The True Spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize

The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded on Friday to Venezuelan political opposition leader Maria Corina Machado “for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”

Vide Alfred Nobel’s will (1895), the Peace Prize is to be awarded to “the person or organization that has done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded in Sweden, the Peace Prize is presented in Oslo, Norway, by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament (Storting).

The spirit of this statement is unambiguous. The Nobel Peace Prize was intended to recognize those who build peace, sustain it, and promote understanding among nations — not those who wage wars and later claim credit for ending them. Political leaders who order or justify military aggression, and then negotiate a ceasefire, cannot be equated with true peacemakers. Their actions may bring a temporary lull in hostilities, but such peace is transactional, not transformational.

War itself represents the complete failure of dialogue and diplomacy. It destroys lives, economies, and human trust. To reward those who start wars but later stop them is to glorify political convenience rather than moral courage. Ending a war that one has begun is not an act of peace but an act of necessity. Alfred Nobel’s intention was far nobler — to acknowledge those who prevent conflict through justice, tolerance, and understanding.

From its inception in 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to a wide range of individuals and organizations. The first laureates — Jean Henry Dunant, founder of the International Red Cross, and Frédéric Passy, founder of the first French peace society — reflected the true ideals of the Prize. They worked selflessly to alleviate human suffering and promote international cooperation.

In subsequent decades, the Prize went to figures like Woodrow Wilson (1919) for establishing the League of Nations, Albert Schweitzer (1952) for his humanitarian work in Africa, and Martin Luther King Jr. (1964) for his nonviolent struggle for civil rights in the United States. Mother Teresa (1979) was honoured for her lifelong service to the poor and destitute in India, while Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk (1993) were jointly recognized for dismantling apartheid in South Africa through negotiation and reconciliation.

These winners shared a common thread — they did not build their reputations through conflict or political power. Their work was rooted in compassion, moral conviction, and a belief that peace must be pursued even when the world around them was indifferent or hostile.

However, the history of the Nobel Peace Prize is not without controversy. Several awards have raised eyebrows and provoked debate over the years. Henry Kissinger’s 1973 award for negotiating a ceasefire in the Vietnam War was widely criticized because the war continued for years after, and immense suffering persisted. Similarly, the 2009 Prize to Barack Obama, given just months into his presidency, was questioned even by his supporters, as the United States remained engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even the selection of Malala Yousafzai in 2014, though globally celebrated, invited discussion about whether the Nobel Committee acted prematurely. At just 17, Malala had displayed extraordinary courage in standing up to the Taliban and advocating education for girls — yet critics argued that her work, though inspiring, was still in its infancy and that the award seemed symbolic rather than reflective of sustained global impact.

It is fair to say that some recipients did not truly deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. In certain instances, the award seemed to reward hope rather than achievement, or diplomacy wrapped in self-interest rather than genuine humanitarian commitment. Such decisions have, at times, made the Nobel Peace Prize appear political — even opportunistic — rather than moral or visionary.

One of the most puzzling omissions in Nobel history remains Mahatma Gandhi. Few names are as universally associated with peace and nonviolence as his. Gandhi led India’s struggle for independence through ahimsa (nonviolence) and satyagraha (truth force), inspiring millions across the world and influencing later peace leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela — both of whom went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Gandhi was nominated several times — in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947, and 1948 — but never selected. When he was assassinated in January 1948, the Committee considered awarding him the Prize posthumously. However, Nobel statutes at the time did not allow posthumous awards unless the recipient had already been chosen before death. The Committee ultimately decided not to confer the Prize to anyone that year, declaring that there was “no suitable living candidate.”

Later, members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee publicly acknowledged that Gandhi’s exclusion was a grave oversight. In 1999, the then Committee chairman, Geir Lundestad, stated that the omission of Gandhi was “the greatest mistake ever made by the Nobel Committee.” The reason for this omission lay partly in the Committee’s cautious approach to colonial politics, partly in its reluctance to offend Britain, and partly in a narrow interpretation of Nobel’s will, which emphasized peace between nations rather than movements within colonized societies.

Nevertheless, Gandhi’s moral stature remains far above any institutional recognition. The values he embodied — tolerance, self-sacrifice, and the rejection of violence as a tool of change — define the very essence of peace. His life’s message transcends all prizes and continues to inspire humanity.

In today’s world, where conflicts erupt easily and global power games dominate international discourse, it is essential to revisit Alfred Nobel’s original intent. The Peace Prize should not be an instrument of political symbolism but a celebration of human conscience. It must recognize those who prevent wars through dialogue, build peace through understanding, and devote their lives to easing human suffering.

True peacemakers do not command armies or sign treaties under duress. They create conditions where wars become unnecessary. Upholding this principle alone can restore the moral clarity and global respect that the Nobel Peace Prize was meant to embody. Only then will the Prize truly reflect Alfred Nobel’s dream — that humanity, through compassion and cooperation, might one day abolish war altogether.

Col K L Viswanathan (Retd)

(The author is an Indian Army veteran and a contemporary affairs commentator. The views are personal. He can be reached at kl.viswanathan@gmail.com )