Retirement dilemma: When should superstars hang up their boots?

Sports isn’t the only domain where incumbents hang on longer than they should. (Illustration by Suneesh K.)

How long a rope do top performers deserve once their powers are clearly on the wane? Whether in sports or politics, business or entertainment, the general feeling is that a star deserves some concessions at the end of her career. The question is how much is “some”?

EIH chairman Biki Oberoi, for instance, just retired after 20 years in his role as chairman of the country's top luxury hotels chain. Under him, the Oberoi's grew in reputation and size. But at 94, did he make his exit too late?

Or take the recent case of former champion Saina Nehwal, who provided the spark for the resurgence of badminton in the country. Nehwal was extremely upset when the Badminton Association of India decided that since she was no longer in the top 15 in the world rankings, she would have to submit herself for trials to be considered for the Indian team for the Commonwealth Games, Asiad and Uber Cup. The 32-year-old former star felt she deserved better given all that she has achieved in her glittering career and declined to appear for the selection trials.

To be fair, Nehwal has been hit by a series of serious injuries in the last couple of years. By contrast, cricket superstar Virat Kohli has been leading a charmed life for as long, underperforming both as a batsman and as captain. Yet, no one questions his place in the side. Indian cricket has a long tradition of letting stars decide their exit, even when it is evident to everyone that they are well past their prime. Sachin Tendulkar averaged below 30 in his last two years, failing to score a single hundred in the 15 Tests he played in that period. Kapil Dev, too, had a forgettable end to his career as did Mahendra Singh Dhoni. The pity is, for Indian cricketers there was always the example of Sunil Gavaskar, who left when his powers seemed perfectly intact.

Also read: The only valid question that remains is: does Roger Federer think his time is up?

But sports isn’t the only domain where incumbents hang on longer than they should. Jawaharlal Nehru’s reputation as prime minister was clearly tarnished by his last few years in office, particularly after the war against China seemed to have had a deleterious effect on his spirits. Another politician who lingered on well beyond his sell-by date was Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) chief M. Karunanidhi. The party’s insistence on projecting him as its chief ministerial candidate even in 2016, by which time he was 92 years old and ailing, cost it the assembly elections.

Anna Hazare, the activist, is another leader whose reputation suffered after his involvement with the India Against Corruption movement. Until then, the Gandhian from Ralegan-Siddhi had been universally hailed for his work in rural development. Subsequently, with his protégé Arvind Kejriwal parting ways to pursue active politics and the Lok Pal issue losing steam, Hazare lost relevance and soon became an object of derision.

Indian cinema, both Bollywood and regional, is rife with examples of male stars who insisted on playing the role of young heroes when well past their 50s. In 1978, Dev Anand was 55 when he played the hero opposite a 21-year-old Tina Munim in Des Pardes. At least the film was a box office hit. But the star kept making and starring in movies long after his best was behind him. Another superstar Rajesh Khanna, after the phenomenal success he enjoyed through the 1970s, didn’t know when to stop. The result was a string of duds in the mid-1980s, including barely visible movies like Shatru and Avam.

A rare exception is Hollywood star Daniel Day-Lewis who made headlines in 2017, months before the release of his final film Phantom Thread, when he announced that he would be retiring from acting. This is a man who made Academy Awards history when he won the Best Actor Oscar for Lincoln in 2012, the only actor to win three trophies in that category.

The problem is knowing when an artist should call time on his work. E.M. Forster didn’t write a novel after his 1924 magnum opus A Passage to India. He was 45 then and lived on till he was 91. P.G. Wodehouse, by contrast, kept writing well into his 90s. One of his finest books, Much Obliged Jeeves, came out in 1971 when he was 90.