The transformation of king Ashoka and Bill Gates

Some challenged the strategies and questioned his ethics. A simple Wikipedia search reveals how fierce he was. He always wanted to win in an argument. He would constantly run down his staff, telling them how stupid they and their plans were. He told them he was faster and better than all of them. He was sarcastic and would run them down. He was no doubt a genius businessman but not a good person.

But as soon as he became the richest man in the world, he had a transformation, just like Ashoka. He got involved in charitable activities and is now known for his charity and philanthropy. He talks about Corporate Social Responsibility and the responsibility of capitalists to take care of the world.

He is following the Ashoka model, turning a new leaf in the autumn of his life. This goodness follows success, it did not exist before success, and it was never a parallel path of success. It was simply a consequence of spectacular success, and the charity makes no dent in his fortune, just as Ashoka’s remorse in no way eroded the size of his empire.

Goodness, in this popular narrative, is simply payback. You pay back after you have taken it! It is not something that defines you. It is only after you become successful, you pay back because to be successful – the general assumption is – you have to do bad things. To be successful, you have to be violent, aggressive, and competitive. Having achieved the senior position, the success that you desire, you go into a philanthropic mode. Just like Ashoka. Just like Bill Gates.

This reveals a spiritual deficiency. It assumes that good people cannot be successful and goodness is simply an obligation of success. Not a necessary human condition. If Bill Gates had not been successful, would he have been charitable?

If Ashoka had not fought the Kalinga war and did not feel the aggressive need to kill his brothers and make himself king, could he still have been a good human being? If Bill Gates was not an aggressive, brutal, competitive, rude businessman who wiped out small businesses to establish his empire, could he have been the charitable businessman he is now?

Why did Ashoka feel the need to advertise his goodness through edicts as Bill Gates does through his corporate communications team and repeated media coverage, including a recent web-series on his life, where most commentaries were by beneficiaries of his generosity?

These are the questions we need to ask ourselves. And does it mean that charity can only be done by the rich? It makes generosity a function of wealth, not a function of being human.