|
|
|
Peacemaker Portrait (October 18) The Nobel Prize for peace has had more than its share of controversy, with allegation of its not being free of politics. That MK Gandhi, considered an apostle of peace never got it, but Henry Kissinger, the former American secretary of state did, speaks a lot about the considerations that decide who should be its recipients. Let the past be the past, but this year's award of the prize to Kofi Annan and the organization he is currently the head, the United Nations, is already raising a number of eyebrows. The option of this newspaper on the matter had already been made more than clear in an editorial a day before the award was announced. In brief, we had minced no words in calling Annan a stooge of the rich nations (the West) and its interests and that more than ever before the United Nations have been put under the shadow of these countries, sometimes unreservedly as in the case of the present war on terrorism waged by the US and the NATO - a war which in all propriety the UN should have no doubt that the sense of internationalism that the UN is supposed to symbolize and promote has been hopelessly rendered false. That is, if internationalism is supposed to mean more than just seeing from the viewpoint of the rich West. Annan was rewarded this year's Nobel Peace Price for, among other, his resolute stand against terrorism. True, we remember him describing America's strike against Afghanistan as a legitimate revenge for the atrocities of September 11, but unfortunately we also remember him refusing to make a comment for a full 72 hours on the hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft from Kathmandu to Kandahar in Afghanistan, and the holding of its passengers as hostages to negotiate the release of a Kashmiri militant. Perhaps he was waiting for a nod from his mentors -- and who cares if the UN loses its credibility in the process. Memories of how he snubbed the Dalits wanting untouchability declared as racism during the UN Durban meet on racism is also still fresh in mind, but these things don't count in being considered as a man of peace by the Nobel selectors, it seems. How very unfortunate. Perhaps it is just coincidence, but the man who received this year's Nobel Prize for literature, Sir Vidiadhar S Naipul, is also a man with a very controversial view on Islam. In these days of Islam being portrayed as synonymous with terrorism by vested interests, a degree of suspicion is legitimate. In an interview to Outlook magazine some years ago on the occasion of his being refused the Literature Nobel after being short-listed for it (he has been short-listed so many times), he had said Islam was the worst thing that happened to India (also implying to any other country), for it attempts to obliterate the country's past. He even described the rise of Hindu militancy in India that led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid, as a creative force. But his sense of humor and wit, even if a little cynical, is endearing. On the fatwa by Ayatollah Khomenei of Iran on Salman Rushdie for his Satanic Verses, he said the fatwa is also a severe form of literary criticism. But Sir Vidiadhar was not vying for the Peace Nobel and we suppose he is entitled to his personal opinions. As for his literary works, nobody deserves the prize better. (Courstesy:
The Imphal Free Press) Back to Top FrontPage Manipur Profiles Features Potpourri Opinions Editorials Books Photos Links Archives Contact Policy/Disclaimer |
