People use to advise not to take risks. Also there is a saying 'No risk no gain'. The below is a presentation on risk taking.
Almost everybody including my friends & relatives who know me use to say repeatedly, “you are always taking extra risk. Daring is good virtue but extra daring is foolish!” I never feel myself as a fool. I always prepare a strategy with my own logic & conviction in case I am to act in a situation. Also I have developed a habit of non-compromising on certain basic principles & points which I believe strongly & can go any extent. May be this non-compromising habit is seen by many as extra daring or risky. Even some said adhering to such strict principle is nothing but suicidal. Even then I live my life as I believe till now. Definitely there were many occasions, where even my life subjected to high risk, but I haven’t compromised & till now surviving with a satisfactory life.
However when many are of such opinion, I thought it’s prudent to analyse the risk as to how risky it is. The following is what I understand ‘what risk is’ & seekers to decide how risky the risk is.
Let us first remove common risks from this discussion. Common risks are those risks people use to take normally & without such risk they can’t perform. For example, walking on a road, boarding a bus, train or a plane, driving a vehicle, housing under a roof & all such type of acts. As Life is a gamble, there is every chance (how rare may be), one could meet with an accident on road or during travelling. An earth quack may collapse the roof; the cinema hall where you watch a film may catch fire etc. Any unexpected result due to such act is called as accident & unfortunate. But these are the risks one has to take & everybody is taking. Thus I exclude such risks!
Now let us come to social risks. A girl is humiliated on a street by hooligans. Opposing them is definitely risk, particularly when outnumbered. But what is to be done? Will one be a simple witness or try to interfere so as to save the victim? If I am there, I would never allow myself to be a witness only. This is against my principle of non-compromise. I have to save the victim. But how? If I decide to fight them, as I am outnumbered it would be definitely suicidal, thus this is also non-compromising on my part. Yes, I will find a strategy to save here taking help of my intelligence. There would be immediately two strategies, (though many more options can be thought of). First if there are enough crowds, then I will start objecting the acts of hooligans in a strong voice. Crowd psychology is simple. They remain in shocked & fridge state when they come across such atrocities by hooligans. But if someone raises voice, they immediately start rallying behind the person who raises the voice against atrocity. Then case would be very simple, hooligans would find themselves outnumbered & compelled to flee away. Second strategy is if there is very less crowd or no crowd. Here I would find a safer place behind a wall or at roof top with some commonly available weapons such as pebbles, gravels or something like that which can be hurled on them. The hooligans when attacked & do not have scope to counter attack, their focus would be on me. The victim will get chance to escape. I have to defend myself till supports in the form of my friends, society people or Police come to my rescue.
Now risk too involved in those two strategies. As expected the crowd may remain ignorant & I would be attacked back by the hooligans. The victim may be saved or not, I would not be saved. In second strategy also supports may not come for a long time & I would have to face the consequences of extra bravery. Now question is, is the risk is worth taking. To me yes, because if I remain mute spectator, then I would never be in peace in my entire life. Being daring if is a risk, being coward & compromising self principle too is a risk. Now which risk is riskier? One may hide many things from public eye, but can one hide from his conscious? This one example would suffice for many other situations in every moment in our social, professional & personal life. In every response to such situations despite perfect planning & strategy making there would be element of risk & at least of two types. Do you want to escape from the present risk choosing another risk of falling in your own eyes? Your act will prove which risk you feel riskier.
Now let’s consider another kind of risks that is called inevitable risks. When a baby starts walking, we let them walk knowing very well of the risk that baby has to fall down after some steps. For all affectionate parents, such risk of falling is unbearable. But it’s important for growing of the baby. Thus parents take it. When someone start learning bicycle, bike or driving four-wheeler there is inherent risks. But without such risks one cannot grow. Hence they are bound to take such risks. Thus who are doing bonze jumping; Para-diving too takes risks to excel on those. This risk they have to take in order to save from unsuccessful in their professions which in turn make their life full of void! Many examples can be cited which one has to take inevitably. As our nation is cricket crazy nation, I would also like to put an example from this game. When you defense every ball from the bowler, you may be avoiding risk. Thus one can only be out where there would be an unplayable ball which normally called bowler’s wicket. On the other hand, when a batsman goes for shots, he always takes a risk. If there would be slight mistiming, small deviation in the direction & bounce of the ball, batsman would be out. In both cases risk is involved. In the former case, Navjot Siddhu in his early period of carrier criticized as ‘stroke less wonder’. Later on he took risk in playing shots & became a successful cricketer. Thus for performance one has to take risk. Here too risk is double edged. For example if you step out & send the ball out of boundary, people will call you genius. After some time taking same risk if you miss the ball people will criticize that you have thrown out the wicket. Now if you take risk get good shots, you are praised. But taking risk if you fail your carrier will end & if take risk of not taking risk for shots, you can’t score & hence be ending your carrier! Now which risk is riskier!
Now time is for extreme risks. Extreme risks are categorized as the risks that are to be taken for the first time; no outcome is established nor does one have any early idea on consequences. But such extreme risks have much contribution in growth of mankind. Whoever was first swimmer of mankind must have taken an extreme risk. There might be much fatality before one practically starts swimming. Similarly all first discovery, innovations etc were involved with extreme risk. For example, sailing first boat in the ocean, riding horse for the first time or any such act that was done for the first time are extreme risks. Nowadays we find many things easier as we know the technique of using. Techniques developed from practice. Just imagine before having knowledge of technique, what risk would have been involved? Had those risks not taken, would we be so improved now? Thus how riskier would be those risks? Let’s put very apt example of extreme risk. Neil Armstrong was sent to moon. Both Armstrong as well as USA government was aware of extreme degree of risk. Even the President speech was ready to be broadcasted on radio on the event of failure. Armstrong put his foot on the surface of Moon & rest was history. Thus for evolution, development & growth of mankind there were extreme risks taken & will also be taken. None of such extreme risks can be categorized as suicidal act!
Let’s consider soldiers guarding our boarders or standing in front of enemies in a war which is decided not by him but by the government. First risk is fatal one if he goes for a fight against enemy of the nation. Second is if he fled away from his duty, his entire life will be condemned for being an escapist. Which risk is riskier?
In concluding part let me discuss risks of spiritual world. Goutam Buddha took sanyas. This was a great risk for a prince to leave thorn. Had he didn’t get supreme knowledge after his ‘Tapasya’, wouldn’t he be pushed to oblivion? On the other hand had he remained as king, would he ever get the stature of God? Now risk involved in his both acts. Which risk is riskier? Jesus too had taken a huge risk for which he had to be crucified. There are no successful Guru or Godlike people who hadn’t taken risks. The Yogis, Munis, Sadhus & Sanyasis too took risks in living in forest, observing hard life style only to gain knowledge & Siddhi so as to contribute the society & nation. In every case at least two types of risk is involved. One is hard living standard with every chance of not succeeding & another is falling in their eyes (& conscious) for escaping from a sadhana that may be risky in forest. Now question is had they skipped their spiritual journey due to risk of hard & dangerous life in forests, hills or Himalaya, would our spiritual world be so enlighten, stronger & motivating?
Thus it’s a pertinent question is how risky is a risk. I feel one should take risk if his conscious says him to take that risk irrespective of the result in a condition that those risks must be well thought of, well planned & of course involving some intelligence. However, I don’t insist my conclusion here, rather keeps an open mind to get all readers feedback with an open mind. If I will be convinced, I will not hesitate to be stand corrected.