What is your opinion on Pakistan's future?

Pakistan is at the crossroads of her destiny.
Because of the ascent of India in the global scenario, Pakistan has no choice but to review the course she took with respect to her attitude and dealings with india. In the view of some analysts, Pakistan identified herself through her hostility towards India. I find this hard to comprehend. A state has other issues apart from the security one.
For example, a government has to take certain steps for the welfare of the public, and look for ways to increase the employment rate and to reduce poverty if the country has been classified as 'a developing nation'.
However, as Pakistan has had a very limited pool of resources from which it could have chosen it's leaders, due to the iron grip of the military on its administrative and political affairs, the number of ideas on improving the lot of the people of Pakistan has been limited to a great extent. Because of the army being more competitive in military affairs its leaders were narrowminded and not able to look after Pakistan's issues.
If Pakistan had not joined the war against terror, She would have been branded a 'terriost state'. Musharraf did not have a choice but to join Bush. Musharraf, however kept the terrorists in Pakistan as he thought they gave him leaverage with the Indian and Afghan governments.
With the U S. becoming a strategic partner of India, and China keen to have close ties with her as it is beneficial to her interests to work with India, that leaves Pakistan with no option but to review its policy vis a vis India. I believe that for the survival of Pakistan, it will have to develop friendly relations with India. You simply cannot survive in the jungle by picking a fight with your neighborhood tiger with no one to protect you.
China has no reason to be pleased with Pakistan as the Al Qaeda is fomenting trouble in the eastern regions of China too.
Hence, Pakistan will have to play a new game, brought about by uncontrollable circumstances, if it is to progress, if not survive.

What does Ariel Sharon's life teach us?

Reading about Ariel Sharon's life, I felt sorry about the futility of his exertions during the major portion of his life. Imagne working for something, believing in the motive ardently, and then realising that the fruit of the work would be detrimental to all he stood for. Sharon came to realise that if Israel held on to the occupied territories, a time would come when the Arabs would be a majority in "Greater Israel". If the Arabs voted en - masse in the future, then one among them could come to power and the very existence of Israel would be undermined.
How futile it is to believe in a vision so completely, when one knows that it is impossible to control all the factors and the invironment around us. Could Sharon have fathomed that he would suffer a most debilitating stroke, when the Jews of Israel needed him most? He, like the rest of us found it hard to believe in his own mortality, he must have found it difficult to imagine that he, too, will die one day.
If one believes in god, being of any faith, one comes to the conclusion that human imperfections can put a spoke in any wheel. Would Jesus Christ have been crucified, if not for human imperfections? The Christians believe that Jesus suffered terribly on the cross, otherwise of what significance would his crucifixion be? Similary, why were the Jewish temples destroyed more than once? Why did the holocaust take place? Because of human frailties. If after Prophet Mohammed's visions there is still evil in this world, If after Christ's crucifixion there is still evil, can there ever be a perfect world? Can a mere man, not being a Prophet of God, or an Avatar, or a Divine Being, change the world according to his likes and dislikes?

Indo Pakistan Cricket : Predict The Winner At Your Own Risk!

People often predict the results of Indo Pakistan cricket series/matches before they begin, but they do so at great peril to their anaytical and forecasting reputations.
The great Imran Khan predicted that fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar would run through the Indian batting line up. At the beginning of the first test it seemed to me to be too tight to call. Both the teams had recently placed two of the best coaches in the cricketing world at the helm. Both seem to have different coaching mantras. Bob Woolmer, Pakistan's coach follows the trends used by most sucessful modern coaches. Greg Chappell, India's coach, follows only his own methods culled from his considerable playing experience, and from his cricketing brain which (people say!) is the shrewdest cricketing brain alive.
Woolmer has had a long and illustrous career as coach under whom South Africa had become the undisputed world No2 team. However, Chappell has made the Indian Team go from strength to strength in recent times. Pakistan, too, has become a crack unit and have defeated the mighty England team recently.
as I write, the first test match between India and Pakistan seems to be heading for a draw, with some help from the weather gods. So much for Imran's prophesies!

Do you think that Lal Krishna Advani was right in calling Jinnah secular?

Maybe L. K. Advani came to the same conclusion that I have come to, that though Jinnah was secular, he was convinced that the Congress was not and thought that the muslims in Undivided India would be at a distinct disadvantage to the Hindus due to the congress party being pseudo-secular. Maybe he thought that the Muslims would be politically subjugated by the Congress party as the congress had repelled the Muslim League's offer of sharing seats.
However, all political parties are keen to get into power in a democracy. In the hey-days of the congress which lasted till the beginning of the V. P. Singh government, this was true because the congress preferred to go alone and did not bother about coalition government formation. Jinnahs short sightedness is revealed because in the present political scenario in India, if the subcontinent had been undivided, the Muslim League would have been indespensible in coalition politics.