In the Name of Peace

The Nobel Peace Prize “The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” (Excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel) Every time I hear of a new winner announced for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize, there is curiosity and then the bitter taste of bile. Why, you might wonder? Well, I think the prize lost permanent sheen when it failed to take cognizance of an Indian gentleman called M.K. Gandhi who took on the might of the British Empire and rattled it for good measure all in the name of peace and independence. He would have been an outstanding example as a torch bearer for peace. Gandhi did not get the prize. I'm not sure he cared, but the committee that awards the prize does and recently 'regretted' that they failed to recognize the man and his amazing greatness. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five persons who are chosen by the Norwegian Storting (Parliament of Norway), Oslo, Norway. It is no surprise that, a 'spiritual' Guru from Bangalore was said to have made frequent trips to the Scandinavian capital to canvass for the medal for himself. Apparently he did not make the cut and returned disappointed. Maybe he should read Alfred Nobel's will a tad more carefully. Squatting on vast tracts of land in a third world country does not qualify one as a potential for the medal. Some prize winners are: 2009 Barack H. Obama 1994 Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin 1990 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev 1983 Lech Walesa The last named a shipyard worker at Gdansk in Poland took on the might of the Soviet Union and lead Poland to freedom while Gorbachev was the architect of the breakup of the Soviet Union. Both events suited the West. Gandhi's movement quite does not fall into that category does it? I would be very impressed if the Peace Prize would go to Fidel Castro. Remember old Fidel kicked a corrupt President Batista out of Cuba in a people's revolution and has since thumbed his nose at the collective West. Who are people who received the prize around Gandhis moment in the sun in 1947? 1950 Ralph Bunche 1949 Lord (John) Boyd Orr of Brechin 1948 No Nobel Prize was awarded this year. The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section. 1947 Friends Service Council (The Quakers), American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers) 1946 Emily Greene Balch, John Raleigh Mott 1945 Cordell Hull. Brunche and Hull were both American diplomats/politicians who were involved with Palestine and the United Nations. The first a simmering quagmire of hate and violence and the second being close to being defunct. In the midst of this was this little man who was leading India to freedom, while the Quakers were receiving the medal. I would not be surprised if the Guru from our own Bengaluru, has the little shiny around his neck one of these days!

Perils of Leadership!

Ernst Hemmingway, the much acclaimed and celebrated American author, was asked as to why he deserted his wife and little child for another woman. Hemmingway simply said ‘Because I’m a bastard!’Do we remember, Hemmingway today, as a scumbag or as a great author, who won the Nobel Prize? The latter would be true, I think.
Mahatma Gandhi will go down as one of the world’s greatest transformational leaders of all time and is remembered for that, not for the neglect that his family went through due to his enormous sacrifice. Leadership comes at a steep price that many a mortal is not ready to bear.
Winston Churchill was a washed up back bencher, when Hitler started World War 2, resurrecting his dead career. Churchill seized the moment and went on to become a great politician.
Adolf Hitler was an effective leader; till his megalomania took hold and he lost it all.
As I teach leadership, I grapple with multiple facets to a leader and leadership. Leadership is a complex area, contextual and situational, where the results determine the leader’s efficacy. There is no room for an also ran……….
Paul Gauguin the genius and post impressionist painter fled France for Tahiti, deserting his family,by sea, where he created his masterpieces..........what if the ship had sunk onvoyage.Would we have heard, of Gaugin the genius? It might have well been Gaugin the wretch!

Championship Play!

Yesterday Rafael Nadal the Spanish tennis star, cocked a snook at royalty, when he said that practice for a forthcoming match at Wimbledon was more important and he just could not match the Queen of England’s schedule and meet her.
This story takes me back many years to Gandhi and deals with Gandhi and British Monarchy.

Gandhi went to London during the Round Table Conference in 1931. He was in his usual 'dhoti', and was described by Churchill as 'Half-naked Fakir' of India. He went to meet King George V at the Buckingham Palace. One journalist asked him: "Don't you feel embarrassed to see the King George V in this scanty dress?"
Gandhi said: "Why should I feel ashamed?", and added tongue in cheek: "The King has enough on for both of us." What he did not mention was that, much of poor India, dressed the way he did, in a loin cloth.
Referring to the boycott of the Prince of Wales during his visit to India, the King George V asked him: "Why did you boycott my son?" And Gandhi replied: "Not your son, you’re Majesty, but official representative of the Crown and we are against the Crown." Gandhi’s reply was not arrogant. It was plain speak at its very best.
Nadal, a five-time French Open champion, was adamant he meant no disrespect to the Queen, but had no intention of apologising as he doesn't want to do anything to damage his bid to regain the Wimbledon title he won in 2008.
Nadal later said:
"I am playing in Wimbledon. It is not a joke. I love this tournament," he added.
"I have a lot of respect for the Queen. I have a lot of respect for this tournament.
"It was always my dream to play here. It is a match-day for me so I have my things to do and I try to do what I think is best to win the match."

If Gandhi and Nadal share something in common, it should be humility. If that is the case then why do they appear arrogant? I think there is a very important lesson here for all of us.

Nadal, is in England to win a Tennis Title at Wimbledon. Likewise Gandhi was in England to negotiate India’s freedom. Priorities are extremely important and it is fundamental not to lose focus of our primary goal.

Do Gandhi and Nadal share anything else? Both were champions and you can see why!