The Nobel Prize needs to regain its credibility
The Nobel Prize, deemed as the most prestigious honour across the globe, has been mired in controversies time and again. Despite its significant cause of identifying the most outstanding personalities whose contribution has been significant to the betterment of the world, the global forces that work behind this committee have always been questioned by people. Many scholars have even rejected this honour. There is definitely some amount of truth in the allegation of Nobel Prize being under the control of imperialist forces. There were roaring discussions when the prize was given to Aung San Suu Kyi and Barack Obama.
The fact that Mahatma Gandhi was denied the Nobel, is a lacunae for the prize itself. Yet, there is no question about the credibility of Nobel to a large extent. This time again, the Nobel Prize is wallowing in controversy. Not for having bestowed the award on someone, but because the award will NOT be given away to any recipient this year. The Swedish origin Academy has declared that the award will not be given in 2018 for literature. And as a compensatory measure, two people will be honoured in 2019 for the same category. In the past, Nobel Prize has been stalled on seven occasions and five times the ceremony has been postponed. But this time around, the reasons are different and a lot concerning too. This issue that is internal to the Academy, has created a rift among its members. The giving away of the award has been stopped over allegations of sexual harassment allegedly done by the spouse of a lady member. Protesting this, eight members among the 18 member committee have submitted their resignation to the committee. In order to regain the credibility of the Nobel Academy, the award ceremony too has been postponed, says the committee.
There are discussions among prestigious circles about the approach to the topic and the decision that has followed. Why should Academy be held responsible for the members and their family’s personal issues? In 1914 when the world was reeling under the first world war the prize was stalled. In 1915, the prize ceremony was postponed again and it was given to French writer Romain Rolland in 1916. The same thing repeated in 1918 too. Swiss writer Carl Spitteler was selected for the award, but the ceremony was postponed in 1919. It could have been the committee’s decision to award one of their own countrymen at a time when the war ended and people were finally happy. In 1935, academy didn’t honour anyone. And the process of selection itself was postponed in 1936 owing to the fact that no persons could reach the parameters fixed by Alfred Nobel, as per the committee. Eugene O`Neill was honoured with the award in 1936. The prize ceremony was postponed again during the second world war in 1940 and 1943. Danish writer Johannes Jensen was accorded with the award in 1945, after the award was postponed for a year in 1944.
Chili poet Gabriela Mistral was awarded with Nobel Prize in 1945. The committee postponed the award for literature since it was unable to find a befitting recipient in 1949. However, William Faulkner was awarded with this honour in 1950, for the year 1949. From then on, the award wasn’t given a miss even a single year. This is the only year in the recent history that the award has been postponed again. There could have been many other reasons for this. And had the academy wished to postpone the award, a reason like the genocide in Syria (other than someone’s inappropriateness) could have sent a strong message to those strong nations that dictate the world. The committee opposing mass murders of the Rohingyas could have saved the world some compassion and an opportunity to introspect. The world is moving towards waging a third world war, with every passing day. Fascist forces are taking over nations and media is losing its freedom. Had the academy responded to this, and stalled the award it could have helped the world. But then, a reason as given by the academy, has only reduced the whole thing to a matter of internal bickering of the members. This has shrunk the dignity of the academy and the selection committee.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
EC can choose counting personnel, no further order needed: SC on TMC plea
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Saturday said no further order was necessary on the TMC's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's dismissal of its petition against an Election Commission circular on the deployment of central government personnel for vote counting in West Bengal.
A special bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi said the Election Commission can choose the counting personnel, and its April 13 circular, which provides for deployment of state government employees as well, cannot be said to be incorrect.
The poll body said the apprehensions of Trinamool Congress (TMC) of any wrongdoing is misplaced, as the circular very clearly states that there will be a mix of central and state government employees.
The Election Commission assured the court that the circular would be implemented in letter and spirit, and there would be state government employees also during the counting of votes on May 4.
At the outset, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the TMC, said the circular was dated April 13, but they came to know about it on April 29.
ALSO READ: Anbumani asks PM Modi to ban sale of cigarettes for those born after 2009
He said there are four issues: One, the circular appointing Central employees was issued to DEOs on April 13, but came to their knowledge only on April 29; Two, the Election Commission says it has apprehensions of irregularity, despite having a Central nominee in the counting process; Three, the poll body already has a Central government officer at each counting table in the form of a micro observer, and four, the commission has not appointed state nominees even though the circular provides so.
Sibal submitted that the Chief Electoral Officer's communication states that there are apprehensions expressed from various quarters regarding possible irregularities in counting.
"That is like pointing a finger at the state government..." Sibal said, adding, "There must be some data. Where is (the proof of) the apprehension (raised) from each booth? They have not disclosed this. And why not tell us that they are going to have a Central government nominee?"
The bench, which held a special sitting, told Sibal that even if the Election Commission's circular had provided for the appointment of Central employees as both the counting supervisor and the counting assistant, the court could not have faulted the decision.
"The option is open for the Election Commission: whether the counting supervisor and assistant may be of the Central or the state government. When that option is open, we cannot hold that the notification is contrary to regulations. Even if the EC says that both of them can be Central government employees, we could not have faulted them. Because regulations say that either the Central government or state government officers can be appointed," Justice Bagchi told Sibal.
Sibal then submitted that the court may ask the Election Commission to follow the impugned circular in its entirety, which provides for a state government nominee.
"All we want is, in terms of the circular, the state government nominee should be there," he said.
Justice Bagchi asked if he wants compliance with the circular, then why is the TMC before the court.
Senior advocate D S Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission, submitted that the returning officer is a state government employee with overarching power to deploy personnel from any pool of government employees.
"We are saying that there will be state government employees during the counting of votes," Naidu submitted, adding that each candidate will also have their own counting agent.
"The TMC's apprehension of any wrongdoing is completely misplaced," he reiterated.
The bench then disposed of the plea, saying that no further order is necessary and reiterated that the Election Commission will follow its circular in letter and spirit.
Polling for the 294-member West Bengal Assembly was held in two phases -- April 23 and April 29. The counting of votes will be taken up on May 4.
On April 30, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the TMC's petition against the Election Commission circular, saying there was no illegality in the poll panel's decision to appoint counting supervisors and assistants from Central government and Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) employees, instead of the state government staff.
In the high court, the TMC had challenged an April 13 communication issued by the additional chief electoral officer of West Bengal that stated that at least one of the counting supervisors or assistants at each table should be a Central government or PSU employee.
The TMC's counsel had argued before the high court that the communication was issued without jurisdiction and was based on mere apprehension.
The EC's counsel had contended before the high court that the Representation of the People Act, 1951, allows delegation of the commission's functions and that the directive was valid.
The poll panel's counsel had also submitted that the communication was issued on April 13, but the petition was filed only on April 30, close to the counting date, alleging that the move was intended to stall the process.
The high court had not agreed with the TMC's allegation that its main opponent, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), controls the employees of the Central government or PSUs, making them susceptible to suggestions and control by the Union government.
It had also noted that apart from the counting supervisors and assistants, micro-observers, counting agents of candidates, and other personnel would also be present in the counting hall.
