There is a heated discussion in Pakistan on Qauid-i-Azam and his vision  about Pakistan: whether  he wanted the new state Islamic or secular. There is ample material in the Quaid’s speeches which provides arguments on both sides. Therefore, on the basis of his speeches it is difficult to reach to any conclusion. However, the discussion leads us to analyse and examine the role of the individuals in history and how far they are responsible to make, shape  and change history.

 Those individuals who played important role in history were the products of their  time . According to Hegel such individuals “ had insight into the requirements of the time-what was ripe for development…..the Heroes of an epoch-must therefore, be recognized  as its clear sighted ones; their deeds, their words are the best of that time. Great men have formed purposes to satisfy themselves, not others”. After fulfilling their mission according to the requirements of their age they “fall off like empty hulls from the  kernel”.  .Isaiah Berlin in his book “The Hedgehog and the Fox” writes about Tolstoy’s views on the role of great individuals in history: “There is a particular vivid simile in which the great man is likened to the ram duly grows fatter, and perhaps is used as a bell-whether  for the rest of the flock, he may easily imagine that he is the leader of the flock, and that the other sheep  go where they go solely in obedience to his will. He thinks this and the flock may think it too. Nevertheless  the purpose of his selection is not the role he believes himself to play, but slaughter-a purpose conceived by beings whose aim neither he nor the other sheep can fathom.” Similar views are  expressed by Bismarck when he delivered a speech in the German Reichstag (April 16,1869):

"Gentlemen, we can neither ignore the history of the past
  nor create the future. I would like to warn you against the
  mistake that causes people to advance  the hands of their
  clocks, thinking that thereby they are hastening the
  passage of time. My influence on the events I took advantage
  of is usually exaggerated; but it would never occur to anyone
  to demand that I should make history. I could not do that even
  in conjunction with you, we could resist the whole world.
  We cannot make history ; we must wait while it is being made.
  We will not make fruit ripen  more quickly  by subjecting it to the
  heat of a lamp; and we pluck the fruit before it is ripe we will
  prevent its growth and spoil it."

 So the great individuals are the products of their time and space. They fulfil their mission, influence their respective societies, and then become a part of history. The question is that how these historical personalities should be treated by the later generation: should they  relay on them or just give them credit of their historical role and keep them away from their present problems. There are two different approaches :Those societies which are constantly in a process of change, respect these individuals in the historical context and never allow them to entangle in their day to day problems. On the contrary, those  societies  which remain stagnant and whose pace of progress is very slow, there the hero worship becomes a normal feature and the ruling classes, taking advantage of the emotional attachment of the people to the heroes, create myths around them . Attempts are made to glorify them  and to establish their integrity and credibility up to such an extent that to oppose them or to deviate from their thoughts becomes heresy. Once their credentials are established , they are fully exploited  by the ruling classes  to legitimise their authority and to silence  their opponents. No policy, system, and planning can be implemented unless it is not corroborated with the ideas of the hero. This makes the society stagnant and dull. In such a milieu, imitation is preferred to creativity and people are constantly  exhorted to follow in the footsteps of the hero and to accept whatever the hero approves and reject  whatever the hero disapproves.

 The Pakistani society is under the grip of heroes, which resultantly saps its energy  and weakens its confidence. The result is that whenever the question of change comes nearly all sections of the society agree that the task of reform and improvement could only be done either by the arrival of some great person or by the guidance of past heroes. The belief on the miracle power of the heroes became strong with the emergence of dictators who deprived people from  their rights and took the whole responsibility to govern the country . In the absence of democratic institutions common people relies heavily on the patronisation of some strong person to solve their problems. Moreover, as our history is written in a perspective of great individuals who always changed the course of history, the reliance on coming of such  individual also becomes the only hope of the elite class which expects that in case of emergence of a strong man they would get their share from the loot, as it happened in the past when conquerors, after a victory, distributed the war booty among their collaborators.

 The ‘great man’ concept also indicates the psyche of the society which is not interested to change the structure by struggle and sacrifice but expects to get everything by doing nothing. They believe that somebody will do the job of cleaning the Aegean stable.

 However, whatever we desire and wish, the reality is that nations change their destiny only by themselves. It is not a great and strong man who revolutionises the society, but change takes place as a  result of accumulated efforts of people. If we are not ready for such efforts, the process of decline go on unchecked with all its grave consequences.

 Therefore, it is not appropriate to discuss what some great man wanted in the past but what the young generation wants at present?. It is to be discussed that  under present circumstances what suits us: a theocratic or a secular and democratic state . Secularism and theocracy should be discussed purely on theoretical basis and not on the basis of personal liking or disliking of some individual. That’s why somebody says that the dead should not be allowed to rule over the living.