Everybody wants to be successful in life but success is a relative term the deinition of which vares from person to person.

Everybody wants to be successful in life. The definition of success however is relative and changes drastically as one goes through life just as the view of the ground changes as one climbs up the different floors of a building.

When one is young, the main focus is to earn the maximum amount of money in the fastest and least possible time by working extremely hard. One comes across statements like “Samay se pahle aur bhagya se Zyada kisiko nahin milta” or “Jisko milna hota hai usko kaise bhi milta hai”.(Nobody gets success until it is destined and at the right time) At a young age, one has a tendency to ignore such wise, elderly sayings but as one goes through life one wonders about truth and wisdom of such sayings
and proclamations.

For instance someone like Govinda can hardly compare to the sheer brilliance of Nasserudin Shah as an actor but was far more commercially successful. In an interview, the managing director of one of the best companies, Infosys said that he knew batchmates who were smarter and worked harder than he did but he was much more commercially successful largely because of being in the right place at the right time. Many successful people have given “right timing” as one of the main reasons for their success. Amtiabh Bachchan explained his luck like this- corruption peaking and coinciding with his action films where the middle class began to see him as anti establishment, technology and sound also improving considerably to promote his kind of films, after peaking as a superstar, with the coming of video, he continued to be in the drawing rooms and bed rooms of people and also to the coming generations, an advantage not available to ex-superstars etc. This clearly shows that deed and destiny both have roles because it was definitely one of the reasons for his being crowned “Superstar of the millennium”

One cannot make a broad generalization from using isolated examples as above but one thing is certain- people from the same batch can have vastly different commercial success depending upon which company or Industry they opt for because the market profile of different Industries is drastically different. The difference is more because of these factors than the individual’s intrinsic qualities. Some people slog a lot without commensurate success and some others become successful with relatively little effort. (Jab Taqdeer Maherbaan tab Gadha Pahelwaan- When destiny is in favor, even fools prosper)

In cricket, bowlers often come up with the statement “ Many times we try very hard and bowl well but do not get wickets. At other times, we are immensely successful with relatively lesser quality effort”. I have heard this sort of thing in management also. One of my friends who heads a project consultancy business said “Ideally the focus should be on major projects but I give equal importance to all projects because one never knows which will click. Sometimes smaller projects give better returns in lesser time than bigger projects which are often of a very long duration.” In other companies, one gets to hear that old , moderately efficient but sincere employees do much better value addition in the long run than “stars” who are more concerned about themselves and who spoil the team spirit and the work culture but who are hired for the strength of their reputations.

One is reminded of the theory of Karma “ Only running here and there(without good past karma) will not fetch more wealth. At the same time be sure that whatever wealth is destined, you are definitely going to get it not because of your running but in spite of your running.”

Unfortunately, the law of Karma is more a matter of belief. In younger days, one is not inclined to believe all this but as one goes through life, one comes across so many such cases that wonders if it is true . If true , it has so many implications. One comes across articles in magazines which state that stress levels among new job seekers have gone up because of their high expectations. They are facing a quarter life crises as against a mid-life crises. There are increasing cases of executive burnouts. If they could start believing in the law of karma, they would not over stretch themselves . Similarly, every year one hears of board exam suicides. They are probably students who have the false perception that their entire life hangs on one exam. If they could be prevailed upon that they would get whatever is destined for them no matter what, some extreme thinking would be mitigated. Law of Karma apart, practical life is a great leveler in more ways than one which the students are completely unaware of. Stress is a result of incorrect thinking more than anything else.

Belief in law of karma however should not breed complacency. One should not start thinking that since they are going to get whatever is there is one’s destiny, there is no need to push themselves. Amitabh Bachchan had said in one of the episodes of“Kaun banega Karodpati “ Bhagya me likhkha hai who milega par uske liye karm karna padega” He did not specify that what would happen if one kept doing one’s karma but it was not written in one’s destiny. However the law of Karma is clear that you will get only whatever is destined for you though one should keep trying and keep doing one karma or purushartha..

This should also promote a lot of third eye judgment. As conveyed earlier, everything is that is good is not commercially successful and everything that is commercially successful is not necessarily good. One will try to read between the lines and judge. The normal tendency is to follow the successful person blindly. However when one tries to figure out whether the person is really good or whether the success is because of some unexplainable factors, one can generally make better judgments and prosper in life. One should follow the dictum “Observe the man who is successful, listen to the man who is unsuccessful”. This is not to say that one should not hear a successful person but there is a lot to be learnt from failure as well.

One should be encouraged to think how much of destiny is involved. For instance, if Kapil Dev had been born in the West Indies, he would not have been in the cricket team because of the presence of four pace bowlers or if Ravi Shastri had appeared a few years earlier, he would not have been in the Indian cricket team because of the presence of the spin quartet. When one tries to think like that – as a manager, the success would be completely different if they had joined a different company etc, one can begin to appreciate the factors affected by destiny.

Talking of Destiny reminds me of a statement that Producer Director Rakesh Roshan made in the Times of India, “ I found it almost impossible to fight by destiny” while explaining his struggle to succeed as an actor. His son, Hritikh on the other hand tasted mega success with his very first movie. Rakesh Roshan had to struggle long and hard as an actor but could not make much of a mark but succeeded profusely as a producer director much later in life. This is another type of success that must be applauded; it is not easy to survive a string of failures and than to succeed later in life. In my view the father’ son was far more creditable than the son’s and should serve an inspiration to strugglers. Hritik himself struggled a lot with the other movies after his first success. It only proves the saying “Success is never certain, failure is never final”.

This reminds of another famous saying related to success “Nothing succeeds like succeeds”. This is not really positive thinking but blind optimistic thinking. Such successes are more an exception than the rule. Since independence, Sunil Gavaskar, Sachin Tendulkar, Kapil Dev, Amitabh Bachchan, Dhirubhai Amabani, President Kalam among others qualify in this category but even these lives are not without their hiccups. Management history is replete with cases of “Success leads to ego and ego leads to failure” . Sometimes success itself leads to failure. Peter Drucker had written once that life is like a relay race and the person who starts a company is not always the best person to carry it forward. Sometimes people who turnaround sick companies are asked to leave during pleasant times because the new situation calls for a change in leadership. This clearly shows that the above saying is a selective truth.



Talking of fathers and sons, father son comparison though not desirable become inevitable. Neither Sunil Gavaskar nor Amitabh Bachchan’s sons come anywhere near their superstar fathers. All kinds of examples can be found in the film Industry. Rishi Kappor, Sunny Deol and Sunjay Dutt could match their father’s success; Kumar Gaurav and Randhir Kapoor could not. One cannot make any generalizations. Each individual has to try out for himself and see. If only there were some criteria for judging political performance. Since there is no objective criteria for judging political performance, they have a field day- entry and exit is easy and so generation after generation has a go at the family legacy.

The most important criteria or rather lack of it comes in regards to the market profile. Sachin Tendulkar and Dhanraj Pillay were both contemporary superstars in their respective sports but Sachin earned far more than Pillay because cricket has a much better market profile than hockey. Does that make Pillay any less a superstar.?Talking of hockey reminds of the late Dhyanchand . Though he was known as the Bradman of hockey, he hardly got anything from the game. His stature is still intact. For that matter, some of the other world champions that India has produced in other sports- billards , chess and shooting for instance; the sportsmen concerned do not cease to be superstars because they earn much less than cricketers do. Money therefore can never be the measure of an individual and blindly running after it is stupidity.

In his wonderful book, “Success v/s Joy”, former World Billiards champion and an alumni of IIM(Ahmedabad) describes how some CEO friends of his were extremely miserable in top positions. He further states that society respects hierarchy but man-management at the higher level is not everybody’s cup of tea. For instance a copywriter may have far more job satisfaction in his craft than as a boss of ten copywriters where he has to cater to the whims and fancies of ten people and is separated from his primary activity which is copywriting. In society’s terms they may be successful but what if they are miserable inside. There are actors who keep taking rejections, animal lovers who work in awful conditions and artist who endure a lifetime of poverty because they love their work though in society’s and commercial terms , they are unsuccessful.

On the recent tour to Pakistan, while attending a charity show one of India’s most prominent cricketers remarked ,” Its actually these people(charity organizers) who are the real heroes. We just happen to be more visible”. That sums it up. Can an Ambani compete with a Mother Teresa of Captain Vikram Batra who received the Paramvir Chakra for the way he battled the Pakistanis in the Kargil war. Some will say that one should compare oranges with oranges and apples with apples but sometimes one has to make far reaching comparisons to put things in perspective. The media can fulfill a void here. If it manages to highlight some of the “heroes” in the other fields (apart from films and cricket), maybe the tendency of the people to show off their wealth and run after money can be curbed and it be directed to more constructive purposes.

The definition of success is very relative- it varies according to circumstances, individuals and the particular field; to therefore judge on the basis of status alone is fallacious and deceptive.