“I am Malala.” This simple statement has echoed across the world. In early October, Malala’s meteoric rise to prominence was amplified when the Norwegian Nobel Committee, after sifting through a record 278 nominations—including Pope Francis, Vladimir Putin and Edward Snowden—decided to award the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize to Malala Yousafzai and Kailash Satyarthi. Already a household name in many nations for her advocacy of girls’ education, the prize catapulted her international fame to near-celebrity status. Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute, suggested in an interview with The Politic that Malala could be the most famous teenager in the world, rivalled only by pop stars.
While 60-year-old Kailash Satyarthi did not have the same global recognition as his teenage co-laureate before receiving the award, interest in his work swelled after he was thrust into the spotlight. Satyarthi is a fierce campaigner for the rights of children, and is particularly dedicated to ending child labor. The organization he helped found three decades ago, Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Save Childhood Movement), has helped free more than 83,000 children from bonded labor in India.
Alfred Nobel left very specific instructions for the Peace Prize. In his will, he charged the committee with awarding the prize to the person who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses.” While the Nobel Peace Prize is traditionally awarded for diplomatic achievements or progress, in recent years it has primarily honored humanitarian endeavors. Given the achievements of this year’s two laureates—advocating girls’ education and combating child labor—one could ask how their work relates to world peace, especially given the perilous security crises currently impacting global politics. It would seem that disarmament agencies or groups explicitly focused on mitigating conflict, such as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which won the Prize last year, would be more logical candidates for the accolade.
Lundestad addressed these concerns by expounding on the phrase “fraternity between nations” inherent in the prize’s description. “Nations […] refers to people, and in many developing countries, the majority are, or will soon be, children. Taking them out of child labor and giving all of them, especially girls, access to education will lead to a form of fraternity between nations.” He further emphasized the strong relationship between human rights and democracy on one hand and peace on the other. The rights of children, he continued, are similarly linked with peace. Economic exploitation of the most vulnerable and least educated in society—children and the poor—is one of the leading causes of violent extremism. Aside from this humanitarian message, Malala’s selection for the prize directly represents the fight against such extremism. Malala was attacked by the Taliban for promoting education for young girls. Despite this, she continues to campaign not simply for universal primary education. By accepting the Nobel Prize, she sent a stark, defiant nod to her former attackers.
At seventeen, Malala is the youngest Nobel laureate ever, a fact which has been met with equal amounts of admiration, bewilderment, and criticism. Critics raise several questions: Has there been enough time to assess the true impact of her efforts? Are there not well-established activists who are more deserving of the prize? Some speculate that she was awarded the Nobel Prize more for what Malala might accomplish, rather than what she had done. Lundestad noted that it may have been “premature” to measure the long-term effects of Malala’s project, and that “progress has been lagging” with respect to girls’ education in Pakistan. But since the announcement of the Peace Prize, Malala has been translating her iconic status into action. Her charity, Malala Fund, seeks to amplify the voices of girls around the world, push for changes in global and local educational policies, and invest in local leaders’ schemes to improve schooling. It has expanded to fund projects in Pakistan, Nigeria, Jordan, and Kenya to promote education. Still, the group is only a year old; one could question whether there has been enough time to accurately and objectively judge its impact.
Perhaps for these reasons, the committee felt that Malala should share the prize. Lundestad states that the committee thought that giving Malala and Satyarthi the prize jointlysent a “forceful message,” as the work of the two laureates is highly complementary. Satyarthi’s life goal—that children should not be exploited for economic purposes but should be in school—resonates with Malala’s activism promotion of universal education. Satyarthi agrees; just after winning the prize, he noted that “The amount of conversations it has created around child labor in the last 6 to 7 hours has not been seen in the last 600 years.” The prize has in many ways become a political instrument. This is not an inherently negative feature; the prize can shine a spotlight on certain issues, bringing them to even more widespread attention
As a result of Malala’s youth, some have questioned whether awarding the prize would weigh her down with expectations. Lundestad was adamant that the committee was highly impressed by the way she has conducted herself thus far after receiving other notable prizes, such as the European Parliament’s highest honor for advocates of human rights and freedom of expression. Her charm has impressed leaders from Ban Ki-Moon to President Obama. The committee is therefore optimistic that Malala can handle the increased attention and expectations that come with an honor Nobel Peace Prize. Even though Malala is young, the committee appreciates that the cause she represents is bigger than her. The prize is not only a nod to her past efforts, but also a way of looking toward the future.
Yet her praise by foreign leaders is not always reciprocated at home in Pakistan. Meiryum Ali, co-President of Yalies for Pakistan, told The Politic that Pakistani opinion about Malala is divided. “Malala is viewed both as a symbol of women’s empowerment, [but] also as a puppet of the West. There are those who praise her for shedding light on Pakistan’s problems and also those who believe she is portraying the country in a negative light.” Ali urged caution that in a country of 182 million people, “blanket statements [of opinions] are hard… nuance is required,” and clarified that she was “speaking as a Pakistani, and not for Pakistanis.” Ali contrasted her own first-class education in Karachi with the inhospitable conditions in Malala’s native district of Swat. She said that the “disparity in access to education in Pakistan [for girls] is shocking.” She praised Malala for being a “global symbol” for girls’ education, especially because of her outspoken advocacy for the release of Nigerian schoolgirls captured by Boko Haram.
Lundestad had strong words for those who labeled Malala a “Western puppet” or “agent.” “We should not consider education for girls a ‘Western’ message or right […] that would put many developing countries in an unfortunate situation.” He directed those who call Malala a stooge of the West to consider Malala’s meeting with President Obama. There, she implored the President, the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner, to stop ravaging Pakistan with drone strikes which are “fueling terrorism” and urged him to “refocus efforts on education, [where] it will make a big impact.”
Despite her defense of Pakistani security to President Obama, speculation remains that attaching a Western label to Malala may entrench the attitudes of those who oppose girls’ education in Pakistan, hindering her campaign. Ali disagrees, deemphasizing Malala’s importance in the instigation of the push for greater equality in education. “Malala should not be seen as a savior figure. There was a huge movement for women’s education before Malala […] she is not the only [advocate].”
Anticipating such speculation, the Nobel Committee sought to pair Malala and Satyarthi in order to frame the award in the context of the regional security challenges of the India-Pakistan dyad. They noted that it was an “important point for a Hindu and a Muslim, an Indian and a Pakistani, to join in a common struggle for education and against extremism.” Against the backdrop of their respective nations’ historic rivalry, Malala and Satyarthi represent individuals on either side of the border facing the same struggles for basic human rights. Given the recent intensification of border clashes, it is important to note common challenges and goals at such a multilateral forum as the Nobel Awards Ceremony.
In India, Satyarthi has had a clear, sustained impact on childhood labor over decades. The Politic interviewed Professor James Silk, who is a faculty member at the Yale Law School specializing in human rights and one of Satyarthi’s close friends. Silk participated in Satyarthi’s Global March against Child Labor in 1998, which saw thousands of people in 103 countries march to pressure the International Labor Organization (ILO) to actionably stand against child labor. A year after that, the ILO passed Convention No. 182 which outlined the ‘predefined’ worst forms of child labor. It was the fastest ratified law in the ILO’s history and a significant part of the credit for its speedy approval rests with Satyarthi’s Global March. Satyarthi continues the fight against child labor, leading daring raids on places where children are kept in bonded labor and liberating them. Yet Silk is quick to point out that Satyarthi is not some headline-seeking vigilante. Rather, Silk explained that Satyarthi uses the law to pressure the Indian government to do its job, often insisting that the police accompany him on the raids. Satyarthi’s energy and determination has freed over 83,000 bonded children so far.
It is important to differentiate between children who work whilst getting an education, children who work without getting an education, and children bonded in labor. This classification of working children is more of a spectrum than three clearly demarcated categories. Silk explains that his friend understands the nuances, and his aims are clear. According to the Global March Against Child Labor website, child labor is “performing any work that is likely to be harmful to the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.” This is the specific form of child labor which Satyarthi seeks to eliminate.
Child labor is often blindly dismissed as a product of poverty, though there is certainly truth to that. However, Silk argues that it is not a simple product of poverty, pointing out that villages with nearly identical levels of poverty in India suffer from vastly different levels of child labor. So though it seems that Satyarthi is merely doing the “emergency” work of rescuing children already bonded, instead of the dealing with the larger, underlying issues which give rise to child labor, Silk is quick to disagree. “From a medical standpoint, Silk says, “it would be strange to ignore the symptoms when the cause cannot be treated in the long run.” It would be naïve to contend that Satyarthi is not addressing the larger issues underpinning child labor: poverty, education, and societal attitudes. In an interview with Time, Satyarthi listed the latter issue as his biggest challenge in the last three decades; commenting on the difficulty of trying to “establish that notion, concept and eventually culture that teaches one to respect childhood and treat children with the dignity and respect they deserve.”
Still, Satyarthi is making progress. In 2001, his organization Bachpan Bachao Andolan started an initiative called Bal Mitra Gram (Child-Friendly Villages), which incorporates villages that have agreed to ban child labor. All the children, including girls—many of whom would have been married off as teens otherwise —have the chance to go to school. Bal Panchayats (Children’s Parliaments) have been set up to give local children a voice in decision-making, and they meet regularly to discuss issues ranging from enabling access to potable drinking water to improving their collective educations. Although parents might still be unwilling to pull their children out of work and thus lose additional income in the short term, Bachpan Bachao Andolan has increased awareness of Indian government funds for below-poverty-line households. While this scheme will likely take decades to have a marked effect across all of India, through it Satyarthi has shown that he is engaging with child labor at the preventive level.
Satyarthi also focuses his efforts on rehabilitating those already affected by child labor. After his raids, children are at risk of being sucked back into the parasitic child labor system. Silk asserts that Satyarthi has always had a philosophy of rehabilitation and education after raids to prevent such relapses. Bachpan Bachao Andolan has transit centers in India where recently freed children are taught basic skills to ease the reintegration into society. However, fully rehabilitating tens of thousands of children is an overwhelming task for any non-governmental organization. Satyarthi hopes to make up for a deficiency in resources to accommodate so many children by building a “social movement around the issue, rather than [operating as] a conventional non-profit.”
Commenting on the Nobel Peace Prize in general, Silk recounted his cynicism and disillusionment with the award, noting many of the committee’s past “short-sighted and political” decisions. “The [past decisions of Committee] were not consistent with what I grew up idealistically understanding the values of the prize to be.” But, this year was different. “Awarding the Prize to Kailash [Satyarthi] is consistent with those values.” Silk is convinced Satyarthi deserves the prize primarily for what he has done, yet also because of the potential of his organization. He boldly proclaimed that he would “see the end of child labor around the world in my lifetime as the poorest of the poor have realized that education is a tool that can empower them.” Given that he is 60 years old, this claim might be greeted with muffled disbelief, or dashed by claims of its idealism. Yet Satyarthi remains undaunted. Perhaps Malala, with her youth, passion for educational empowerment, and the new opportunities available to her as a result of the prize, could take up the fight and help make Satyarthi’s dream come true; if not in his lifetime, then potentially in hers.