Nobel Prize: Pride and Prejudices
The announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize for India's Kailash Satyarthi and Pakistan's Malala Yousufsai during serious India-Pakistan border skirmishes led to speculation that it was meant to urge India and Pakistan to stop firing across the border and move to the negotiating table, though the decision was taken long before the present ceasefire violations by Pakistan. The Nobel Committee is being portrayed as a peacemaker. Malala herself has dramatized the situation by inviting the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan to attend the Prize ceremony in Oslo. This is far fetched because the award has nothing to do with India-Pakistan relations or the border conflict. India would reject any such linkage as it is likely to lead to external intervention.
Another twist to the award was added by the Nobel Committee by referring to a Hindu in India and a Moslem in Pakistan struggling together for the rights of the children, reflecting he stereotyped approach to the religions in the two countries. Satyarthi himself has denied that his work had anything to do with his religion.
It was the European Parliament, not any Indian entity, which nominated Kailash Satyarthi for the Nobel Prize. His long list of awards have come from the US, Italy, Germany and Spain. The reason is that Satyarthi’s struggle for the rights of the children in India was used as a part of the western agenda to impose their standards on India. At the UN and in the US, we have been bombarded about child labour with the material and evidence given to them by Satyarthi and his organization. Like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Satyarthi's work has often embarrassed India by challenging the reports we have submitted to international organizations.
India has been a champion of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and Indian representatives largely wrote it. But the formulation in it on child labour made it difficult for us to sign and ratify it. Totally forbidding any employment of children below the age of 14 in any sector would be neither practical, nor desirable in India. India tried to sign the Convention with a reservation on the child labour clause, but this was not acceptable to the UN. While India was exploring various ways to join the Convention, we were under severe pressure from various international NGOs. Eventually, we signed and ratified the Convention on the understanding that we would implement the child labour clause in a progressive manner.
In the US, the then President Clinton had also campaigned for the abolition of child labour in India, using the work of Satyagrahi and others to prove that India had no concern for the plight of Indian children. The “Rug Mark”, instituted by Satyarthi to identify Indian carpets, which were made without child labour resulted in the reduction of carpet exports from India. This had become an irritant in India-US relations even when Clinton was forging new ties with India. The memories of the miserable conditions of children during the Industrial Revolution in Europe should have tempered the criticism against India.
Today, when Satyarthi is being honoured with the most prestigious global award, reports appear to the effect that many millions of Indian children are in “slavery”. This is hardly the reputation that India should have when we are basking in the glory of “Mangalyan”. That India is conscious of the rights of its children and that every effort is being made to end child labour is lost in the bustle of an Indian winning the Nobel Prize. Satyarthi’s comments after winning the Prize on a recent case of alleged child trafficking in Kerala without evidence has angered many in the state.
Malala Yousufsai was widely believed to win the Nobel last year, but, to the disappointment of her admirers, the award went to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the wake of the destruction of chemical weapons of Syria. One of the reasons cited for not giving the Prize to Malala last year was her young age and the fear that the Prize might provoke Taliban to hurt her. These considerations are still valid, but the pressure to give her the Prize came from very powerful groups, essentially because of clever marketing by her father. She had captured the imagination of the west because of her book and her acclaimed speech at the UN. Her courage and near sacrifice are unparalleled and she fully deserved the Prize.
The interventionist aspect is evident in the case of Malala as well. The stereotyped image of Islamic countries consists of denial of education to women and prevalence of terrorism. Nothing illustrates this image more than the Malala incident. It is believed that she survived basically because she was shifted to Birmingham and received outstanding medical treatment. Pakistan is certainly embarrassed that Malala has received such international attention. Even though Malala aspires to political leadership in Pakistan, she has not chosen to return to Pakistan. Her Nobel Prize is the second in history of Pakistan, which makes the country feel proud, but not without a tinge of embarrassment.