Bharat Ratna. As we know that Gandhi Ji had played a very prominent role in the Indian freedom movement. He was assassinated in and Bharat Ratna was started in Initially, the Bharat Ratna was not awarded posthumously but later on this rule was changed. Worth mentioning that there are plenty of PILs that had been filed with the Karnataka High Court by the Manjunath, a resident of Bangaluru, and others.
Manjunath wanted the court should issue a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs to consider Gandhi Ji's representation for conferring Bharat Ratna.
Waghela and Justice B. The Court further argued that when lesser important people are awarded Bharat Ratna then giving the same award to Gandhi Ji does not suit his charisma. Gandhi Ji is above them and deserves an elevated and separate place.
The Court argued that Gandhi Ji and his deeds are immortal. Bharat Ratna or any award will just harm his status. Are you worried or stressed? Click here for Expert Advice.
Comment 0. Post Comment. The Friends of India represented different lines of thought. The religious among them admired Gandhi for his piety. Others, anti-militarists and political radicals, were sympathetic to his philosophy of non-violence and supported him as an opponent of imperialism.
He is frequently a Christ, but then, suddenly, an ordinary politician. Gandhi had many critics in the international peace movement. The Nobel Committee adviser referred to these critics in maintaining that he was not consistently pacifist, that he should have known that some of his non-violent campaigns towards the British would degenerate into violence and terror.
This was something that had happened during the first Non-Cooperation Campaign in , e. A frequent criticism from non-Indians was also that Gandhi was too much of an Indian nationalist. We do not know whether the Norwegian Nobel Committee seriously considered awarding the Peace Prize to Gandhi that year, but it seems rather unlikely. The nominators were B. In all these matters, Gandhi had consistently followed his own principles of non-violence.
It was rather favourable, yet not explicitly supportive. Hundreds of thousands of people were massacred and millions had to move; Muslims from India to Pakistan, Hindus in the opposite direction. Photo shows part of the crowds of refugees which poured into the city of New Delhi. Having read the report, the members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee must have felt rather updated on the last phase of the Indian struggle for independence.
However, the Nobel Peace Prize had never been awarded for that sort of struggle. The committee members also had to consider the following issues: Should Gandhi be selected for being a symbol of non-violence, and what political effects could be expected if the Peace Prize was awarded to the most prominent Indian leader — relations between India and Pakistan were far from developing peacefully during the autumn of ?
From the diary of committee chairman Gunnar Jahn, we now know that when the members were to make their decision on October 30, , two acting committee members, the Christian conservative Herman Smitt Ingebretsen and the Christian liberal Christian Oftedal spoke in favour of Gandhi.
It seems that they generally preferred candidates who could serve as moral and religious symbols in a world threatened by social and ideological conflicts. However, in they were not able to convince the three other members. Gandhi was, they thought, too strongly committed to one of the belligerents. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it.
No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. The blood of the common men of India fills up the pocket of these corrupt officials. They lie, prepare incorrect reports and fool the citizens of the nation.
Possibly, all the major crossings of the country have a statue of Gandhiji. But that does not deter anyone from committing some of the heinous crimes on the roads and streets of India.
Gandhi said, see no evil, speak no evil and don't listen to evil. However, we have learned not to pay heed to the most basic tenets of Gandhi's teachings. We continue, unhindered, to witness, speak and listen to evil.
The civil society stands in full support whenever it feels the freedom of expression is threatened but no one is willing to take responsibility for expressing the ideas concerned. In the history of human civilisation, Gandhi is unique for devising an unprecedented strategy of protest. He proved that one can oppose a powerful and oppressive regime without shedding a drop of blood. Without hurting anyone physically, through the most peaceful of means, one can bring about a change.
Gandhi's ideas of non-violence and non-cooperation were an inspiration to the rest of the world. The human rights activist Martin Luther King who fought civil rights of the African-Americans took his political and ideological lessons from Gandhi. It is undeniable, how 70 years after his death, Gandhi continues to be relevant to the rest of the world.
Barack Obama, the former US president, acknowledged Gandhi's influence on him. We will hardly find a political leader in India who ends his speech without mentioning or quoting Gandhi. Not to mention, one political family in India who retained power through decades using their 'Gandhi' surname.
Notwithstanding the profound influence that Gandhi had across space and time, he did not receive the Nobel prize. Perhaps, Gandhi was bigger than the prize. But another question crops up whether there was a secret agenda that denied Gandhi of the Nobel Peace Prize. After all, the politics surrounding the Nobel Prize is pretty well known to anyone who cares to explore.
Now, the committee responsible for awarding the Nobel prize regrets that they did not give Gandhi the award when he was alive and fighting for India's freedom against a mighty opponent. What people, generally, think is that Norway's Nobel Prize Committee did not want to upset the Britishers who were India's colonial master.
In the first instance, a member of Norway's Parliament proposed Gandhi's name but it was overlooked by the committee. Our research revealed a letter written by Prof. Jacob Worm-Muller who served as a consultant advisor to the committee. Reading the letter makes it very clear that Worm-Muller praised Gandhi but he also mentioned that he can not trust the latter's personality. But 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.
0コメント