Two Questions to Audit Your Legacy

---

My Encounter with DEEPAK SHARMA

At what point does the duty to provide for our children transform into a mechanism for enabling entitlement? And what is the cost of a legacy defined by inheritance rather than contribution?

The final act of a successful life, conventional wisdom tells us, is to pass on its rewards to the next generation. This transfer of wealth is framed as the ultimate expression of parental care, a final buffer against the world’s uncertainties. But what if this conventional wisdom is built on a flawed premise? What if, in some instances, this final act of giving is not a fulfillment of duty, but evidence of a “parental failure”? One of India’s most logical philanthropists argues that true responsibility requires leaders to ask themselves two deeply uncomfortable questions before resigning their life's work.

The Expiration Date on Duty

The foundation of Deepak Sharma’s philosophy is that purpose must be redefined at different stages of life. To him, the responsibilities of a 35-year-old are not the same as those of a 65-year-old. For a young parent, the primary mission may be to provide for their family. However, Deepak treats this duty not as an endless emotional obligation but as a finite project with a clear, strategic goal: to create independent adults equipped with ethics, values, and education.

This viewpoint suggests that parental duty, like any well-managed project, has a completion date. That contract is fulfilled once the children are educated, established, and capable of building their own lives. At this point, the leader or parent is free to pivot to a larger, societal responsibility. The purpose, as Deepak insists, “has to be beyond family”. To continue to focus solely on the family unit beyond this point is not a virtue, but a failure to recognize the beginning of a new, more expansive mission.

An Audit of Entitlement

For those who have reached this stage, typically after the age of 60, Deepak has devised a two-question audit to test the success of their parenting and the ethical basis of their legacy. These are not sentimental inquiries but sharp, diagnostic tools.

The first question to pose to your independent, adult children is direct: “Please ask your children whether they need any portion of your wealth”. He argues that if the answer from a capable adult is “Yes,” the conclusion is unavoidable: “that means we, as parents, have failed to raise and give the right values to the child”. The need for a handout signals a failure to instill the value of self-reliance.

The second question is one for the parent to ask themselves: “What has been your child's contribution to the wealth you have created?”. If the honest answer is zero, his final deduction is clinical. Why, then, “he or she should have any right to claim out of that wealth”?. From a trustee's perspective, which is how Deepak views himself, wealth is a societal resource one stewards. To pass it to an heir with no contribution to its creation, overdeploying it “where people need it more”, is a logical and ethical contradiction.

These questions reframe legacy entirely. They propose that the greatest gift a parent can give is not a safety net of cash but the values and tools that make such a net unnecessary. In this starkly logical model, legacy is not what you leave behind for a few but what you redeploy to benefit many.

These questions reframe legacy entirely. They propose that the greatest gift a parent can give is not a safety net of cash but the values and tools that make such a net unnecessary. In this starkly logical model, legacy is not what you leave behind for a few but what you redeploy to benefit many.

So what can we take from his approach?

Questions for Audience

1. Deepak Sharma's model advocates for redeploying private wealth into societal good after primary duties are met. From a systemic sustainability perspective, how could this individual ethical framework, if widely adopted, impact long-term funding for social and environmental projects in India?

2.  Is it fair to link a child's right to inheritance to their contribution to creating the wealth, or does a parent have an unconditional duty to provide for their children, regardless of contribution?