Greatness or Tragedy?

Hegel said that every great man places history under an obligation to understand him. No student of history would today accept this dictum: rather, he would regard almost all so-called great men as irrelevant, if not diversionary nuisances. Yet it is worth spending a little time on C.R. First of all, his tortuous career as a national figure spans over fifty years. Political longevity in itself makes a claim on our attention. Moreover, C.R. merits study precisely and paradoxically because unlike other individuals who demand notice, such as Gandhi or Nehru, he was not a representative figure. He had no mass following, either in his home province or in any other part of the country. He led no group within the Congress. He symbolized the sentiments of no sector of society. In .the heyday years of the non-brahmin movement, he was the quintessential South Indian brah­min. He had no personal weaknesses. He was incorruptible, mentally detached from his family, uninterested—after the death of his wife relatively early in life—in women. In a society which thrives on scandal; there was never, over half a century, even a whiff of gossip about his private life. He was the lay ascetic in Indian politics, the Hindu who does not renounce the world and even has an intense political interest but is un­touched by the sordidness of the world. If one were to construct a Meccano figure of the brahmin of Indian tradition the result would be C.R. Had he not existed, he would have had to be invented.