beggars cannot be choosers

[Great Afnan]

The axiom signifies that one must not be dissatisfied over what is given to him in return for what he seeks from people irrespective of whether it is according to his expectations or not.It isn't unusual for one to implore others to help him in case of any urgent need.However,he is unquestionably obliged to accept the things as they are originally provided to him without any sort of complaint and hesitation even if that things lack what he expects.In other words,a begger-whether it be a state or an individual-does not have the privelege to express his discontent over insufficient provisions.

There are a number of instances empitomizing the maxim.If a begger manifests anger over a pittance of money given to him and demands more,it might offend the donor who in turn will ultimately refuse to flip even a single coin to help him.To further demonstrate,a student who is week in any subject will have to get tuition at the time specified by his teacher,not by he himself.It is the teacher who is the chooser of the time and teaching plan,not the student who can only request.In addition,a man applying for loan will have to abide by the laws stipulated by that organization.It decides either to sanction the loan or to reject it.In case of acceptance,he still has to adhere to the rules and regulations of the organisation and has to pay back within a specied time period rather than when he desires.All these examples manifest that people who beg cannot choose.

In wake of world-war II,The britain,economically and materially, was renderred so exhausted that it was compelled into offering independence to the indians.It was britain who was begging the support of the indians in war and was vouchsafing complete independence in return.On the other hand,the indians were acting as choosers as to how the independence could be granted,and the decision to support the british was the prerogative of the indians not the britain.

Finally, a begger has neither anything to give in return to the provider in order to impose his own regulations,nor has he any influence to persuade the latter into doing something exactly what the former aspires.He must be prepared to give assent to a little help that is renderred to him in response to his request for it.Otherwise,he might lose even that.He must be guided by the principle that something is better than nothing.

[RAO RAMEEZ]

Originally Posted by Great Afnan

The axiom signifies that one must not be dissatisfied over what is given to him in return for what he seeks from people irrespective of whether it is according to his expectations or not.It isn't unusual for one to implore others to help him in case of any urgent need.However,he is unquestionably obliged to accept the things as they are originally provided to him without any sort of complaint and hesitation even if that things lack what he expects.In other words,a begger-whether it be a state or an individual-does not have the privelege to express his discontent over insufficient provisions.

There are a number of instances empitomizing the maxim.If a begger manifests anger over a pittance of money given to him and demands more,it might offend the donor who in turn will ultimately refuse to flip even a single coin to help him.To further demonstrate,a student who is week in any subject will have to get tuition at the time specified by his teacher,not by he himself.It is the teacher who is the chooser of the time and teaching plan,not the student who can only request.In addition,a man applying for loan will have to abide by the laws stipulated by that organization.It decides either to sanction the loan or to reject it.In case of acceptance,he still has to adhere to the rules and regulations of the organisation and has to pay back within a specied time period rather than when he desires.All these examples manifest that people who beg cannot choose.

In wake of world-war II,The britain,economically and materially, was renderred so exhausted that it was compelled into offering independence to the indians.It was britain who was begging the support of the indians in war and was vouchsafing complete independence in return.On the other hand,the indians were acting as choosers as to how the independence could be granted,and the decision to support the british was the prerogative of the indians not the britain.

Finally, a begger has neither anything to give in return to the provider in order to impose his own regulations,nor has he any influence to persuade the latter into doing something exactly what the former aspires.He must be prepared to give assent to a little help that is renderred to him in response to his request for it.Otherwise,he might lose even that.He must be guided by the principle that something is better than nothing.

It could be taken as a moral lesson.
Pakistan and third world country people are always inclined towards the fact that they are controlled by the extra-terrestrial powers rather then their democratic governments and which are too playing a puppet role in their hands. People of such countries show their discontent over this fact and try to put their influence on the world order. They think themselves as free nations. They always try to win some self-respect in the face of other strong powers.
As the notion says "Rage is the last refuge" these nations also show much rage over this. When these powers bombard their lands,strike drone on their borders, when IMF imposes certain restrictions on their trades, inland market and control their prices, when their highly respected people are ridiculed on their air ports, when their external and internal policies are cent percent dictated from the White house or Moscow.
They must always keep in mind that we are beggars and therefore not the choosers of our fate. They are the true dictators of our fate and future.