Many of us grow up learning to respect our elders, sometimes expressing that respect by touching their feet. Yet respect can also flow the other way, towards someone whose actions have earned admiration. That is the thought behind this reflection on Sudha Murty and the way we judge people by appearance.
Sudha Murty appeared on Kaun Banega Crorepati. When she moved to touch Amitabh Bachchan’s feet, he stopped her and touched hers instead, showing respect for her contribution to society. It is a useful contrast with the airport encounter she recounts about being judged by her clothes.
The “cattle class” encounter at Heathrow
In the airport story, Murty joins a boarding queue at London Heathrow and encounters a woman who assumes she belongs in economy class. The phrase the woman uses—“cattle class”—reveals how quickly a judgement about a ticket becomes a judgement about a person.
Murty is dressed in Indian clothes. The woman ahead of her, wearing an Indo-Western outfit and carrying an expensive handbag, tells her that the queue is for business-class passengers. She directs Murty towards the economy queue without first asking to see her ticket.
Murty questions the assumption and asks why she should move. Her interest is less in the queue itself than in what made the woman decide she did not belong there.
The woman responds by listing what she considers the advantages of business class: a more expensive ticket, baggage privileges, a separate boarding queue and better onboard facilities. These details belong to the anecdote, rather than a guide to an airline’s current rules. Murty stays in the queue. The woman then turns to her companion and complains about arguing with “cattle class” travellers.
After showing her business-class ticket to the attendant, Murty turns back. She asks what led the woman to assume she could not afford the ticket, and why she felt entitled to describe her so dismissively.
Her response separates wealth from character. Money can buy comforts and expensive possessions, but it does not automatically bring consideration, judgement or dignity. Having made that point, she leaves without waiting for an answer.
Meeting the same woman again
The story then moves to a meeting the following day. Among those seeking support from the Infosys Foundation is the same woman from the airport. The proposal concerns government-school infrastructure that would benefit the children of workers on their estate. She continues the presentation without acknowledging the earlier exchange.
Murty responds that, in the circumstances described, the estate owners should take responsibility for the people whose labour supports their business. She explains the foundation’s focus on those with no comparable support. The argument connects the airport’s casual display of status with a more practical question: what responsibilities come with having resources?
The story about a coat and tie
To reinforce her point, she tells an anecdote associated with George Bernard Shaw. I read it as a moral illustration about appearances.
In the anecdote, Shaw is invited to a dinner at a British club whose dress code requires a suit and tie.
He arrives in casual clothes and is refused entry because he does not meet the dress code. The fact that he is the invited speaker does not change the doorman’s decision.
Shaw returns home, changes and is admitted. Before speaking to the assembled guests, he removes his coat and tie and places them on a chair, saying he will not give the talk.
When the audience asks why, he explains that changing clothes has not changed his mind or his ideas. If the club values the clothes more than the person wearing them, he suggests, the coat and tie can take his place. He then leaves.
After telling the story, Murty ends the meeting. In the retelling, the two encounters lead to the same point: social standing is a poor substitute for thoughtfulness.
What the story asks us to reconsider
Judging people by possessions can turn an ordinary interaction into an act of exclusion. Clothes, a handbag or a travel ticket tell us very little about someone’s values. The more useful measure is how they think, act and treat others.
“Simple living and high thinking” is the phrase this story brings to mind. For me, its meaning is less about what someone wears than about resisting the urge to confuse price with worth.
Bestselling Books on AmazonFor the author’s collection of personal experiences and reflections, see the publisher’s page for Three Thousand Stitches.