This is funny; like a group of boys playing together. First make chemical weapons, then find out a body which works to stop their use, and then give it the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2009, this prize went to Barack Obama, apparently for his efforts to reduce war in Iraq and Afghanistan both of which were of his own country's making.

The committee selecting the Nobel prize winners, as mentioned before, looks like a group of children engrossed in a role-playing game. One of them says to the other, "Ben here will create bad things and Tim will stop them. Jerry will then confer you with a peace prize. Done!"

I am not saying that the Organisation for Protection of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize this year, colluded with the decision makers to win the prize. No. They might not even have known about their win till the time it was formally announced. All I want to state is that receivers of the prize are deeply influenced by international politics most of which is dominated of course by Western stalwarts of Europe and America.       

Many people criticised Malala Yousufzai being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize who feared that her win would set off a trend where women would run off to Pakistan, get shot in the head and then stand in line for international acclaim. Though the media and people who confer prizes and awards are indeed not the most intelligent people on the planet and are in the habit of blowing things out of proportion, this is going overboard in their estimation.

Other set of critiques fear the 'monopolisation of the little girl' (as one lady on Twitter said, as she expressed her concern) if she won the esteemed peace prize. It is hard to find anything evenly remotely worrisome in this concern. So they will use her for their advertisements, keep her busy with their conferences and agendas, for some time, she would travel the world spreading the message of peace to other countries. What's so wrong in that? 

In criticising Yousufzai and her nomination, we miss the woods for the trees. Her award would have gone to a girl from a country which is only known for killing freedom and stifling rights of people. Which is only known for harbouring terrorists. Which, for some, is a failed state. Where, peace has no place. 

In a country like that, in Pakistan, a Nobel Peace Prize would have brought much the needed positive international focus the country needs. Much needed because the process of perception building works in a feedback loop, feeding facts to bias and bias to facts. Pakistan has been doomed to such an extent that international media wants is wary to report anything good about the country. Anything good about Pakistan is not news anymore. The Prize would have shaken, if not broken, the mould. Because, as much as we generalise for simplification, there always exists new ways to look at things. Or people. Or countries.