Mr Gandhi and Noble Peace Prize

Why Mr Gandhi a well known pacifist across the globe was not awarded noble prize for peace but so many others who resorted to violence and brought no change in the peace structure of the society taken Mr Obama (most recent and well known), Mr Nelson Mandela, Mr Woodrow Wilson(President of USA during WW1 and founder of League if Nations(his brain child)), Mr Roosevelt(President of US during WW2).

When you look back into the History of the World and particularly into history of world war with respect to America and if you find the reasons why Mr Obama got noble peace price not soon after his accession to the presidency and why Mr Mandela who was the leader of African National Congress led African Revolution against segregation in Violence (Of coarse there is no other way) got noble peace price (He was awarded Bharath Ratna well before that) just by his presidential Humanitarian works. My other way of looking at it is that these are awarded for appeasement than achievements. If you find any solid reason why they have been given Nobel prize for peace except for Mr Wilson for the plan for League of Nations which he thought was necessary to preserve world peace and order. The reason why I am mentioning all these is, why Mr Gandhi who redefined the political structure across the world and been an inspiration to many peace revolutionists was not awarded noble piece for his work?

If you go back in time when the whole world which needed some revolutionary force to fight for freedom adopting the most violent form of communism (that includes African revolution led by Mandela) to over throw regimes and tyrant rule, it is more natural that Indian leaders also getting in touch with it. It can be known from the facts that many national leaders of India visiting Russia, China, Indo-China to learn communists way of life and how to start rebellion to over throw government. Now it has given a serious threat to democracy, peace and security of India in the form of Naxalism  which was another form of communism (which believes that revolution can be achieved by only blood and arms). It has instigated people to resort violence in India through various communism inspired leaders during freedom struggle which lead to the death of many civilian population and British officials. It is the time when Mr Subhash Chandra Bose thought it would be good to fight along the Axis side (Italy, Germany and Japan) to defeat Britain and gain independence. It is the time when it is seriously influencing the young Indians to use threat to get their demands fulfilled (Bhagath Singh). You must have all known what strict communism and Nationalism (Nazi Party, Germany and Japan) has achieved. To this world peace is no instrument of brave but weak and coward. Retaliation is the symbol of bravery by whatever means. If it is still understood in such a crude way, what is the point of knowledge, wisdom and culture we have achieved all along? If revolt in violence is bravery, we find 900 brave souls in 910 provided a perfect reason. Amid this chaos Mr Gandhi who instrument if revolution is passive resistance which makes even the persecuted think about perpetrators and find a right judgement. In his words, a wise slave understanding his cruel master and changing him into something that he himself come to know what his slave really deserves as a person and as a co habitat. He is a strict follower of non violence and he is a vegan for many years who later due to his digestive problems had to take in goat milk as a dietary supplement.

If you look at the critics answer for the reason which didn't allow them to award noble price, in the words of Mr Worm Muller, there are “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.” What is he expecting when one has to manage the process of proceeding of revolution against British Empire directing leaders to follow the peace revolution of passive resistance? Sharp turn of policy might come out of circumstances but he never resorted to violence as a measure for that. When you are bound to your principles you are called a dictator? Mr Worm here might have changed the very definition of dictator or he might have not know that the party he work for is Indian National CONGRESS where mere dictation doesn't work and "Frequently a Christ"? Now he brings up mythical character of peace who told to love and serve and never mentioned how to do it. "Suddenly, an ordinary politician", can anybody be an extraordinary politician all along? it depends on what he thinks as ordinary and extraordinary. Some of Mr Worm's words again "Mr. Gandhi had many critics in the international peace movement… He 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.” This statement is given with respect to the British Empire. His non violence methods indeed culminated in violence like in Chauri Chaura where British Police got killed and he immediately suspended his moment (Non-cooperation Movement 1920) with deep resentment on what has happened even thought that non-cooperation was on great heights by then. That is his strict resolve on following non-violence. This got so much opposition from his mates and other leaders and abused him for being such a stern mind and playing with the feelings of the people in revolution in peace. Now he has given importance to Non Violence (peace) that to revolution. Now you tell me who respects peace more than him?

We hear people say India would have got independence if only we had not followed Gandhian methods and followed violent revolution like Mr Chandra Bose and Mr Bhagath Singh. I can tell you that there is no where in the world when a revolution or the government which came in power in violence has done good to his people without oppression, dictation and breaking humanitarian laws. Not in Russia, not in Chile, Vietnam, China, Dutch colonies, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Egypt, Israel, Libya, Lebanon or anywhere else. Even Mr Mandela has to resort to peaceful methods following Mr Martin Luther King Jr. to achieve what he has to. If anyone has the eligibility to stand as a peace symbol for world, the first to come is Mr Gandhi in modern era. We can say that it is because of him, India is still democratic and peace. It is after all who establish the instruction to do great work is far greater than who did great works in it. It is a token of civilized respect. I believe no Noble Peace Prize recipient has respected peace more than a result like Mr Gandhi who fasted for days to bring peace in India.  I am a  Gandhian.