flying, huge house heating and cooling, do as I say but not as I do hypocrite to get the Nobel peace prize for promoting a false science that has nothing to do with peace?"

      Whoops...apparently, they did!
    • digudown, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1references please..
      • Randlemen, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1He was racist against blacks. Its a fact that is never talked about look it up.
  • CreateSomeNoise, on 10/16/2007, -11/+2Because Gore offered and paid more for it. Plus, he donated some "carbon credits" to himself.
    • badqat, on 10/16/2007, -2/+0Ha! Gore is really going for the Béla Lugosi look these days. I suppose that helps him overcome some of the shame of his swollen, red baboon ass,
  • bluebirdgm, on 10/16/2007, -2/+7Actually, I hear it's because he punched out a guy in senior year of high school for calling his mom fat.
  • HanSolo69, on 10/16/2007, -3/+3Hey, as long as publicly humiliating your wife by having a very open affair with another woman doesn't stop you from getting the Nobel Peace PRize then there's no reason he shouldn't have gotten it.
  • iansides, on 10/17/2007, -5/+10Al Gore won the Nobel peace prize, and Gandhi didn't. That should tell you right there what that award is worth. ABSO-*****-LUTELY NOTHING.
  • oriondr, on 10/16/2007, -3/+4He was expected to win the year he died, but was shot by a Hindu fanatic.
    • Comatose51, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1The year he was shot, no Nobel Peace Prizes were awarded. It's pretty much implied that he was that year's winner had he not been shot.
  • punwin, on 10/18/2007, -10/+4Gandhi was also racist to africans.

    the more you know!
    • kkapoor, on 10/16/2007, -2/+1Everybody was racist towards Africans then. Everybody is either racist or indifferent towards Africans today.
      I still know!
    • digudown, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1any references? I have not heard of this before..
  • infra172, on 10/16/2007, -10/+3He told the British to surrender to Hitler. ***** Gandhi.
  • zdiggler, on 10/17/2007, -5/+2because he didn't invented the internet?
    • badqat, on 10/17/2007, -3/+0Perhaps he was getting ready to "take the initiative to create the Internet" when he died...
  • whatthefu, on 10/16/2007, -2/+2The Nobel Prize isn't as great as it's cut out to be. Yes, it has a name for itself, but no one really digs deeper.
  • shutupanddie, on 10/16/2007, -3/+2do you think red assed baboons are insecure about how red and huge their asses are?
    • badqat, on 10/16/2007, -2/+1Only if they haven't purchased enough carbon credits...
  • d00by666, on 10/17/2007, -3/+11I think we should be glad he did not win the Nobel peace prize!

    Why do I say that? Because when people like Arafat, Kissinger and lesser people like gore are awarded the prize, it makes one wonder about the credibility of the prize.

    I think the Nobel peace prize needed Gandhi more than the other way round.

    Gandhi had his faults. But, he is far too great a soul to need something as trivial as some prize.

    His legacy needs no crutches like these silly awards.

    Peace all.
  • deadnewton, on 10/16/2007, -6/+4he is called Mahatma Gandhi. when not using the prefix Mahatma...he is generally referred to as not simply Gandhi but as Gandhiji.
    the ji suffix shows respect. and the name is not pronounced as Gaandi...it should be Gaandhi..
  • deadnewton, on 10/18/2007, -3/+3***** committees ignore talent outside US and europe. all the rest of the 3rd and 4th world get miss universe, miss world and *****...to promote beauty products....
  • donkeySays, on 10/16/2007, -4/+3He didn't cos he invented the John Lenon glasses.
  • nightwing2000, on 10/18/2007, -5/+8Don't forget Winston Churchill's assessment of Gandhi as a weasly little hypocrite.

    Winston said something like "He claims to be for peace and non-violence; but he knows very well, every time he goes on a hunger strike or gets himself arrested, there is riot and mayhem in the street. He's not for non-violence. He just knows how to make the violence look like Britain's fault. He knows exactly what he is doing and the consequences."
    • pintomp3, on 10/18/2007, -1/+7considering britians brutal rule, it was britains fault. churchill was a flagrant racist.
  • mishaco, on 10/16/2007, -4/+3because he doomed his nation to a second rate version of socialist economy that has starved millions .
    who wants a nobel prize anyway ? they gave one to kissinger for stringing out the vietnam war .
  • dshah, on 10/16/2007, -2/+1aaah, he was above it all - glad his name doesn't get listed along with arafat, kissinger et al.
  • dkern, on 10/16/2007, -2/+1Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, Yassir Arafat and Al Gore! The Nobel Prize is not noble and nor is it peaceful. Gandhi was a fraudulent PR whore for peace- a true hypocrite- yet he was far more worthy of the previously mentioned prize as he was the lessor of all those evils individually and/or collectively. This is not mind boggling at all- just another example of a colossal waste of time and the sadness of human sincerity for peace.
  • zombo, on 10/16/2007, -3/+1http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
  • lilianatota, on 10/16/2007, -1/+0Mohandas Gandhi had many admirers, both in India and abroad.
    Why Dalai Lama was awarded the nobel peace prize in 1989
  • tehstyles, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2Gandi deserves a noble peace prize? Haven't you guys seen the sequel?
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=QfvLcozLwtE
  • eyalfein, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Mahatma Gandhi does not need the Nobel prize.
    The fact that he didn't receive it puts stain on the Nobel Committee, but does not matter for the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi.
  • djdedeo0, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1The Nobel Peace Prize committee consists of a whooping 5 members. What they have to say is insignificant. Who cares really?
  • mjoshi, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Well it would be dishonour to his teachings and his values by awarding him Nobel Peace Prize keeping into mind league of people that got this prize. It also shows that some of this prizes are irrelevant when it comes to real life values and people who live and die by those values instead of some current generation practical politicians.
  • Raddix, on 10/16/2007, -2/+0Rational explanations have no place on the interwebs. I saw this the other day, and since it was on the web, it must be true:
    UnNews: Gandhi posthumously accused of mass genocide:
    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Gandhi_posthum ...
  • mjreddy, on 10/17/2007, -2/+0Gandhi would have added lustre to the Nobel prize rather than the other way around. The loss is to the Nobel prize. Anyway, it is rather ridiculous that earnings from sale of explosives (dynamite) funds a "peace" prize.
    • Xondar, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Then you completely fail to understand the aim of the man who invented that dynamite, Alfred Nobel.
      • mjreddy, on 10/20/2007, -0/+0So, what was the aim of dynamite which has killed many thousands of people?
  • Splutterbug, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Great article, this is what Digg should be about, not top 10 lists
  • mre5765, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Two reasons:

    - He never made a movie about himself like Algore did

    - His movement ultimately failed to support Britain in the war on Nazis and thus was considered by some to be morally ambiguous.
  • pornosteve, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3he was a raceist him self to blacks
  • sgmenon, on 10/16/2007, -0/+0Well I did hear that, When someone asked Mahatma Gandhi what do you think of Western Civilization, he promptly replied, "It would be a good idea!" Nobel or not.. I think he was a great man.. well.. I am not really sure he would have been proud to stand up on the stage and collect it. Nobel isn't good enough for him.. and yeah he has a peace prize in his name.. how ironic.. but of course from the government of India..
  • polybot, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2The British would have ceded India in a fairly short time regardless in a relatively gradual and peaceful process.
    Ghandhi wanted to fast track this process unnecessarily causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the suffering of millions and a current nuclear stand-off by two hostile states.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.