
A rare blend of legal wisdom and Sanatana Dharma
Representingthe Center for Brahmin Excellence (CBE) along with four other members (Harkara Srinivasa Rao, Cheruvu Rambabu, Sesha RSR Prasada Kondapalli, and Vijay Oddiraju), I had the privilege of spending an enriching 45 minutes on July 27, over a thoughtful interaction, with the distinguished legal luminary and former Supreme Court judge, Justice V Ramasubramanian.
The Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) exemplifies the ideal blend of intellect, integrity and public service.
Justice Ramasubramanian's humility, sincerity, and measured wisdom left a deep impression on us. As we entered his hotel room, he initiated the conversation, by warmly acknowledging my blog post (Why not the next vice-president be a Brahmin), which insightfully addressed the question of Vice-Presidential candidacy for the Brahmin community in the ensuing election.
The NHRC team while in Hyderabad, conducted a two-day (July 28 and 29) open hearing at Dr MCR HRD Institute, to address cases of human rights violations in Telangana.
Justice Ramasubramanian not only shared a couple of heart touching personal anecdotes that included as to how he stood at the financial crossroads immediately after his retirement, but also narrated how he had witnessed the divine miracles of God. He reflected on how he made a conscious decision to live within his own means after retirement.
The result of his leaning on faith eventually culminated in his elevation as NHRC Chairperson. He credited this particularly phase to divine grace. All these reflected his deep commitment to self-reliance and simplicity, grounded in the values of dharma.
Reflecting on the larger forces at play in human life, he spoke of the power of punya (virtue) accumulated by the ancestors. The virtuous deeds of forebears, he explained, can manifest as blessings to the future generations, bringing strength to the mind, body, and fortune.
Justice Ramasubramanian also shared briefly significant parts of his speech at the felicitation function of spiritual teacher Samavedam Shanmukha Sharma, with rare frankness about spiritual matters that weigh heavily on sincere seekers of truth.
He explicitly expressed his concern on many of his contemporaries, who had gradually drifted away from the path of dharma-an individual's moral responsibilities or duties. 'The pursuit of material survival had eclipsed the pursuit of spiritual truth. In their preoccupation with worldly obligations and economic anxieties, many had consciously or unconsciously abandoned their dharmic duties and inner disciplines.
It was not just a matter of individual choices but a collective forgetting, a civilizational forgetfulness creeping in, even among those who once stood close to the fire of wisdom', he opined.
According to Justice Ramasubramanian, it is time to take stock of how the cultural transmission chain has weakened. For instance, he cited that, in the pursuit of modern life, practices such as daily prayers or frequent visits to temples have slipped away. He called for a quiet but determined revival of such traditions, so that that the subsequent generations could rediscover spiritual identity. He made a genuine appeal to every Hindu household that children must be introduced to dharma early and intimately.
Every parent, he said, should ensure that their children should be guided in simple daily prayers by making them stand before the image of God at home, reciting at least one shloka, and be taken to temples regularly, not as a ritual formality, but as a formative spiritual experience. Such seemingly small acts 'shape the soul and anchor one's life in the eternal values of Indian tradition'.
With intellectual precision and spiritual depth, he brought in the example of Sadguru Jaggi Vasudev, referencing him not as a celebrity Guru but as a contemporary voice speaking to the timeless wisdom of the vedas. In yet another spiritual narrative that transitioned seamlessly to a subject visibly close to his heart, and also that blended theology with environmental consciousness,
He revealed the birth and mission of Adi Shankaracharya, and said that 'Lord Shiva himself incarnated as Adi Shankaracharya' to restore cosmic balance. He noted that during the cessation of Vedic Rituals such as Homas by some, ecological and spiritual disequilibrium emerged. With the advent of Shankara's divine mission, this was realigned. Depicting it as divine mystery, he presented an evidence-based elucidation that it was a cosmic essentiality.
Justice Ramasubramanian differed with unfair tendencies of rationalism, where sacred symbols are stripped of meaning and turned into academic curiosities, without substantiating aptly. He affirmed that, precisely in such times of decline and distortion, the divine intervenes through Avatars or Incarnations. The birth of Adi Shankaracharya, was one such divine intervention. He further elaborated how God Agni together with Lord Shiva incarnated as Adi Shankara, to revive the flameof Sanatana Dharma when it was flickering dangerously low. He said that sacred intervention, preserved, rearticulated, and re-anchored the eternal path in the consciousness of Bharata. In one of the most compelling parts of his talk, he traced the symbolic and metaphysical cycle of divinities, Agni, Varuna, Indra, Soma, Vayu and Surya, who in the Vedic pantheon are part of a larger network of vedic Gods representing various aspects of the cosmos and human existence. Ignoring their significance, by dismissing the Vedas, amounts to intellectual arrogance and spiritual blindness, he cautioned.
We, the five CBE members, presented the vision, goals, and ongoing initiatives of the organization, right from its conceiving, launching, civil services advocacy program, proactive role in several ways etc. Justice Ramasubramanian appreciated the effort and acknowledged the significant decline in Brahmin representation, particularly of south Indian Brahmins, in national policy and administrative roles. He acclaimed CBE efforts that seek to reverse this trend.
In this framework, it may not be out of context if the subject the ensuing Vice-President election is discussed. After ten years in office under Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (a beacon of philosophical insight), two years under VV Giri, three years under R Venkataraman and five years under Shankar Dayal Sharma, the last Brahmin to hold the post, strangely not a single Brahmin was ever considered for this august office in the last 33 years!
The reasons may be political, apolitical, or shaped by evolving democratic factors. While democracy rightly celebrates diversity, the legacy of Brahmin leadership merits serious reflection. Selection of a Brahmin for the V-P post carries subtle, yet profound, advantages in India's pluralistic democracy. It can restore long-overdue balance and reaffirm the country's commitment to diversity in leadership and inclusive constitutional values.
Despite representing dispersed and non-dominant community, Brahmins have contributed significantly in education, constitution, law, spiritual, civil services, and science, among others but the number is on the decline.
The multifaceted Justice V Ramasubramanian stands as an exemplary Vice-President candidate. He brings to public life a rare combination of legal wisdom and Sanatana Dharma. The interaction was a momentous occasion for me as I could present my Telugu book 'Sajiva Vahini sanatana Dharmam' to Justice Ramasubramanian.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


United News of India
2 hours ago
- United News of India
SC extends interim relief to Madrasas facing derecognition over RTE compliance
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today extended interim protection to madrasas whose recognition was withdrawn following directions from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for alleged non-compliance with the Right to Education Act, 2009. The court was hearing a plea filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind challenging the Commission's directives. A bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh stated that the interim protection already granted would continue and suggested that the petitioner could approach the concerned High Court for further relief. "We will extend the protection and allow you to approach the High Court," the bench observed, while clarifying that the Court was not entering into the merits of the case at this stage. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing the petitioner, contended that the issue involved broader questions of law and deserved an in-depth hearing. She noted that a prior order by a three-judge bench had stayed similar directions and urged the Court to keep the matter under its consideration. She also requested additional time to decide on whether to move the High Court. Justice Sundresh remarked, 'What is there to file when we are not examining the merits right now?' Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Advocate Siddharth Sangal, reiterated that the apex court had already signalled that such issues could be adjudicated at the High Court level. Taking note of the submissions, the Court recorded, 'We put it to the senior counsel for the petitioner that an approach can be made to the High Court with sufficient interim protection. Let her take instructions. List after three weeks.' Earlier, on October 21, 2024, a three-judge bench led by then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had granted a stay on letters issued by the NCPCR in June 2024. These letters directed the Centre and state governments including Uttar Pradesh and Tripura, to withdraw recognition from madrasas allegedly violating the RTE Act. The Court also stayed subsequent communications from the Ministry of Education and state authorities, ruling that these directions 'shall not be acted upon.' The petitioner was permitted to implead all States and Union Territories and make necessary amendments within a week, with liberty to serve notices to their respective standing counsel. The matter will now be listed again after three weeks, pending further instructions from the petitioners. UNI SNG RN


Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
HC glare on tree felling for Khasi Hills ropeway
1 2 Guwahati: The High Court of Meghalaya directed the advocate general of the state and the advocate representing the petitioner, who has alleged indiscriminate and large-scale felling of trees in East Khasi Hills district, to visit the ropeway cable car project area in question and file a short report regarding the feasibility and possibility of carrying out afforestation work there. The bench of Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh last week was hearing the petition filed by Geraldine G Shabong. The petition was filed last year. The bench stated that the report filed by the authorities transpires that the deforestation activity was carried out after obtaining due permission from the central govt under the relevant act and rules for the construction of the Shillong Peak Ropeway Cable Car Project at Raid Laban Reserve Forests and Raid Laban Forest by the state tourism department. Senior advocate K Paul, counsel for the petitioner, argued that wherever deforestation occurs, the state govt is enjoined with a duty to effect 'compensatory afforestation'. However, the afforestation result in Meghalaya is the lowest in the country. The court said the main submission of the petitioner's advocate now is that when the central govt has authorised deforestation for the Shillong Peak Ropeway Cable Car Project and such activity was carried out, there should be proper compensatory afforestation in the vicinity of the project rather than in any distant place, to make up any loss of ecological balance or loss in environmental elements. Meanwhile, advocate general A Kumar submitted before the court that the state govt is prepared to carry out afforestation work but problems exist with regard to the availability of land in the subject area. Following this submission, the court directed the advocate general and the petitioner's advocate to visit the subject area and file a report on the feasibility and possibility of carrying out afforestation work around the ropeway cable car project area. The matter has been listed for the next hearing on Aug 14. In a previous order, the court emphasised that trees are very precious to the state, contributing to its natural beauty, environment and ecological balance, and said it would only permit their felling if absolutely necessary for the preservation of life and property.


United News of India
7 hours ago
- United News of India
SC issues notice on challenge to section 9 of Citizenship Act over automatic termination of Indian citizenship
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provides for the automatic termination of Indian citizenship upon the voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship. A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi tagged the matter with a pending case, Dr Radhika Thappeta v. Union of India, which raises a similar issue concerning revocation of Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) status. The Court also issued notice on an interim application filed by the petitioner seeking protection from being required to renounce Indian citizenship in order to acquire foreign citizenship, while the constitutional challenge to Section 9 is under consideration. The petition was filed by Sanjay Gundlagutta Reddy, a US-based Economics professor of Indian origin, who, despite living in New York for several years, continues to identify as an Indian citizen. He argues that Section 9(1) is arbitrary, disproportionate, and violates fundamental constitutional rights, particularly the right to equality and personal liberty. During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant initially questioned the petitioner's counsel Advocate Warisha Farasat, asking, 'You are an eminent person. But what grievance is there…if you are so keen for Indian citizenship, you surrender the foreign citizenship and get the Indian one?' However, after hearing her submissions including reference to a previous case where the Supreme Court had granted interim relief on similar grounds the Bench agreed to issue notice and listed the matter for hearing after two weeks. Key arguments in the Petition are that Section 9 imposes a 'Hobson's choice' on Indians abroad, either acquire foreign citizenship and lose Indian nationality or retain Indian citizenship at great personal and professional cost. It fails to consider the global mobility and dual loyalty of Indian-origin individuals who maintain cultural and emotional ties with India The provision does not offer any discretionary or adjudicatory mechanism, resulting in automatic cessation of citizenship. The petitioner highlights that non-citizens globally face precarious legal status, with risks of deportation and limited access to rights. The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Yashwant Singh, seeks a reconsideration of India's citizenship framework to better align with contemporary realities of global Indian diaspora. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for Indian-origin individuals across the world, particularly in how India defines and regulates its citizenship laws in a globalized era. UNI SNG RN