by M.K. Sudarshan
Oct 9, 2026: Chennai, India
Summary:
The Nobel Prize is fundamentally a geopolitical instrument of Western hegemony rather than a neutral, international arbiter of human excellence.
By analyzing structural exclusions—such as the rejection of traditional medical systems like Ayurveda, the omission of non-Western economic models, and a distinct geopolitical bias in Literature and Peace—the Nobel Foundation consistently rewards individuals who conform to a secular, liberal, and Eurocentric worldview.
The historical denial of a posthumous award to Mahatma Gandhi, contrasted with exceptions made for European candidates, exemplifies this institutional double standard.
Ultimately, for non-Western nations to seek validation from Stockholm is an act of ideological capitulation to Western cultural imperialism.
Here below is my own take which by contrast is going to sound rather choleric and caustic.
The Nobel Award is no longer philanthropic recognition of achievements in science and literature; it’s now become more political.
Why ? Because , the secretive Nobel Peace prize jury selects awardees with a certain pre-determined set of applied criteria that favours a Western / Eurocentric — capitalist-secular-liberal-hegemonic — world view . In other words , the Nobel Committee recognises Peace in the world but it has got to be a Peace established on the civilisational terms of Western Europe , not the world’s.
Such a well-defined world view encompasses if not imposes its vision in other fields of accomplishment too — most egregiously in Literature, Economics or Medical Sciences.
Has any man of medicine in Ayurveda or Siddha medicine ever earned Nobel recognition ? No practitioner of Ayurveda or Siddha has ever received a Nobel Prize. The Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine strictly operates within the framework of Western biomedicine, requiring molecular mechanisms, randomized controlled trials, or universally quantifiable biological discoveries.
Has any Indian or Chinese economist earned the Award?
No economist from the People’s Republic of China has ever won, despite China lifting over 800 million people out of poverty over the last four decades—arguably the largest economic event of the modern era. Because China achieved this through a state-led, non-Western market model, it has been entirely bypassed by the Stockholm committee.
Only two Indians in history so far have earned Nobel Awards : Amartya Sen and Abhijit Banerjee (who is of Indian origin). And to think that India is the land that first came up with a full-blown treatise on Economics: Kautilya’s Arthasastra!
Then, let’s consider Literature. Take a good hard look at Russia.
After 1970 the Russian novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn got the Literature Award. He was a critic of Russian Communism. And after him, whenever the Nobel went to any novelists east of Berlin or Warsaw, the Committee made sure they were as Russo-phobic as Solzhenitsyn — Joseph Brodsky , Svetlana Alexievich, Elias Canetti, Olga Tokarczuk, Herta Müller.
It would not be inaccurate to describe the worldviews of all the above writers as Eurocentric rather than Russophilic.
While Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was no doubt a fierce critic of the Soviet state, he remained a deeply traditional Russian nationalist and Slavophile. In contrast, however the Central and Eastern European Nobel laureates who followed him generally rejected Russophilia. Their literary and political worldviews were all rooted firmly in the so-called European “humanist tradition”, (by implication, “inhumanist traditions” of the rest of the world) as many of them had in their novels and works expressed severe skepticism toward the Russian imperial state.
What about Literature Prize for Indian or Indic writers?
Rabindranath Tagore is the only native Indian citizen to win the Nobel Prize in Literature. He was awarded the prize in 1913 for his collection of poems, Gitanjali (Song Offerings). While celebrated as a historic moment for Asia, a closer look at how and why he was selected reveals the deep-seated cultural hegemony of the Swedish Academy.
Tagore did not win the Nobel Prize purely on the merits of his original Bengali writings. He won it because his poems were translated into English—and more importantly, because he was heavily vetted and endorsed by the British literary elite.
The Western Passport: The Irish poet W.B. Yeats wrote a glowing introduction to the English version of Gitanjali.
The Nomination: Tagore was officially nominated by Thomas Sturge Moore, a member of the British Royal Society of Literature.
The Subtext: The Swedish Academy did not read Tagore in his native linguistic context. They evaluated him through a Western, English-mediated translation that conformed to European poetic sensibilities of the Edwardian era.
The Academy’s citation praised Tagore’s verse because it was made “part of the literature of the West.” Rather than meeting Indian literature on its own civilizational terms, the committee exoticized Tagore as a spiritual, mystical sage from the East who could provide a “healing touch” to a materialistic, industrialized Western world on the brink of World War I. By treating his work as an exotic appendage to Western literature, the Academy reinforced the Eurocentric view that European institutions remain the ultimate arbiters who “discover” and validate non-Western genius.
The Nobel Committee completely ignored or rejected most other prominent literary figures in India:
Sri Aurobindo—a profound philosopher, nationalist, and poet—was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1943 and 1950 (and for the Peace Prize in 1950).
The Rejection: The Swedish Academy found his epic philosophical poetry, such as Savitri, and his deeply integrated Vedic-Upanishadic worldviews too dense, non-Western, and structurally incompatible with their preferred literary models.
Similarly, legendary native novelists who captured the true, gritty, socio-political realities of India—such as Premchand (Hindi/Urdu), R.K. Narayan (English), or Vaikom Muhammad Basheer (Malayalam)—were never seriously considered. Their narratives did not prioritize catering to the Euro-Atlantic literary market, leaving them entirely outside Stockholm’s field of vision.
Let’s go now to the largest Democracy and Open Society in the world for centuries.
Did Gandhi earn posthumously the Nobel Peace prize although many awardees since his time have called themselves devotees of the Gandhian spirit?
Barack Obama, Nelson Mandela , Martin Luther King all paid tributes to a Gandhi as a true apostle of Peace… How ironic then that the Guru was denied the Award but the chelas who came after him were bestowed honour ?
Gandhi was indeed nominated multiple times (including in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947, and days before his assassination in January 1948) but sorry no …… we, the Nobel Committe do not confer awards posthumously: To honour the dead is not the policy of the Committee.
To add insult to the injury to the memory of Gandhi, when the 14th Dalai Lama won the prize in 1989 (for his political resistance to Communist China, the bête noire of Euro-Atlanticism), the Committee Chairman stated that the award was, in part, a formal tribute to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi!!
Using the 1989 award to the Dalai Lama as a proxy “tribute” to Gandhi was a cynical way of employing Gandhi’s legacy to validate a contemporary geopolitical move against Communist China, rather than honoring Gandhi on his own terms.
Exceptions to the Policy of Posthume can, of course, be allowed in the case of Baltic or Baltic-friendly candidates.
Nobel Prize actually has been awarded posthumously to three people.
While the official statutes of the Nobel Foundation explicitly banned posthumous awards in 1974, three unique historical exceptions exist:
Erik Axel Karlfeldt (Literature, 1931), a Swedish poet.
Dag Hammarskjöld (Peace, 1961): UN Secretary-General. Again Swedish national.
Ralph Steinman (Physiology or Medicine, 2011): Canadian national.
When the rules were explicitly broken or stretched to accommodate posthumous statuses, they were granted exclusively to two Swedish citizens closely connected to the Scandinavian establishment, and one Canadian researcher operating out of a major American institution (Rockefeller University in New York). A non-Western candidate from Asia or Africa has never benefited from such administrative flexibility or a “good faith” loophole.
So, the long and short of it all :
It’s a global misconception that the Nobel Prize is an international recognition for accomplishment and excellence. It is not . It is plainly Euro-Atlanticist-Eurocentric. The Nobel Awards Committee is very much an institutional instrument of Western Hegemony and its soft power.
For an Asian , Chinese, Russian, African or Indian to clamour for recognition by the Nobel Committee is an abject confession of ideological supplication if not capitulation to the imperialist traditions of Western Europe. When non-Western nations and its citizens clamour for validation from a Western institution — or gloat when one amongst them wins a Nobel — they inadvertently reinforce the idea that Europe remains the ultimate arbiter of global value.
(Concluded)
