The point Swapan raises that the honours lists often tell us more about the preferences and priorities of the award-givers than the achievements of the award-winners is a truism, especially when there are no tangible yardsticks to judge and it is more on subjective perceptions. International Prize are but politically motivated. more often than not, especially the Nobel Peace Prize. The best example is the award to Obama who had done nothing substantial before he got the Prize, unless if a Black becoming a President of the USA was such an earthshaking event of toil and perseverance. These prizes, when given to the Third World nation people, is basically to project the western concept of civilisation yardstick and highlight how disgustingly inept Third World countries are. Indeed, theird world countries have much to improve and they are improving, but to highlight how disgusting is the situation only draws them further into their shell and defensive. Yes, both Satyarthi and Malala are inspirational figures battling for noble causes. However, they didnâ€™t receive the Nobel Peace Prize because of their good works. The choice of the Norwegian Parliament was dictated by other considerations, not all of which are flattering to India. And what is the relevance of this - That equation is condescending and totally bogus. I am sure that many would not agree with the content of the article and my comments, but it has become fashionable for the West to highlight the anomalies of the Third World only to show how superior, benign and ever concerned the Western world is to the poor brethren of the Orient, Africa and Latin America.