Mahatma Gandhi & Nobel Peace Prize

M

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?

Isn't it already too late to wonder about it?

And anyways they don't award the Nobel to dead people. So no point discussing it now.

mind021 said:
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?

Nobel prize is too tiny for him.

tell me without checking who won nobel prize in 1993 for peace. You don't know and you have to do googling to get the name.

Ask a 5yr old kid who Father of Nation is. You get the answer instantly. That's more important.

Nobel prize is for recognition and Gandhi is well above it.

I would say, why can't India start Gandhi peace prize and make it in level with Nobel prizes

@desiibond

It is already there. Have a look - Gandhi Peace Prize

I also agree with you, hes much above the Nobel.

^^damn. why isn't govt. promoting it?

M

din said:
@desiibond

It is already there. Have a look - Gandhi Peace Prize

I also agree with you, hes much above the Nobel.

i too agree with desibond
and hey..i never knew there was something called "Gandhi peace prize"

government should popularize it

Why care for some friggin prize ?

why do u need to give some 1 a peace prize, is it a kind of stamp of approval that he was a promoter of peace

M

iMav said:
why do u need to give some 1 a peace prize, is it a kind of stamp of approval that he was a promoter of peace

its not a "stamp of approval"
but a "sense of recognition" for someone's hard work

L

^^ agree with you. +1.
and promoting it will create more awareness and possibly instill the younger generations too!

mind021 said:
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?

i read about this a few months back..... after being nominated several times, he was going to be given the noble prize in 1948. but before that he was assassinated. he wasnt given the prize posthumously either. so he never received it........

1948 [no award] May have been awarded to Mohandas Gandhi had he not been assassinated.

but IMHO it was the british who benefited more from gandhi than the indians..... because if he hadnt come up with "satyagraha", indians would have certainly taken up arms. there would been violent bloody battles. certainly scores of indians would have lost their lives, but even with guns, how long would "one lakh" british have lasted???

and i also feel india got "total independence" only because WW2, badly destroyed the british economy. they did not have enough resources to run a country the size of india. (plus they had already sucked india dry

)

M

confused said:
and i also feel india got "total independence" only because WW2, badly destroyed the british economy. they did not have enough resources to run a country the size of india. (plus they had already sucked india dry)

yup it may be more because of WW2 that we got independence than gandhiji's peaceful war against the british rule
but dear friend,,,our country was not totally sucked dry
surely it was cut open so dat blood may keep flowing out of it for generations to come

there were still lots of resources left...not to forget the courage and capabilities of us which has made india almost as important for world as america
and not only that....see what importance england has in front of we indians???

we are dominating the world(after america) with china being following us
and dis i attribute much to self confidence boosted in us by gandhiji

mind021 said:
our country was not totally sucked dry
surely it was cut open so dat blood may keep flowing out of it for generations to come

there were still lots of resources left...not to forget the courage and capabilities of us which has made india almost as important for world as america

i think the british were looking for things in india which they could sell, for a profit. manpower was not something they reqd.

mind021 said:
see what importance england has in front of we indians???

i dont quite get what ur saying. could u pls rephraze?

mind021 said:
we are dominating the world(after america) with china being following us
and dis i attribute much to self confidence boosted in us by gandhiji

"dominating the world"??? dont you ever think that india has,
1>ever growing pop (atleast china has birth control measures, although i agree they are harsh)
2>of which 25% is under poverty

just bcoz top of the crop (about 10%) is influential, i dont think we can say we are dominating the world.

and these few indian ppl are influential not bcoz of, "self confidence boosted in us by gandhiji". But bcoz they know how to do business.

dont get carried away by the media hype, india shining, incredible india, etc. Abhi toh shuravaat hai, bahut kaam baaki hai!!!

M

confused said:
dont get carried away by the media hype, india shining, incredible india, etc. Abhi toh shuravaat hai, bahut kaam baaki hai!!!

yes...abhi to suruwaat hai
abhi bahut aagey jaana hai

lekin kya suruaat achhi nahin hai?
british left...but only after giving us a permanent problem...PARTITION.
this is problem which pops up time and again...n hampers our long cherished desire to develop peacefully