The Nobel prize is a prime example of the West imposing its cultural and intellectual standards on the East. It is a colonial institution which has lost much of its relevance after the Empire crumbled and colonies gained confidence. One look at the awardees shows a western bias. But is the stiff upper lip West truly the core of scientific and artistic excellence? In what is perhaps a colonial tribute to the existence of other 'exotic and magical' cultures, writers from Africa and Latin America have made the grade in recent decades. But these remain exceptions to the rule. While it is common knowledge that peace and literature prizes are influenced by current politics, even scientific excellence is viewed through a western prism. For example, medicine Nobels often go to research on western ailments and not on the more widespread diseases of poorer countries, Ronald Ross being one outstanding exception.

Six Indians — Rabindranath Tagore, C V Raman, Hargobind Khorana, S Chandrashekhar, Mother Teresa and Amartya Sen — have won the Nobel. Of them, three were scientists. A giant like Tagore realised he hardly needed a videshi certificate. He expressed his unease in a poem that said, "This necklace of beads does not suit me at all". If some of the choices were outrageous, the omissions were even more so. How can one explain former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger getting the Nobel in 1973, just after the brutality of Vietnam? Or Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy being overlooked? Sen's work was acknowledged because the Nobel committee wanted to prove it cared for the poor, after pandering for years to abstract theories on the working of markets. No wonder we have the Alternative Nobel, Ig Nobel and Right to Livelihood award occupying centrestage. We need many awards, not one, to acknowledge a diversity of cultures and value systems.