By calling the Nobel Peace Prize a farce, are we questioning the credibility of the committee of high intellectuals or, are we questioning the committee which had bestowed the honour on Mother Teresa for her work among the poor and destitute, Muhammad Yunnis and Bangladesh's Grameen Bank for their endeavor to end poverty, the enthusiastic Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai and our own R.K. Pachauri who led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Have they not kept up with the tradition of awarding the prize to those who have initiated the mantra of world peace?
If your answer is a vehement NO, then i presume you are of the view that awardees such as Mikhail Gorbachev who facilitated the end of cold war, Martin Luther King who fought against racial segregation and discrimination, President Wilson Woodrow founder of League of Nations, did not deserve a merit!
Personal preferences stand on one side, and credibility on the other.
To analyze the case of Mahatma Gandhi let us sift the pages of the archives. Was Gandhi's work of global dimension?
He did not preach for peace but defiance in a peaceful manner. Ahimsa and Satyagraha were tools to facilitate the independence of his own country. He worked within the boundary of India and not for fraternity among nations. Even his struggle in South Africa was on behalf of the Indians, not the blacks whose lives were even worse.
In 1948 when his name was seriously considered his fellow countrymen did not let him live long enough. Due to practical reasons a posthumous award could not be conferred on him, but by reserving the prize for that year, place of Mahatma was silently yet respectfully left open.
If we are questioning the Nobel Committee's decision to award the Peace Prize to Obama, If we are saying that he only made promises and did not contribute any substance to world peace, we need to give it another thought.
From the ashes of the dead and obsolete, rise the phoenix of all that is relevant and pertinent.
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee has evolved with times its policy. It believes in being proactive rather than reactive. The Nobel Peace Prize is now being used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes that will lead to peace and harmony. This award is a call to action, a call for all nations to confront common challenges.
The Nobel Committee is a pragmatic body, which would like to maximise peace outcomes. It could of course have avoided controversy by giving the award to some inconsequential tree hugging activist somewhere. But crucial matters of global safety depend on decisions taken by powerful nations. The future of the world hinges on men like Obama!