How Modi govt's 4 Rajya Sabha picks signal shift in strategic template
Jain's books, such as Rama and Ayodhya (2013); Sati: Evangelicals, Baptist Missionaries, and the Changing Colonial Discourse (2016); The Battle for Rama: Case of the Temple at Ayodhya (2017); and Flight of Deities and Rebirth of Temples: Episodes From Indian History (2019), have provided intellectual depth to the Sangh Parivar's battle against Leftist historians and helped mobilise support base.Jain's presence in Parliament is meant to echo the ideological stance that increasingly guides current policies on education, heritage and more. In Jain, the government isn't simply nominating a scholar but inserting an ideological subtext into the legislative text.Sadanandan Master's nomination is equally telling. The BJP refers to him as a 'living martyr' for his resilience and continued activism despite his physical condition. Sadanandan Master is a survivor of political violence. He lost both legs in an alleged attack by CPI(M) workers in 1994 in Kannur district of Kerala. A school teacher by profession, he represents a grassroots legitimacy that the BJP desperately needs in southern India, especially Kerala and Tamil Nadu that have proven electorally resistant to the party's advances.More importantly, Sadanandan Master's inclusion in the Rajya Sabha suggests a recalibrated vision of representation—one that places premium not on identity politics but ideological loyalty and ground-level institution-building. He is not a crowd-puller but a cadre-builder. And in a party increasingly obsessed with the long arc of electoral sociology, that matters more. Modi, in his congratulatory post on social media, underlined the violence faced by Sadanandan Master. 'Violence and intimidation couldn't deter his spirit towards national development. His efforts as a teacher and social worker are also commendable,' shared the prime minister.advertisementThen comes Nikam, the prosecutor who became a household name during some of India's most significant anti-terror trials. From the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts to the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, Nikam has built his public persona around an unflinching image of the state's prosecutorial will. His nomination to the Rajya Sabha, reportedly backed by Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, fits neatly into the BJP's broader claim of being the custodian of national security.It's also a nod to Maharashtra's complex political dynamics, where the BJP needs both a nationalist narrative and loyal institutional faces to anchor its fight against an emboldened Opposition. Nikam is not just an accomplished lawyer; he is an emblem of the party's claim that India under Modi is stronger, more decisive and less tolerant of threats—internal or external. His legal acumen, combined with his TV-hardened image as the nation's go-to prosecutor, gives the party a potent voice in debates over terror, justice and criminal jurisprudence. In the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, Fadnavis had managed to get him ticket, but Nikam lost. His entry to the Rajya Sabha means the BJP getting a legal luminary to take on the likes of Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi in the Opposition benches.advertisementShringla, by contrast, represents the quiet bureaucracy of power. As foreign secretary and later G20 Sherpa, he played a pivotal role in executing India's muscular foreign policy during a time of global flux. His nomination is widely seen as driven by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)—an attempt to embed a trusted technocrat into Parliament, someone who can actively shape legislative debates on foreign affairs, trade policy and geopolitical strategy.In many ways, Shringla's elevation marks a shift in how the Modi government views diplomacy. No longer insulated from politics, it is now being folded into the political project itself. Parliament is being repositioned as a platform where diplomats no longer report from the sidelines—they participate directly in the debates. In the Lok Sabha polls, the BJP couldn't give Shringla a ticket from his hometown of Darjeeling because of caste fine-balancing. Now, he is being rewarded for his work during India's G20 presidency.advertisement
Clockwise from top left: Ujjwal Deorao Nikam, C. Sadanandan Master, Harsh Vardhan Shringla, and Meenakshi Jain
Taken together, the four nominations offer a blueprint of the Modi government's strategic temperament. This is not a government in search of broader consensus. It's one that believes its third term represents not just electoral legitimacy but ideological inevitability. And that belief is shaping the kind of Parliament it is building—not just through elections but selective curation. The Rajya Sabha, often mocked as a place for defeated politicians or ageing notables, is being reimagined by the government as an instrument of deep influence. Not through noise but through alignment—of ideas, expertise and long-term narrative reinforcement.At the same time, this isn't a radical departure from the past. If one examines the Modi government's earlier nominations, a pattern becomes clear. The selection of Rakesh Sinha, Swapan Dasgupta and Justice Ranjan Gogoi between 2018 and 2020 were early signals of this strategy. Sinha and Dasgupta brought ideological voice; Gogoi, fresh off the Ram Janmabhoomi case verdict, brought institutional value. That nomination was unprecedented—a chief justice moving to the Upper House mere months after retirement. But in hindsight, it looks like a prototype. Gogoi was the first indication that the Modi government was no longer going to treat Rajya Sabha nominations as ceremonial. They would now be tactical.advertisementWhat has changed in 2025 is that the tactical has become structural. No longer are there deviations. All four current nominees are specialists in statecraft. All are capable of speaking not just to their domain but to the deeper ideological grammar that governs the Modi era of policymaking. The cultural historian reinforces the civilisational state. The RSS insider extends the party's grassroots circuitry. The prosecutor strengthens the narrative of national security. The diplomat brings foreign policy into direct political consciousness. None of them are generalists. All are instruments of a larger project.The contrast with Congress-era nominations could not be starker. Then, the nominated category was used as a space to accommodate civil society, to showcase symbolic inclusiveness or to rehabilitate loyalists who had lost electoral favour. There was occasional brilliance—think of former chief election commissioner of India M.S. Gill or economist Bhalchandra Mungekar—but rarely was there strategic consistency.In the Modi era, especially now in its third term, nomination is no longer an act of reward. It's about institutional convergence. Education, law, grassroots outreach, and diplomacy are four of the most powerful levers in a modern state. By placing individuals aligned with its worldview at the intersection of these four domains, the Modi government is shaping not just what Parliament does but how India thinks and governs.One must remember that the Rajya Sabha was not designed for this kind of power play. But under Modi, it is increasingly being refashioned as a place of quiet transformation. When the Lok Sabha is about volume, the Upper House is about signal. And these four nominations are a signal in its purest form.If Modi's third term is about legacy—about laying down irreversible foundations—then this round of Rajya Sabha nominations marks a significant milestone. It's a reminder that in politics, the most consequential moves are often the quietest. No hashtags. No headlines. Just four names that could help shape the next decade of Indian statecraft from behind the benches.New governors, new signalsMeanwhile, the appointments on July 14 of Prof. Ashim Kumar Ghosh as the governor of Haryana, Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju as the governor of Goa and Kavinder Gupta as the lieutenant governor of Ladakh reflect the Centre's calibrated political signalling with a clear RSS imprint.Ghosh is a scholar with deep RSS links. On the other hand, given his Sangh background in Jammu, Gupta's appointment suggests a focus on stability in Ladakh, which has been in the throes of political discontent over various issues.Raju, while now with the BJP, has retained close ties with Telugu Desam Party chief Chandrababu Naidu. His appointment signals careful coalition management of the National Democratic Alliance. The appointments show the BJP leadership is relying on loyalists who align with the Sangh's worldview while also navigating with precision the demands of coalition-era politics and regional power balances.Subscribe to India Today Magazine- Ends
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Secretly recorded calls admissible in marital disputes: SC
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a spouse may rely on secretly recorded telephonic conversations with the other partner in matrimonial disputes, including divorce proceedings, because such communications are not barred under the law and do not amount to a breach of privacy. The bench asserted that while the right to privacy exists between spouses, it is not absolute (ANI) In a significant ruling that reshapes the contours of privacy and evidence within marriage, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside a 2021 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana high court, which had barred a husband from using a compact disc (CD) or a memory card containing conversations with his estranged wife, recorded without her knowledge. The court relied on section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which bars disclosure of marital communications by one spouse without the other's consent. However, the same provision contains an exception when such communication is brought forth during legal proceedings between the spouses. To be sure, section 122 of the Evidence Act has been replaced by section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The bench asserted that while the right to privacy exists between spouses, it is not absolute. The exception under section 122, it said, must be read in conjunction with the constitutional right to a fair trial, which is also protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. 'We have also referred to the 2017 KS Puttaswamy judgment,' said the court, referring to the landmark ruling that affirmed privacy as a fundamental right. 'However, such rights cannot be applied horizontally in all contexts. Section 122 does not touch upon the right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 because it is based on the right to a fair trial.' Noting that a conversation between spouses secretly recorded by one of them can be admitted in evidence, the bench emphasised that allowing such evidence in matrimonial cases upholds procedural fairness, particularly where issues such as mental cruelty or marital discord are being litigated. 'Privacy of communication exists, but it is not absolute,' the bench said, pointing out that statutory exceptions such as those in the Evidence Act reflect a balance between privacy and justice. Dealing with the issue of protected nature of conversation between spouses, the bench maintained that if spouses are snooping on each other, the marriage seems to have already broken down. 'Snooping is not the result of pending proceedings but rather a symptom of a broken-down marriage,' said the court, adding that such conversations can be validly produced and proved in legal proceedings between them. The apex court restored the earlier order of the Bathinda family court (2020), which had allowed the husband to prove the contents of the CD in support of his plea for divorce, provided its authenticity was established. The case arose from a 2017 divorce petition filed by a man against his wife, with whom he shared a daughter. In support of his case, the husband submitted a CD of telephonic conversations purportedly between him and his wife, recorded without her knowledge. The Bathinda family court had allowed him to prove the contents of the CD subject to verification of its correctness. However, in 2021, the Punjab and Haryana high court reversed this decision, calling the act of recording a 'clear-cut infringement' of the wife's privacy. It also raised concerns over the manner and context in which such conversations were recorded, calling the evidence inadmissible. The husband then approached the Supreme Court, which began examining the interplay between privacy rights and evidentiary rules. During the hearings, the court appointed advocate Vrinda Grover as amicus curiae, who argued that laws such as section 122, framed in a pre-digital era, must be reinterpreted in light of evolving technology and gender dynamics. In its final ruling, the court, however, maintained a statutory interpretation approach, stating that the exceptions under section 122 must be construed harmoniously with constitutional guarantees, especially the right to a fair trial. The bench concluded that no breach of privacy occurred in the instant case and that such evidence could be tested under appropriate legal standards. 'In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order and restore the 2020 family court order. The family court is allowed to retrieve the recorded conversations and test it under the pertinent legal provisions,' the court ordered.
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC affirms life term for murder convict, urges Governor to consider pardon
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the life imprisonment of a woman lawyer and her three associates for the 2003 murder of her fiancé, but called on the Karnataka governor to consider their pleas for pardon, observing that society itself cannot escape responsibility for the deviant behavior it often helps shape. The 132-page judgment delved into the possible causes of crime, particularly when it arises from emotional rebellion, systemic inequity and gendered oppression (ANI) A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, while affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Karnataka High Court to advocate Shubha Shankarnarayan (42) and her three co-accused, delved deep into the sociological underpinnings of criminality and appealed for compassion, transformation and community responsibility. 'Society, through its own systemic failures, inequalities, or neglect often plays a role in shaping criminal behavior,' the bench said, adding that the responsibility of reintegrating and rehabilitating such offenders must also be borne by the society that may have contributed to their alienation. Shubha, daughter of a prominent Bangalore-based lawyer, was engaged to software engineer BV Girish on November 30, 2003. Four days later, on December 3, she asked Girish to take her out for dinner and then insisted on stopping at a spot on the Indiranagar-Koramangala Intermediate Ring Road to watch airplanes land. There, Girish was attacked and murdered by Arun Verma, Shubha's alleged boyfriend and two of his accomplices. All four were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2010. After the high court affirmed their conviction, they had moved the Supreme Court assailing the verdict, which the top court dismissed on Monday. The bench held that the evidence on record was sufficient and endorsed the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Even as it upheld the conviction, the top court refused to end its intervention at a purely punitive level. Citing 161 of the Constitution that vests the power of pardon in the governor, it urged that a broader view of justice be taken in light of the passage of time and subsequent conduct of the convicts. 'The appellants, who committed the offence with adrenaline pumping in their veins, have now reached middle age… They were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure,' said the court, adding that none of the four had attracted any adverse conduct reports from jail authorities since their conviction. Accordingly, the court granted the convicts eight weeks to file appropriate petitions seeking pardon under Article 161. It directed that they shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor has considered their mercy plea. The 132-page judgment delved into the possible causes of crime, particularly when it arises from emotional rebellion, systemic inequity and gendered oppression. Describing the internal turmoil of Shubha, it noted: 'The voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind… backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, (it) led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man.' Crime, Justice Sundresh wrote, must be seen not merely as an individual's deviance but as an outcome of multiple interlinked social and psychological factors. 'A crime constitutes a mental rebellion of norms and rules…triggered by causes which are both distant and immediate…The offender becomes a victim, requiring adequate measures for treatment by compassionate correction, structural support, and opportunities for genuine transformation,' said the bench, highlighting the need to move beyond retributive justice. Importantly, the court made a special mention of the gendered dimensions of criminal behaviour and societal control. Referring to the predicament of a young woman forced into an unwanted marriage and denied autonomy, the court observed: 'An unwarranted marriage thrust upon her is the worst form of alienation that she can experience both mentally and physically… A forced marriage, divorcing her from her professional ambitions and curtailing her further education, would certainly warrant a reaction. Such reactions would vary from one woman to another, depending upon the circumstances.'
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Rahul Gandhi to appear before MP/MLA court in Lucknow today
: Congress MP from Rae Bareli and leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi will appear before the MP/MLA court in Lucknow on Tuesday in a case related to disparaging remarks allegedly made by him about a face-off between Indian and Chinese soldiers. The comments were allegedly made during the Bharat Jodo Yatra on December 16, 2022. Congress MP from Rae Bareli and leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi (File photo) Advocate Vivek Tewari had filed the complaint against Rahul Gandhi on behalf of Uday Shankar Srivastava, a former director of the Border Roads Organisation with a rank equivalent to an Army colonel, in January 2023. Rahul Gandhi's alleged statement was derogatory towards the Army and hurt the sentiments of the armed forces, according to the complainant. Additional chief judicial magistrate Alok Verma, Lucknow, had earlier directed Rahul Gandhi to appear before the court on March 24, 2025, in the defamation case filed against him. Gandhi had challenged the additional CJM's order, passed on February 11, 2025, in the high court but did not get relief. Dismissing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's petition, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression does not extend to making defamatory statements against the Indian Army. Gandhi had challenged the summons by a local court in connection with a case related to his alleged remarks on the Indian Army. A single-judge bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on June 2, 2025, passed the order, rejecting Rahul Gandhi's petition challenging the additional CJM's order. 'No doubt, Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to the reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army,' the high court observed. The high court dismissal of his petition paved the way for Rahul Gandhi to face trial in the lower court.
