Introduction: Beyond the Projection
There is a peculiar practice in Indian tradition—one of reverence and discipleship—that speaks volumes through a simple gesture: collecting the dust from the feet of saints. It is an act not of analysis, but of surrender. Yet, even this reverence can become selective, shaped by memory, myth, and the moral needs of a later age. The dust that is collected is not always the dust that was actually there. This essay explores that distortion through two emblematic figures—Mahatma Gandhi and Rāmānuja—whose real legacies have been overshadowed by what we have wished them to be. One was a revolutionary rooted in inner truth; the other, a theologian grounded in scripture. Both have been recast by followers who confused reverence with reinvention.
The Mahatma Gandhi We Want, and the Gandhi Who Was
It has become a national pastime to reinterpret Mahatma Gandhi. At times he is venerated, at other times dismissed. But in both cases, what is often lost is Gandhi himself—as he lived, as he thought, as he walked.
In recent decades, many have begun to question whether Gandhi was truly a friend of the Dalit community. Did he support caste hierarchies in the name of varnashrama dharma? Did he oppose Ambedkar’s critique of Hindu orthodoxy? Some critics answer with an emphatic yes, seeing Gandhi as a man bound to the values of his time, unwilling to shake off caste or scripture.
And yet, a different Gandhi also lives in the public imagination—a Gandhi who walked barefoot in Noakhali, who embraced lepers, who cleaned latrines, who was called ‘Bapu’ not just by political associates but by those he served. A man who lived without private property, who chose poverty, and who died with the name of God on his lips.
So which Gandhi is the real one? Perhaps this is the wrong question.
It might be more helpful to ask what it means to collect the dust from someone’s feet. When we do so, we do not demand perfection; we honour their path. We do not invent doctrines they did not teach; we honour the truth they stood for, even when it challenges us.
In this light, Gandhi’s strength was not in abolishing caste with a political program or theological decree. It was in something deeper: his conscience. He was bound by satya (truth), ahimsa (nonviolence), and tapasya (self-suffering). These were not slogans but disciplines.
That is why, when he defended varnashrama in the 1920s and ’30s, it was not because he loved hierarchy, but because he believed in scriptural continuity. He was trying to reform Hindu society from within, not break it from without.
Even if we disagree with his position, we must acknowledge the integrity from which it sprang. To pretend otherwise is not to collect the dust from his feet. It is to trample over it.
Acharya Rāmānuja and the Politics of Reverence
“They are not qualified for the knowledge of Brahman, as they are not entitled to perform the duties enjoined by scripture… Those who are not entitled to the study of the Veda cannot understand it.”1
Scholarly Assessments: A Sharp Contrast
This doctrinal position creates a tension between Rāmānuja’s theological writings and his hagiographical portrayals.
Friedhelm Hardy observes that although later biographers depict Rāmānuja as sympathetic to Śūdras, his commentary on the Brahma Sūtras is “if anything less compromising” than Śaṅkara’s. While Śaṅkara occasionally grants the possibility of liberation beyond ritual boundaries, Rāmānuja “avoids internal contradictions” by excluding Śūdras entirely.2
Cyril Veliath similarly notes:
“Despite these views, the biographers of Rāmānuja generally present him as adopting a very positive attitude towards the Śūdras and others of the lower castes.”3
This raises the question: did the later hagiographers project a moral imagination back onto Rāmānuja that contradicts his actual theology?
Reform or Reverence? The Limits of Historical Recasting
Arvind Sharma clarifies that for Rāmānuja, unlike Śaṅkara, brahmavidyā is not mere knowledge, but an experiential vision of Brahman, gained through meditative internalization of Śruti (scripture). This process, however, is restricted to the dvija (twice-born), by virtue of their Vedic entitlement. Since Śūdras are not permitted upanayana, they are effectively excluded from liberation as per Rāmānuja’s framework.4
Indeed, Rāmānuja appears more committed to Śruti than to any egalitarian impulse. As Veliath insightfully writes:
” His attitude towards Śūdras is an outstanding example of his deep veneration for Śruti…He nevertheless quotes Śruti in recommending harsh punishment for the Śūdra who dares to hear, utter, or preserve the Veda… One cannot help but feel the real Absolute of Rāmānuja is not Brahman but Śruti.”5
This casts doubt on the image of Rāmānuja as a social revolutionary. If anything, it suggests a mind rigorously loyal to the authority of scripture, even at the cost of social inclusivity.
Several scholars have echoed this theme in their assessment of Rāmānuja’s Śrīvaiṣṇavism and its relationship with Śūdras—often presenting him as a proto-reformer aligned with modern egalitarian values. Yet, as Stein notes, even this so-called “Rāmānuja reform” was never fully implemented within his own tradition (pp. 78–79).6 Within Hinduism, and specifically within Śrīvaiṣṇavism, caste itself became a doctrinal issue, as Burton Stein has argued. The tension between devotion and social hierarchy persisted. Even the more liberal Southern School of the sect never relinquished its commitment to Brahminical supremacy. As Stein points out, despite a theoretical emphasis on spiritual openness, Śūdras did not enjoy full privileges as sect members, and their claims to spiritual or ritual parity were quietly but firmly resisted (pp. 96–97)7. Like much of the bhakti tradition, Śrīvaiṣṇavism could not dismantle caste barriers, but instead deferred them—transforming social exclusion into a promise of mukti through devotion, as Barthwal incisively observes (pp. 262–263).8 Similar insights can be found in the works of Vasudha Narayanan (p.73)9 and Ranjeeta Dutta (p. 195).10
Part Three: A Gandhi Parallel—Projection vs. Person
As we saw with Gandhi, reinterpretations are often shaped by the needs of the present. His ideology of ahimsa and satyagraha emerged in the context of the Indian freedom movement, but later became a global vision. After Gandhi’s death, his methods were followed by leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela, rightfully making him one of the greatest ever living human beings who became a world leader during his lifetime. No other known person in history achieved this remarkable status, and yet, within a century, his image was tarnished in his own country.
No doubt, what was said about his preference for a simple lifestyle also captures his idealism—an idealism that became popular in his own time as “Gandhism.”
“Formal history… had done Gandhi an injustice. It lauded him for choosing to live in poverty. This entirely missed the essence of Gandhi’s striving. For one, Gandhi’s lifestyle decisions were small manifestations of a deep inner journey. They were not strategic moves aimed at any external audience. He liked the mud house because, for him, it was synonymous with indigenous creativity, not poverty and squalor” says Bakshi.11
“Gandhi… had categorically told his followers that there could be no such thing as ‘Gandhism’. He did not want to leave behind any sect, for, he said: ‘I do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried, in my own way, to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems.’”12
What he experimented with was Truth—as part of his inner journey, not a spectacle for any external audience. The same, one could argue, is true of Rāmānuja. So whether biography, autobiography, or hagiography, contemporary attempts to project meaning onto such lives often fail to reflect the historical and personal journey of these individuals.
Modern retellings of Rāmānuja’s life tend to highlight moments of kindness to the marginalized while downplaying the unambiguous boundaries laid down in his theology. But “collecting the dust from his feet” means engaging with his real legacy—scriptural, hierarchical, and reverent—not just the legacy we wish he had left.
Conclusion: From Devotion to Discernment
This essay is not an attack on Rāmānuja, just as it is not a deification of Gandhi. Rather, it is a reminder that reverence need not demand reinvention. We can love our teachers without falsifying their teachings. We can collect the dust from their feet without brushing inconvenient truths under the carpet.
If Gandhi was bound by his conscience to satya, ahimsa and satyagraha, and Rāmānuja by Śruti, then let us not pretend they were free-floating reformers. They were, in their own ways, deeply faithful men—more faithful, perhaps, than many who praise them today.
Let us meet them there: not in the myths we spin, but in the
footsteps they left.
Ashram, May 29, 2025
1 GB,18.(42-44),p.163;SB,3.4.17, Karmarkar, R.D. ed. and trans., Sribhaashya of Ramanuja, vol. I (in three parts). Poona, University of Poona, 1962. ,III ,p.943,11.(7-8);3.4.20, Karmarkar,III,p.948,11. (4-6); 3.1.8, Karmarkar,III,p.785,11.(9-14); 1.3.32, Karmarkar,II,pp.(453-54); 1.3.37, Karmarkar, R.D. ed. and trans., Sribhaashya of Ramanuja, vol. I (in three parts). Poona, University of Poona, 1962. ,II,p.462,11.(13-15);1.3.38, Karmarkar,II,p.463,11.(2-6) in Veliath, Cyril, S.J. The Mysticism of Ramanuja. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1993,
Dasgupta observes that one of the reasons why the Pancaratrins were denounced by the orthodox Vedic groups was because they admitted women and Sudra into their company. Cf. Dasgupta, [Hindu Mysticism ] pp. 19-20—in Veliath, ibid. Notes no. 52, p. 124
2 Hardy remarks that although the hagiographers mention several instances where Ramanuja displays a more positive attitude towards the Sudra as compared to Sankara, his comments on the Badarayanasutras, 1.3.34-38, are if anything less compromising. He declares that the Sudras are not qualified for the knowledge of the Brahman, just in case one might claim that such knowledge were possible outside the Vedas. He goes on to say that unlike the system of the Advaitins, only his own system is capable of maintaining the position that Sudras do not qualify for the realization of the Brahman, because it avoids internal contradictions that result from the Advaita position. Hardy even mentions an incident in the life of Ramanuja, where he takes a disciple to task for rejecting his caste. [Hardy, Friedhelm, The Taamil Veda of the Suudra Saint”, Contributions to Sough Asian Studies—I, ed. Gopal Krishna. Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1979, pp29-30, 70-71 quoted in Veliath, ibid. p. 111
3 Veliath, The Mysticism of Ramanuja , op. cit. p. 111. For details concerning Ramanuja’s attitude towards the Sudra please see the following: (a) C.R.S. Aiyagar, The Life and Teachings of sri Ramanujacarya. Madras, R. Venkeeswar and Co., 1908, pp. 18-19, 81-84,144,163; (b) M. Yamunacharya, Ramanuja’s Teachings in Its Own Words, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1963, pp. 10-15; (c) Ramakrishnananda, Life of sri Ramanuja, Madras, Mylapore, Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1965, p. 71; (d) A. Govindacharya, The Life of Ramanujacarya, Madras, S. Murthy and Co., 1906, pp. 156-245.]—ibid. Notes no. 54, p. 124
4 Cf. Sharma, pp. 53-56[Sharma, A., Visishtadvaitaa Vedanta—A Study. Delhi, Heritage Publishers, 1978]— in Veliath, ibid.ibid. Notes no. 53, p. 124
5 Veliath, ibid., p. 181
6 The medieval literature of the Srivaishnava sect … makes it appear that from the time of Ramanuja, in the eleventh century, through the time of Vedanta Desika, in the late fourteenth century, doctrinal issues came to be related quite directly to the place of Sudras in the sect. The issue of caste as an aspect of sect participation was raised by Vedanta Desika. And, in the division of the sect into its Northern and Southern Schools, the issues of prapatti and the adequacy of the Tamil scripture bore upon the place of Sudras in Srivaishnava devotional activity. While both subsects were under the control of Brahmans, the question of Sudra participation had become a serious one within the sect….—Burton Stein, ‘Social Mobility and Medieval South Indian Hindu Sects’, in David N. Lornzen, in David N. Lorenzen. Religious Movements in South Asia 600-1800. New Delhi, Oxford, 2004, p. 91
7…even with the more liberal and universalistic values of the Southern School, Sudras did not actually enjoy full privileges as sect members, either in medieval times or more recently, and that (p.96) Southern School Brahmans most certainly did not assent to any claims by Sudras to Brahman identity…..— Burton Stein, ‘Social Mobility and Medieval South Indian Hindu Sects’, in ibid. pp. 96-97
8 …Ramanuja prescribed for them {Sudra} the Prapatti marga, (p.262) which means complete dependence on God; his path for the high caste being bhakti, by which he means intense meditation on God with a view to the realization of His knowledge. Of this sort of bhakti, the Sudra was considered unworthy.— P. D. Barthwal, ‘The Times and their Need’, in ibid. pp. 262-63
9 Vasudha Narayanan, The Vernacular Veda: Revelation, Recitation, and Ritual, Columbia, University of South Carolina, 1994,
10 Ranjeeta Dutta, From Hagiographies to Biographies: Ramanuja in Tradition and History, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2014, p. 195.
11 Rajni Bakshi, Bapu Kuti: Journeys in Rediscovery of Gandhi, Penguin Books, New Delhi, 1998, pp. 14–15
12 Ibid., p. 10
Leave a Reply