Is it important to be a good human being and accommodating or should we be aggressive and achieve success?

Views: 936

I am the Great Emperor,
Who tried to be aggressive through war
Raised the success bar
My story would thus would be heard in 7 oceans far.

Yet why do I yearn by victory?
Why do I feel sorry?
For who did I win this?
I won merely the land, but people are the kingdom’s real bliss!

The above poem shows how the emperor Ashoka, changed from the one
pompous and aggressive King to questioning himself for not being
accommodating or a good human being. It is often believed that “good guys finish
last” hence came in the notion that a good human being is often the one who is
not a winner. Although there are examples for the same, being aggressive also
doesn’t really guarantee success. It is the zeal of victory, courage to fight till last
yet be a good human being makes the people successful. Ashoka post battle
didn’t stop expanding his kingdom, instead followed the principle of “Changing of
hearts” instead of war, which made it possible that the world still considers him a
respectable king.
At an individual level, we have seen many examples from our lives, who are
inherently good human beings but couldn’t achieve what the society calls
“success”. In the times of materialism, if one doesn’t own a luxury car or fancy
phones, people consider them “not so successful”. But if one sees what Maslow in
his need hierarchy theory called “Self-actualisation needs” is what at the end of

commercial wants, we thrive for. On the other hand, we have seen the aggressive
people like Harshad Mehta, Vijay Mallaya, Nirav Modi etc. who were respected
and called successful in their careers but since the means weren’t good, it only
paid off in the short term. In political terms, there are some people who liked the
approach of Lenin & Hitler for long term but at the same time, there were and
there are many people who still consider Barack Obama’s approach more
sustainable. Having seen the perspective of individuals, let’s have a look at the
wider lens.
At a Societal level, the fundamentalists and radicalists feel that they can wipe out
other religions or sects altogether to establish peace. But as Gandhiji said during
revolutionary militarism, “It may be true that we may get independence faster
through this method, but what foundation are we providing to the dream of our
Nation?”. Indeed, if the foundation was violence, people would feel, they can get
anything if they are courageous enough for violence. For example: Spreading
Jihad can never be successful but the approach “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanti”
which was followed when India allowed Parsis in the society calling them sugar
crystals to come and mix in the milk bowl (the society) is long lasting.
At the national level, the approach of protectionism, unpeaceful rise of
hegemonic powers like China, suppressing of Iran by USA etc. although are
aggressive and may look like successful in the short run but in the long run we can
see the results of USA trying to suppress Taliban in Afghanistan. It failed miserably
and at the end like a good human being, they are accommodating Taliban and
having deliberations with them.
In real terms, the synergy of being a good human being, being accommodative
and being passively aggressive to achieve one’s ambitions can collectively help in
achieving success. Individually it may seem impossible at first but we must
remember the easier paths will always lead to undesired destinations. Similarly, a
good society produces good human beings and increases the longevity of Earth’s
age. It is the Nuclear weapons which can completely destroy nations and the
world collectively. Thus to ensure success in international arena, Vasudhaiva
Kutumbakam” is the way forward.

-Prakhar Nema