Beggars cannot be choosers
Beggar is the one who is dependent on someone else to meet his needs. He is not self-sufficient. This phrase means those who are not in a position to meet their needs on their own are at the mercy of the one on whom they are dependent. It’s rule of the nature as well. Almighty on Whom all are dependent, it is His power to decide how much he is going to bless someone with his bounties. This is also applicable and pretty much in practice in the relationships of the individuals, institutions, societies and nations. Powerful takes advantage of his position to take decision on behalf of the weak. One must explore all the options to get out of this position where his right to choose is compromised.
Autonomy to choose, make decisions and shape the course of the events depends on how much one is in a position to influence or be influenced. Negotiations are fruitful for a person when being done from the position of the power or at least on equal footing. We have the examples from the history. What happened to Ottoman Empire and Germany at the end of the First World War? What happened to East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in 1971?
Same can be witnessed in the relationship of the developed nations and the developing nations. Majority of the legislations, rules, treaties are lopsided and favor the developed nations. Take the example of the World Trade Order. In this era, with better technology and fast means of communication, developed nations are exploiting the resources of the developing nations.
Similarly, the role of IMF and other financial institutions is also debatable. The terms and conditions imposed upon the countries struggling with poor economic conditions are most the time so harsh that hardly it helps them to improve their economy in real sense.
From the above examples, it is clear that the only way to be chooser is that one must not be in the position of a beggar. Explore all options with which one can effectively meet his needs with minimum cost of freedom.

I found these things bit controversial with respect to my view of this topic. I am not saying these are wrong. Just give these a second thought.

Thanks

Dear once again you have proved that you are really good at expansion writing. Indeed, your flow is like water. I would like to add some additional points...If we add US-Pak relations, then it would be an animated example of the current era. In last, conclude clearly that indeed a beggar can not be chooser because he is unable to choose due to his position. Reality can not be changed by anyhow. He can not wish for a car, bungalow, a beautiful girl with golden hair or airplane. Because he is basically a beggar and it is a ground reality a bitter truth. However, if he wants to become a chooser then he should have to do some thing and bla bla bla....

yes we can add example of the US-Pak relationship and pretty much a good example. He can wish but he wont get because things are not on his side or his position is not to get hold of all the things. But i tend to differ you on conclusion part. conclusion is just a closing note and examples , analogies are normally employed in body of the expansion and at max in conclusion just few sentences to summaries the whole topic.
This is how i was guided by a person and i follow this technique to write expansion.

Direct way
I have read more than 200 plus expansions of Mirza. His style is like you, but I have seen that Mirza concludes the expansion like we do in essay. In simple words, he concludes the statement/phrase/quotation clearly. He starts from Beggars can not be choosers Because bla bla bla Therefore It has been crystal clear or to conclude that due to bla bla bla Beggars can not be chooser...((Proved))..It is the correct and most appropriate to hit the topic and conclude it clearly. (Should we follow this?)

Indirect way
And an other way is indirect way, we start our expansion indirectly and also conclude it indirectly but in the indirectness we also prove our statement.,,

As far as essay is concerned, I always start my essay indirectly and it has been successful in my attempt. But don't know about the expansion whether indirect way is better or direct way?

Thanks.

I didn't get formal coaching. I shall check with someone who has taken coaching from mirza sahib. Perhaps then this ambiguity can be better addressed . Anyway , thanks for nice feedback

Your views are great. I just tried to put my feedback

I have to agree with you as 80% of your opinion seems logical and appealing. Thank you.

Thanks a lot for the feedback. I really appreciate the language mistakes that you mentioned.
Yup there are language issues in this expansion. As far as examples are concerned , when someone negotiates from position of the weakness, then agreements are imposed on him. Like everyone is suggesting that the way our government is going in for dialogues with Taliban from the position of weakness , it will end up with a bad deal. Similarly , no matter how superior ottoman or Germany was but were negotiating from the position of weakness. Similarly , Pakistan in 1971 was in a weak position to assert herself on the negotiating table . We ended up losing East Pakistan and also have to accept and enter into agreement with India where we also accepted that Kashmir is bilateral issue. This is now hurting the Kashmir cause as well as India is not ready for any third party role be it any country or organization like UNO .

First paragraph is the summary of almost everything which I discussed later on . Yup language is bit more suggestive of the last sentence . It must have been like an open ended question . "How a person can deal with this is a million dollar question"

Agreed, but to me topic is (Beggars= miserable person or country etc can not be chooser= means they don't have any option to choose). Now what I think there is difference in beggars and needy. All the beggars are needy but all the needy are not beggars. What I see, your examples reflect the position of needy like at the time treaty of Versailles Germany was needy and was compelled to bow down. Your examples could be accepted as I am not saying these are totally irrelevant. Its only my opinion.

Ok now my turn Check out my expansion.


A contented Mind is a blessing Kind (CSS 2008)

A man who is satisfied with what he has is more contented and happy than the envious ones. It means the people who are jealous of other’s possessions, wealth, and fame can not be satisfied even if they are endowed with all the bounties of this world. Quran, the holy book of Muslim, says:

“O believers! If you become satisfied with what you have, GOD will be satisfied with your inadequate deeds on the Day of Judgment…”

As a matter of fact, there are so many people who are satisfied with their inadequate possessions. They do not run after money or materialism, because it is well-documented fact that materialism ignites chaos, unrest, and all the other ills of a society. If we look into the history, we have two bloody world wars, first in 1914 and the second in 1939. The basic reason of these wars was imperialism. The European powers were not satisfied with their existing colonies. Every European power was trying to have more and more colonies for the economic benefits. Resultantly, two World Wars and loss of man and money had been experienced. Similarly, another major bloodshed was seen in 1948 when Israel was proclaimed independent by the special resolution in United Nations. After its independence they, in order drive out the Muslims from Palestine, resorted to violence and martyred around 1 million Muslims in Palestine. These are some of the unfortunate event that was the direct outcome of discontentment.

It would be safe to conclude that mother of all ills is a discontented mind. It is the source of all evils and unrest in our society. This is why it is said that a contented mind is a blessing kind which spreads love, peace and fraternity.