Divorce Problem Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Divorce Problem - Essay Example It is known that government regulates almost all aspects of intimate relations instead of paying more attention to increasing costs of welfare. (Nocks et al. 1999) The authors think that covenant marriages are able to make relations stronger and "not just harder to get out of it". As far as marriage may be a prison to a woman, covenant marriage guarantees more freedom and leaves woman a way to escape from it. According to authors the covenant marriage is able to provide marginally stronger promises than common marriage. Furthermore, women will be more financially secure, because according to statistics women suffer more from divorce, especially in terms of finance. (Nocks et al. 1999) Actually, a covenant marriage gives couple more choices. The authors' point of view is that covenant marriages are more stable, longer in duration and significantly healthier. What is more important is that covenant marriages protects from being emotionally, verbally and physically abused. It is concluded that this type of marriage promotes more democracy in traditional patterns of family interactions. (Nocks et al. 1999) Despite the provided advantages it is difficult to agree that covenant marriages are better, because nowadays it is not socially accepted.

Creating the Guiding Coalition Essay Example for Free

Creating the Guiding Coalition Essay Major transformations are often associated with one highly visible individual. Consider Chryslers come back from near bankruptcy in the early 1980s, and we think of Lee Iacocca. Mention Wal-Marts ascension from small-fry to in ­dustry leader and Sam Walton comes to mind. Read about IBMs efforts to renew itself, and the story centers around Lou Gerstner. After a while, one might easily conclude that the kind of leadership that is so critical to any change can come only from a single larger than life person. This is a very dangerous belief. Because major change is so difficult to accomplish, a powerful force is required to sustain the process. No one individual, even a monarch-like CEO, is ever able to develop the right vision, communicate it to large numbers of people, eliminate all the key obstacles, generate short-term wins, lead and manage dozens of change projects, and anchor new approaches deep in the organizations culture. Weak committees are even worse. A strong guiding coalition is always needed-one with the right composition, level of trust, and shared objective. Building such a team is always an essential part of the early stages of any effort to restructure, reengineer, or retool a set of strategies. 1. Going It Alone: The Isolated CEO The food company in this case had an economic track record between 1975 and 1990 that was extraordinary. Then the industry changed, and the firm stumbled badly. The CEO was a remarkable individual. Being 20 percent leader, 40 percent manager, and the rest financial genius, he had guided his company successfully by making shrewd acquisitions and running a tight ship. When his industry changed in the late 1980s, he tried to transform the firm to cope with the new conditions. And he did so with the same style he had been using for fifteen years that of a monarch, with advisors. King Henry had an executive committee, but it was an information-gathering/dispensing group, not a decision-making body. The real work was done outside the meetings. Henry would think about an issue alone in his office. He would then share an idea with Charlotte and listen to her comments. He would have lunch with Frank and ask him a few questions. He would play golf with Ari and note his reaction to an idea. Eventually, the CEO would make a decision by himself. Then, depending on the nature of the decision, he would announce it at an executive committee meeting or, if the matter was somehow sensitive, tell his staff one at a time in his office. They in turn would pass the information on to others as needed. This process worked remarkably well between 1975 and 1990 for at least four reasons: (1) the pace of change in Henrys markets was not very fast, (2) he knew the industry well; (3) his company had such a strong position that being late or wrong on anyone decision was not that risky, and (4) Henry was one smart fellow. And then the industry changed. For four years, until his retirement in 1994, Henry tried to lead a transformation effort using the same process that had served him so well for so long. But this time the approach did not work because both the number and the nature of the decisions being made were different in some important ways. Prior to 1990, the issues were on average smaller, less complex, less emotionally charged, and less numerous. A smart person, using the one-on-one discussion format, could make good decisions and have them implemented. With the industry in flux and the need for major change inside the firm, the issues suddenly came faster and bigger. One person, even an exceptionally capable individual, could no longer handle this decision stream well. Choices were made and communicated too slowly. Choices were made without a full understanding of the issues. Employees were asked to make sacrifices without a clear sense of why they should do so. After two years, objective evidence suggested that Henrys approach wasnt working. Instead of changing, he became more isolated and pushed harder. One questionable acquisition and a bitter layoff later, he reluctantly retired (with more than a small push from his board). 2. Running on Empty: The Low-Credibility Committee This second scenario I have probably seen two dozen times. The biggest champion of change is the human resource executive, the quality officer, or the head of strategic planning. Someone talks the boss into putting this staff officer in charge of a task force that includes people from a number of departments and an outside consultant or two. The group may include an up-and-coming leader in the organization, but it does not have the top three or four individuals in the executive pecking order. And out of the top fifteen officers, only two to four are members. Because the group has an enthusiastic head, the task force makes progress for a while. But all of the political animals both on and off this committee figure out quickly that it has little chance of long-term success, and thus limit their assistance, involvement, and commitment. Because everyone on the task force is busy, and because some are not convinced this is the best use of their time, scheduling enough meetings to create a shared diagnosis of the firms problems and to build trust among the groups members becomes impossible. Nevertheless, the leader of the committee refuses to give up and struggles to make visible progress, of ­ten because of an enormous sense of dedication to the firm or its employees. After a while, the work is done by a subgroup of three or four mostly the chair, a consultant, and a Young Turk. The rest of the members rubber-stamp the ideas this small group produces, but they neither contribute much nor feel any commitment to the process. Sooner or later the problem becomes visible: when the group cant get a consensus on key recommendations, when its committee recommendations fall on deaf ears, or when it tries to implement an idea and runs into a wall of passive resistance. With much hard work, the committee does make a few contributions, but they come only slowly and incrementally. A post-mortem of the affair shows that the task force never had a chance of becoming a functioning team of powerful people who shared a sense of problems, opportunities, and commitment to change. From the outset, the group never had the credibility necessary to provide strong leadership. Without that credibility, you have the equivalent of an eighteen-wheeler truck being propelled by a lawn mower engine. Meanwhile, as this approach fails, the companys competitive position gets a little weaker and the industry leader gets a little farther ahead. 3. Keeping Pace with Change: The Team The central issue in both of these scenarios is that neither firm is taking into account the speed of market and technological change. In a less competitive and slower-moving world, weak committees can help organizations adapt at an acceptable rate. A committee makes recommendations. Key line managers reject most of the ideas. The group offers additional suggestions. The line moves another inch. The committee tries again. When both competition and technological change are limited, this approach can work. But in a faster-moving world, the weak committee always fails. In a slow-moving world, a lone-ranger boss can make needed changes by talking to Charlotte, then Frank, then Ari and reflecting on what they say. He can go back to each of them for more information. After making a decision, he can communicate it to Charlotte, Frank, and Ari. Information processing is sequential and orderly. As long as the boss is capable and time is available, the process can work well. In a faster- moving world, this ponderous linear activity breaks down. It is too slow. It is not well enough informed with real time information. And it makes implementation more difficult. Todays business environment clearly demands a new process of decision making (see figure 4-1). In a rapidly moving world, individuals and weak committees rarely have all the information needed to make good non routine decisions. Nor do they seem to have the credibility or the time required to convince others to make the personal sacrifices called for in implementing changes. Only teams with the right composition and sufficient trust among members can be highly effective under these new circumstances. Decision making in todays business environment This new truism applies equally well to a guiding change coalition on the factory floor, in the new-product development process, or at the very top of an organization during a major transformation effort. A guiding coalition that operates as an effective team can process more information, more quickly. It can also speed the implementation of new approaches because powerful people are truly informed and committed to key decisions. So why dont managers use teams more often to help produce change? To some degree, a conflict of interest is involved. Teams arent promoted, individuals are, and individuals need unambiguous track records to advance their careers. The argument I was on a team that doesnt sell well in most places today. But to an even greater degree, the problem is related to history. Most senior-level executives were raised managerially in an era when teamwork was not essential. They may have talked team and used sports metaphors, but the reality was hierarchical-typically, a boss and his eight direct reports. Having seen many examples of poorly functioning committees, where everything moves slower instead of faster, they are often much more comfortable in sticking with the old format, even if it is working less and less well over time. The net result: In a lot of reengineering and re strategizing efforts, people simply skip this step or give it minimum attention. Then they race ahead to try to create the vision, or to downsize the organization, or whatever. But sooner or later, the lack of a strong team to guide the effort proves fatal. 4. Putting Together the Guiding Coalition The first step in putting together the kind of team that can direct a change effort is to find the right membership. Four key characteristics seem to be essential to effective guiding coalitions. They are: I. POSITION POWER: Are enough key players on board, especially the main line managers, so that those left out cannot easily block progress? II. EXPERTISE: Are the various points of view-in terms of discipline, work experience, nationality, etc.-relevant to the task at hand adequately represented so that informed, intelligent decisions will be made? III. CREDIBILITY: Does the group have enough people with good reputations in the firm so that its pronouncements will be taken seriously by other employees? IV. LEADERSHIP: Does the group include enough proven lead ­ers to be able to drive the change process? This last concern, about leadership, is particularly important. You need both management and leadership skills on the guiding coalition, and they must work in tandem, teamwork style. The former keeps the whole process under control, while the latter drives the change. (The grids in figure 4- 2 depict various combinations of leadership and management that may or may not work.) Profiles of four different guiding coalitions A guiding coalition with good managers but poor leaders will not succeed. A managerial mind-set will develop plans, not vision; it will vastly under communicate the need for and direction of change; and it will control rather than empower people. Yet companies with much historical success are often left with corporate cultures that create just that mind-set that rejects both leaders and leadership. Ironically, great success creates a momentum that demands more and more managers to keep the growing enterprise under control while requiring little if any leadership. In such firms, much care needs to be exercised or the guiding coalition will lack this critical element. Missing leadership is generally addressed in three ways: (1) people are brought in from outside the firm, (2) employees who know how to lead are promoted from within, or (3) employees who hold positions requiring leadership, but who rarely lead, are encouraged to accept the challenge. Whatever the method chosen to get there, the end result-a team with leadership skills-must be the same. Never forget: A guiding coalition made up only of managers ­ even superb managers who are wonderful people-will cause major change efforts to fail. The size of an effective coalition seems to be related to the size of the organization. Change often starts with just two or three people. The group in successful transformations then grows to half a dozen in relatively small firms or in small units of larger firms. In bigger enterprises, twenty to fifty may eventually need to be signed up. 5. Qualities to Avoid-or Manage Carefully Two types of individuals should be avoided at all costs when putting together a guiding coalition. The first have egos that fill up a room, leaving no space for anybody else. The second are what I call snakes, people who create enough mistrust to kill teamwork. At senior levels in most organizations, people have large egos. But unless they also have a realistic sense of their weaknesses and limitations, unless they can appreciate complementary strengths in others, and unless they can subjugate their immediate interests to some greater goal, they will probably contribute about as much to a guiding coalition as does nuclear waste. If such a person is the central player in the coalition, you can usually kiss teamwork and a dramatic transformation good bye. Snakes are equally disastrous, although in a different way. They damage the trust that is always an essential ingredient in team ­work. A snake is an expert at telling Sally something about Fred and Fred something about Sally that undermines Sally and Freds relationship. Snakes and big egos can be extremely intelligent, motivated, and productive in certain ways. As such, they can get promoted to senior management positions and be logical candidates for a guiding coalition. Smart change agents seem to be skilled at spotting these people and keeping them off the team. If thats impossible, capable leaders watch and manage these folks very carefully. Another type of individual to at least be wary of is the reluctant player. In organizations with extremely high urgency rates, getting people to sign on to a change coalition is easy. But since high urgency is rare, more effort is often required, especially for a few key people who have no interest in signing on. Jerry is an overworked division-level CFO in a major oil company. Conservative by nature, he is more manager than leader and is naturally suspicious of calls for significant change because of the potential disruption and risk. But after having performed well at his corporation for thirty-five years, Jerry is too powerful and too respected to be ignored. Consequently, his division head has devoted hours over a period of two months attempting to convince him that major change is necessary and that Jerrys active involvement is essential. Halfway through the courtship, the CFO still makes excuses, citing his lack of both time and qualifications to help. But persistence pays off, and Jerry eventually signs up. It can be tempting to write off people like Jerry and try to work around them. But if such individuals are central players with a lot of authority or credibility, this tactic rarely works well. Very of ­ten the problem with signing up a Jerry goes back to urgency. He doesnt see the problems and opportunities very clearly, and the same holds for the people with whom he interacts on a daily basis. With complacency high, youll never convince him to give the time and effort needed to create a winning coalition. When people like Jerry have the qualities of a snake or big ego, a negotiated resignation or retirement is often the only sensible option. You dont want them on the guiding coalition, but you also cant afford to have them outside the meeting room causing prob ­lems. Organizations are often reluctant to confront this issue, usu ­ally because these people have either special skills or political sup ­port. But the alternative is usually worse-having them undermine a new strategy or a cultural renewal effort. Afraid to confront the problem, we convince ourselves that Jerry isnt so bad or that we can manoeuvre around him. So we move on, only to curse ourselves later for not dealing with the issue. In this kind of situation, remember the following: Personnel problems that can be ignored during easy times can cause serious trouble in a tougher faster-moving, globalizing economy. 6. Building an Effective Team Based on Trust and a Common Goal Teamwork on a guiding change coalition can be created in many different ways. But regardless of the process used, one component is necessary: trust. When trust is present, you will usually be able to create teamwork. When it is missing, you wont. Trust is absent in many organizations. People who have spent their careers in a single department or division are often taught loyalty to their immediate group and distrust of the motives of others, even if they are in the same firm. Lack of communication and many other factors heighten misplaced rivalry. So the engineers view the salespeople with great suspicion, the German subsidiary looks at the American parent with disdain, and so on. When employees promoted up from these groups are asked to work together on a guiding coalition during a change effort, teamwork rarely comes easily because of the residual lack of trust. The resulting parochial game playing can prevent a needed transformation from taking place. This single insight about trust can be most helpful in judging whether a particular set of activities will produce the kind of team that is needed. If the activities create the mutual understanding, respect, and caring associated with trust, then youre on the right road. If they dont, youre not. Forty years ago, firms that tried to build teams used mostly in ­formal social activity. All the executives met one anothers families. Over golf, Christmas parties, and dinners, they developed relationships based on mutual understanding and trust. Family-oriented social activity is still used to build teams, but it has a number of serious drawbacks today. First, it is a slow process. Occasional activity that is not aimed primarily at team building can take a decade or more. Second, it works best in families with only one working spouse. In the world of dual careers, few of us have enough time for frequent social obligations in two different organizations. Third, this kind of group development process tends to exert strong pressures to conform. Political ideas, lifestyles, and hobbies are all pushed toward the mean. Someone who is different has to conform or leave. Groupthink, in the negative sense of the term, can be a consequence. Team building today usually has to move faster, allow for more diversity, and do without at-home spouses. To accommodate this reality, by far the most common vehicle used now is some form of carefully planned off-site set of meetings. A group of eight or twelve or twenty-four go somewhere for two to five days with the explicit objective of becoming more of a team. They talk, analyse, climb mountains, and play games, all for the purpose of increasing mutual understanding and trust. The first attempts at this sort of activity, about thirty years ago, were so much like a kind of quick-and-dirty group therapy that they often did not work. More recently, the emphasis has shifted to both more intellectual tasks aimed at the head and bonding activities aimed at the heart. People look long and hard at some data about the industry and then go sailing together. A typical off-site retreat involves ten to fifty people for three to six days. Internal staff or external consultants help plan the meeting. Much of the time is spent encouraging honest discussions about how individuals think and feel with regard to the organization, its problems and opportunities. Communication channels between people are opened or strengthened. Mutual understanding is enlarged. Intellectual and social activities are designed to encourage the growth of trust. Such team building outings much too often still fail to achieve results. Expectations are sometimes set too high for a single three day event, or the meeting is not planned with enough care or expertise. But the trend is clear. We are getting better at this sort of activity. For example: Division president Sam Johnson is trying to pull together a group of ten people into an effective change coalition for his consumer electronics business. They include his seven direct reports, the head of the one department in the division that will probably be at the center of the change effort, the executive VP at headquarters, and himself. With great difficulty, he schedules a Week-long meeting for all ten of them , start with a two-day Outward Bound type of activity, in which the group lives together outdoors for forty-eight hours and undertakes strenuous physical tasks like sailing and mountain climbing. During these two days, they get to know one another better and are reminded why team ­work is important. On days three to five, they check into a hotel, are given a great deal of data about the divisions competitors and customers, and are asked to produce a series of discussion papers on a tight time schedule. They work from 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., mostly in ever-shifting, but not randomly chosen, subgroups. From 7:00 to 9:30 each evening they have dinner and talk about their careers, their aspirations, and other more personal topics. In the process, they get to know one another even better and begin to develop shared perspectives on their industry. The increased understanding, the relationships built on actual task achievement and the common perspectives all foster trust. Recognizing that this successful week-long activity is just the beginning of a process, Sam hosts another three-day event for the group a few months later. Two years after that, with turnover and promotions changing the makeup of his group, he puts together yet another carefully planned retreat. Just as important, in between these very visible activities, he takes dozens of actions designed to help build the trust necessary for teamwork. Rumours that might erode goodwill are confronted with lightning speed and accurate information. People who know each other least well are put together on other task forces. All ten are included as often as is prac ­tical in social activities. Q: Was this easy to do? A: Hardly. Two of the ten in this case were very independent individuals who couldnt fathom why they should all go climb mountains together. One was so busy that scheduling group activities seemed at times impossibility. One had a borderline big ego problem. Because of past events, two didnt get along well. Yet Sam managed to overcome all of this and develop an effective guiding coalition. I think he succeeded because he wanted very much for the division to do well, because he was convinced that major change was necessary to make the business a winner, and because he believed that that change couldnt happen without an effective guiding coalition. So in a sense, Sam felt he had no choice. He had to create the trust and teamwork. And he did. When people fail to develop the coalition needed to guide change, the most common reason is that down deep they really dont think a transformation is necessary or they dont think a strong team is needed to direct the change. Skill at team building is rarely the central problem. When executives truly believe they must create a team oriented guiding coalition, they always seem to find competent advisors who have the skills. Without that belief, even if they have the ability or good counsel, they dont take needed actions. Beyond trust, the element crucial to teamwork seems to be a common goal. Only when all the members of a guiding coalition deeply want to achieve the same objective does real teamwork become feasible. The typical goal that binds individuals together on guiding change coalitions is a commitment to excellence, a real desire to make their organizations perform to the very highest levels possible. Reengineering, acquisitions, and cultural change efforts often fail because that desire is missing. Instead, one finds people committed to their own departments, divisions, friends, or careers. Trust helps enormously in creating a shared objective. One of the main reasons people are not committed to overall excellence is that they dont really trust other departments, divisions, or even fellow executives. They fear, sometimes quite rationally, that if they obsessively focus their actions on improving customer satisfaction or reducing expenses, other departments wont do their fair share and the personal costs will skyrocket. When trust is raised, creating a common goal becomes much easier. Leadership also helps. Leaders know how to encourage people to transcend short-term parochial interests.

Quaid E Azam, The Best Leader

Quaid E Azam, The Best Leader Leadership and Organizational Behavior: If you change your past and work together in a spirit that every one of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what his color, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make. (Muhammad Ali Jinnah) (1) It really takes a lifetime to achieve your dreams but in order achieve the dream of millions, it is a feat that only a few can perform in the whole mankind but Quaid-e-Azam was one of them. The abilities and skills which he manifested in the creation of Pakistan and the fight he fought, with reasons and logics to bring the dream of a lifetime for millions of souls was unsurpassable. We will always remain in debt to this man and those millions of sacrifices. Why I chose Quaid-e-Azam, the best leader: Everyone in this earth has a hero. People have heroes because they really admire that specific person and they really look up to that person. They really want to do what they have done and they have achieved in their lives. Likewise, I also have a hero. My hero is Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. There has been a lot written and said about him. From Larry Collins, Dominique Lapierre to Stanley Walport; everyone agreed on one thing: this man, this leader and founder of Pakistan had resolve of a man unbreakable even by the might of the mightiest, the British Empire, the Hindus and by all who thought that to create Pakistan was something beyond reach. But he stood strongly against all who promised and applied pressure from every direction and yet they couldnt move him even an inch. He was to give all, he single handedly performed his responsibilities and there are some elements that make him very unique in all sense; as a leader or as a tactician, as one of the finest implementer of law or as a symbol of governance. I choose him as my hero leader because I really admire him and his style, his personality and most importantly what he did for the Muslims of our country. He gave Muslims the freedom from the British Empire that was ruling at that time. Biographies and Articles: I have read lots of biographies and articles on Quaid-e-Azam and I am going to discuss and analyze a few of those here. The first biography named, Muhammad Ali Jinnah Biography (2) describes the basic introduction about the early life of Quaid-e-Azam and his early education, his comeback to India, starting of his practice at bar, his joining of All India National Congress has also been described, agreement on Lucknow Pact, Jinnahs fourteen points, his control over the Muslim League, Lahore Resolution, 1945-46 elections and the establishment of Pakistan. The second biography named, Biography on Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (3) also describes his early life and his education, his life in London has also been discussed, his return to Karachi in 1896, his entrance in Politics in 1906, his role in unifying the Muslims into a nation and becoming the first head of a new estate i.e. Pakistan. The third biography named, Biography on Quaid-e-Azam (4) explains Birth of Quaid-e-Azam, the Early Life of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Political Career of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Constitutional Struggle of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Muslim League Reorganization and link of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Demand for Pakistan Slogan Raised by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Cripps Scheme and the most importantly, The Quaids last Words. An article, Remembering the Founder (5), from Dawn December 25, 2000; shows the importance of Quaid-e-Azam in the struggle against the problems in making Pakistan, it also shows his modern vision of politics and his vision of Pakistan as well. Another article, Quaids Concept of Pakistan (6), from The News International Pakistan December 25, 2005; tells about the controversy over whether the Quaid-e-Azam envisaged Pakistan to develop into an Islamic or secular state, the collapse of the 1857 resistance, treatment of minorities, his effective speeches, the dangers to Pakistan and his concept of a Nation. By reading all the above mentioned biographies and articles, I want to share the information I gathered, his qualities, efforts and most amazingly zero level of weaknesses, my views about the strengths and accurate behavior of this great leader. Early Life: Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was born on December 25th, 1876, to a mercantile family in Karachi. He got his early education at the Sindh Madrassat-ul-Islam and the Christian Mission School. He joined the Lincolns Inn in 1893 and became the youngest Indian to be called to the Bar. After three years, he became most famous lawyer in Bombay. In 1905, he entered politics from the platform of the Indian National Congress. As a member of a congress delegation, he went to England in that year to plead the cause of Indian self-governemnt during the British elections. By forming a political group called the Muslim League, he got us a freedom. Talking to all the Muslims around in the sub-continent at that time, he said, We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral code, customs and calendar, history and tradition, aptitudes and ambitions; in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of international law, we are a nation. (7) Political Career: In January 1910, Quaid-e-Azam was elected to the newly-constituted Imperial Legislative Council. He was probably the most powerful voice in the cause of Indian freedom rights all through his parliamentary career. Jinnah was also the first Indian to pilot a private members Bill through the Council and soon became a leader of a group inside the legislature. Strong Beliefs: For almost three decades since his entry into politics in 1906, Jinnah strongly believed in Hindu-Muslim unity. The Hindu leader before Gandhi, Gokhale, had once said of him, He has the true stuff in him and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity. (8) And he did become the architect of Hindu-Muslim Unity, he was the one who was responsible for the Congress-League Pact of 1916, known as Lucknow Pact; the only pact ever signed between the two political organizations, the Congress and the All-India Muslim League, the two major communities in the subcontinent. Key Roles: The Lucknow Pact showed a milestone in the evolution of Indian politics. It conceded Muslims the right to separate electorate, reservation of seats in the legislatures and weightage in the representation both at the Centre and the minority provinces, thus binding the trend towards Muslim individuality in Indian politics. All the credit for this goes to Jinnah. Thus, by 1917, Jinnah came to be recognized among both Hindus and Muslims as one of Indias most outstanding political leaders. He was very prominent in the Congress and the Imperial Legislative Council as he was the President of the All India Muslim and that of the Bombay Branch of the Home Rule League. More importantly, because of his very special role in the Congress League agreement at Lucknow, he was hailed as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. Great Impact: In 1940, the formulation of the Muslim demand for Pakistan had a great impact on the course of Indian politics. It shattered forever the Hindu dreams of Indian, in fact, Hindu empire on British exit from India. The reaction of the Hindus was quick and bitter too. The British were equally hostile to the Muslim demand, their hostility having stemmed from their belief that the unity of India was their main achievement and their foremost contribution. The irony was that both the Hindus and the British had not anticipated the strong response that the Pakistan demand had elicited from the Muslim masses. Hence, they failed to know how a hundred million people had amazingly become so much conscious of their distinct nationhood and their destiny. In monitoring the course of Muslim politics towards Pakistan, none played a more prominent role than did Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. It was only his advocacy of the case of Pakistan and it was his remarkable strategy in the delicate negotiations that followed the formulation of the Pakistan demand, particularly in the post-war period, that made Pakistan inevitable. Limitless Struggle and Efforts: In subsequent years, however, he felt dismayed at the involvement of violence in the politics. Jinnah really felt that political terrorism was not the way to the national liberation but, the dark route to disaster and destruction. Hence Jinnah could not possibly, countenance Mohandas Karamchand Gandhis novel methods of Civil Disobedience and the triple boycott of government aided schools and colleges, courts and councils and British textiles. Earlier, in October 1920, when Gandhi, having been elected President of the Home Rule League, tried to change its constitution as well as its nomenclature, Jinnah had resigned from the Home Rule League, saying: Your extreme program has for the moment struck the imagination mostly of the inexperienced youth and the ignorant and the illiterate. All this means disorganization and chaos. (9) Required Behavior: In the growing frustration among the masses caused by colonial rule, there was strong cause for extremism. Jinnah felt that it might lead to the building up of resentment, but nothing constructive. Hence, he opposed the tactics adopted by Gandhi to exploit the Khilafat and wrongful tactics in the Punjab in the early twenties. On the eve of its adoption of the Gandhian program, Jinnah warned the Nagpur Congress Session (1920): You are making a declaration (of Swaraj) and committing the Indian National Congress to a program, which you will not be able to carry out, (10). He felt that there was no short-cut to independence and that Gandhis constitutional methods could only lead to political terrorism, lawlessness and chaos, without bringing India nearer to freedom. Although Jinnah left the Congress soon thereafter but he continued his efforts towards bringing about a Hindu-Muslim unity. However, because of the huge distrust between the two communities as evidenced by the country-wide communal riots, and because the Hindus failed to meet the right demands of the Muslims, his efforts came to zero. One such effort was the formulation of the Delhi Muslim Proposals in March, 1927. Jinnah argued in vain at the National convention (1928): What we want is that Hindus and Muslims should march together until our object is achieved. These two communities have got to be reconciled and united and made to feel that their interests are common, (11). The Conventions blank refusal to accept Muslim demands represented the setback to Jinnahs passionate efforts to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity, it meant the last straw for the Muslims, and the parting of the ways for him, as he confessed to a Parsee friend at that time. Jinnahs disillusionment at the course of politics in the subcontinent made him to migrate and settle down in London in the early thirties. He returned to India in 1934, at the pleadings of his co-religionists, and did assume their leadership. But then the Muslims presented a sad spectacle at that time. They were a mass of dissatisfied and demoralized people, politically disorganized program. To get the Muslim people freedom, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah played a big role. He was the only Muslim to stand up and rally all the Muslims together so they could have their freedom on Aug. 14, 1947. Great Thoughts and Sayings of Quaid-e-Azam: We can look to the future with robust confidence provided we do not relax and fritter away our energies in internal dissensions. There was never a greater need for discipline and unity in our ranks. It is only with united effort and faith in our destiny that we shall be able to translate the Pakistan of our dreams into reality. (Mohammed Ali Jinnah) (12) My message to you all is of hope, courage and confidence. Let us mobilize all our resources in a systematic and organized way and tackle the grave issues that confront us with grim determination and discipline worthy of a great nation. (Mohammad Ali Jinnah) (13) We are now all Pakistanisnot Baluchis, Pathans, Sindhis, Bengalis, and Punjabis and so onand as Pakistanis we must feet behave and act, and we should be proud to be known as Pakistanis and nothing else. (Mohammad Ali Jinnah) (14) We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play. (Mohammad Ali Jinnah) (15) Come forward as servants of Islam organize the people economically, socially, educationally and politically and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody. (Mohammad Ali Jinnah) (15) The Quaids Last Message: With a sense of great satisfaction at the completion of his mission that Jinnah told the nation in his last message on 14 August, 1948: The foundations of your State have been laid and it is now for you to build and build as quickly and as well as you can, (16). In accomplishing the task he had taken upon himself on the morrow of Pakistans birth, Jinnah had worked himself to death. Result: The Quaid e Azam is admired by all political parties as well as by the army in Pakistan. He was a tremendous leader whose first preference was to give special status for the Muslim League within a united India as being the sole representative of the Muslim community. This was unacceptable to the Congress which had been quite secular in its outlook and had leaders from all the many religions. The Quaid-e-Azam was an accomplished lawyer and a magnificent negotiator. He used the threat of creating Pakistan as a stick if his demands were not met. After getting Pakistan, he wanted it to be a secular state but unfortunately he died within a year of its creation. As a result, religious forces quickly adopted a resolution making Pakistan an Islamic republic and introduced a basis for subsequent misuse for intolerant agendas of some of its most influential leaders. Conclusions: That is why I really admire him. He is a hero to everyone in my country because of what he did for our country and for the Muslims. He fought so much for Pakistan and he did so much for us that no one can ever forget. He is a great freedom hero for me. In all his speeches given in whatever little time he had, it paved way for all to see and to learn how Pakistan should develop its economic and foreign policies, how to protect rights of the minorities, based on justice and fairness, a society set on the principles of Islam, where all will be able to take part to its success and progression but we all forgot within the months of his departure. It is still time for Pakistanis to wake up and to follow the spirit of its founder to bring back this country to its feet. All the challenges we face, all the resistance we face amongst ourselves and from outside can be removed if we could only understand Jinnah and his life and know the mechanics in creation of a country that became second largest Muslim country in 20th century. But this was not to happen as we forgot our very own sacrifices, our very own people and our very own founder Jinnah. Instead of following his vision; we followed our instincts based on greed and promotion of values against all what he made and created. We forgot Jinnah and have turned Jinnah into just a mere symbol. It is his words; it is his life which should be lived in all of us. We have betrayed him in last sixty one years. It is still time to appreciate and to bring that spirit back in Pakistan and in all of Pakistanis, and we have to forget these differences that we have created. We must become more understanding and tolerant of each other and work together. It is this task that is the need of the time and our major responsibility. Remember a young boy, age of seventeen, arriving at Southampton. Remember a person who learnt all the important ways of life in those dull and depressing months of winter. Remember that person who once walked near river Thames, asking himself what a change means and how it can be brought. Even Jinnah had no idea what so ever at that time but he learnt that studying Law will take him so far but he never thought that one day he will fight in a way no one had done it ever before. One day he will fight for the hopes of millions. He took stand against Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Mountbatten and the whole British Empire. But he fought well with both his mind and words and took intelligent actions to turn this dream into reality. It is now up to us as individuals and as a society and as leaders of this Pakistan to understand the cause and all what it took. It is this man Mohammed Ali Jinnah who became in the process our Quaid-e-Azam, the founder of Pakistan. It is this man, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Quaid-e-Azam, a man for all seasons we owe our lives to and to Pakistan.

The Effective Use of Imagery in Hemingways The Old Man and the Sea Ess

The Effective Use of Imagery in Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea has engendered some lively debate in literary circles. Critics have concentrated on everything in the novella from the verity of Rigel's early evening appearance over Cuban skies in September (Weeks 192) to William Faulkner's judgment that Hemingway discovered God while writing The Old Man and the Sea (Bradford 158-62). Yet the most insightful commentary has gravitated invariably toward biblical, natural, and classical imagery in the novel. These images turn an otherwise simple fishing tale into a sublime narrative of human endurance. A reading that examines these images will serve to clarify the hidden significance in Hemingway's novel. Biblical imagery literally abounds in The Old Man and the Sea. The name "Santiago" itself is a biblical allusion. Donald Heiney informs us that "Santiago is simply the Spanish form of Saint James, and James like Peter was a fisherman-apostle in the New Testament. Santiago de Compostela is the patron saint of Spain and is also greatly revered by Cuban Catholics" (86). Sam Baskett enhances this image by indicating that Saint James "was martyred 'with the sword' by Herod" (278). In the novel, we see Santiago entrenched in battle with a swordfish, and, if we are to believe Baskett, he eventually dies after the struggle (269). In a sense, Santiago, like James, is martyred "with the sword." Santiago's battle with the fish produces myriad biblical images, and while the most obvious are Santiago-as-Christ, others exist as well. Arvin Wells, for example, provides a Santiago-as-Cain analogy: "Repeatedly, [Santiago] addresses the fish as 'brother'. . . Yet, at the same ti... ...y, Donald W. Barron's Simplified Approach to Ernest Hemingway. Woodbury: Barron's Educational Series, 1965. Hemingway, Ernest. The Old Man and the Sea. New York: MacMillan, 1952. Jobes, Katharine, ed. Twentieth Century Interpretations of The Old Man and the Sea. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Moseley, Edwin M. Pseudonyms of Christ in the Modern Novel: Motifs and Methods. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1962. Rosenfield, Claire. "New world, Old Myths." Jobes 41-55. Sylvester, Bickford. "Hemingway's Extended Vision: The Old Man and the Sea." Jobes 81-96. Weeks, Robert P. "Fakery in The Old Man and the Sea." College English 24 (1962): 188-92. Wells, Arvin R. "A Ritual of Transfiguration: The Old Man and the Sea." Jobes 56-63. Young, Philip. "The Old Man and the Sea: Vision/Revision." Jobes 18-26.

Gene Engineering

Genetic Engineering Research I. Introduction In the past three decades, scientists have learned how to mix and match characteristics among unrelated creatures by moving genes from one creature to another. This is called â€Å"genetic engineering. † Genetic Engineering is a test tube science and is prematurely applied in food production. There are estimates that food output must increase by 60 percent over the next 25 years to keep up with demand. Thus, the result of scientist genetically altering plants for more consumption. The two most common methods for gene transfer are biological and electromechanical. â€Å"Early experiments all involved changing DNA using bacterial vectors†(Randerson, 2001). Through other advances scientists proclaim how they can improve the human gene pool. All humans have genes which carry certain traits structuring a person’s chemical make-up. â€Å"Inheritable characteristics are passed from one generation to the next through DNA, a molecule that is present in all of our cells†(Massey,2001). Gene Engineering could be used in various ways trying to improve humans. Gene modifications can have an impact solely on a single person (somatic manipulation), or on a person's children and all subsequent descendants (germline manipulation). Somatic manipulation seeks to change the genetic makeup of particular body in somatic cells that comprise the organs and tissues. Germline genetic manipulation changes the sex cells which can modify the health of a c†¦ †¦ middle of paper †¦ †¦ must be put in use for advances in reproductive technology and not to become available with bad intentions or misguided choices. II. References Cited Massey, Rachel. â€Å"Engineering Humans Part 1†. Human Genetics Alert, March, 2001. http://www. – users. globalnet. co. uk/~cahg/ King, David. †The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering†. Human Genetics Alert, 1999. http://www. hgalert. org Randerson, James. â€Å"Gene Modified Athletes†. Human Genetics Alert, November, 2001. http://online. sfsu. edu/%7Erone/GEessays/genemodifiedathletes Hayes, Richard. â€Å"In the Pipeline: Genetically Modified Human

Madame Loisel from “The Necklace” Essay

Madame Loisel is unhappy because she is ashamed of her social standing. Madam Loisel has always dreamed of a luxurious life with servants and such, and is unhappy because she is not wealthy. She becomes even more upset when she is invited to a ball. It upsets her because she thinks she has nothing to wear which is appropriate for the occasion. Then she is upset because she doesn’t have appropraite jewelry. However the base of both of those complaints is that she is unhappy in her social standing. She was a pretty and charming girl, who thought that she should have been born into a life of luxury. But instead, she was born with parents who were â€Å"employees.† Because of this, she was dissatisfied with everything about her life. She did not like the way her house looked, she did not like the food they had. She was not even satisfied with her maid because she wasn’t high class enough either. She thinks that if all her stuff were high class, she’d be happy. It is perfectly natural for people to want what they can’t have, whether it is an expensive item of some kind of forbidden fruit. Such is the case with Madame Loisel in Guy de Maupassant’s shortMme. Loisel was envious of her friend and anyone else who had more than what she had. She felt that she deserved these things. My first example of Mathilde Loisel’s selfishness is â€Å"She had no clothes, no jewels, nothing. And these were the only things she loved; she felt that she was made for them.† (p.133). These sentences show how materialistic Mathilde is and how selfish she is for caring only about gaining these things for herself. She didn’t show any care for her husband who despite their humble living, seemed to be a caring and loving husband who kept a positive attitude about things. She held her love for materialistic objects so high that it consumed her and occupied her mind. My second example of Mathilde’s selfishness is â€Å"Nothing. Only I haven’t a dress and so I can’t go to this party.