Karnataka’s Rajya Sabha choices: Questions Remain
Four candidates have been elected unanimously to the Rajya Sabha from the Karnataka in the biennial polls held recently. A matter of consolation this time is that all the four are from Karnataka. Political parties have for long used the Rajya Sabha for the back-door entry of candidates who cannot win direct elections to the hallowed portals of Parliament. Political parties also strangely hold the view that Rajya Sabha members from a state need not be from that state, which helped many candidates from other states to get elected to the Rajya Sabha from Karnataka. And more often than not, the contribution of such candidates to Karnataka has been zero. In fact, many Rajya Sabha MPs elected from the state have spoken in favor of other states such as Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. As this trend had drawn the ire of Kannada organizations in the past, political parties have now started giving a serious thought to the selection of candidates.
Of the four candidates elected this time, two are senior leaders from the JDS and the Congress and the other two representing the BJP are new faces. The BJP is taking credit for electing grass-root workers of the party to the Rajya Sabha. The JDS, however, claims that selecting local-level workers does not fulfill any objective if they are not able to effectively represent the state’s interest in the Rajya Sabha. The party’s argument is that those elected to the Rajya Sabha should be seasoned politicians who can raise their voices on the issues before the state. While there is a grain of truth in both the arguments, they are equally shallow.
In the Parliamentary system, the Lok Sabha is called as the Lower House and the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House, indicating the significance of both the houses. Though the Lower House plays a more decisive role in governance, the Upper House cannot be neglected. The Upper House exists to guide the Lower House and its functioning whose representatives are usually inexperienced and lack administrative acumen. It is therefore important that candidates to the Rajya Sabha have experience in different fields. If the Lok Sabha has to proceed in the right direction, experts in various fields, thinkers, and a collection of bright minds should be seated in the Rajya Sabha. Only then the objective of having a Rajya Sabha – the House of Elders – will be fulfilled. However, political parties have been using the Rajya Sabha membership as a reward to workers and leaders who cannot contest and win direct elections to the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly.
There cannot be any doubt that Parliament needs seasoned politicians such as Mallikarjun Kharge of the Congress and Janata Dal’s Deve Gowda. The choice of the Congress and the JD(S) therefore makes good sense. At the same time, the BJP has done well by showing the powerful lobbies of senior leaders their place and by favouring two hitherto unknown district-level functionaries. But the decision of all the three parties raise many questions.
If the BJP were to give an opportunity for ordinary party workers to contest Lok Sabha or Assembly elections, the decision could have been lauded. But how fair is the party’s stand of giving ‘tickets to the winning candidates’ during Lok Sabha and Assembly elections and ‘recognizing party workers’ when it comes to selecting candidates for Rajya Sabha elections? Doesn’t the selection of inexperienced persons to the Rajya Sabha defeat the purpose of the Upper House which is meant to be the preserve of the seasoned and the experienced? How far will such inexperienced party workers succeed in guiding the young MPs in Lok Sabha?
At the same time, how valid is the stand of the JDS that it had made the right choice in Deve Gowda? No doubt, Deve Gowda has on many occasions effectively fought for the interests of the state in Parliament, including the Cauvery river issue. However, now he is on the threshold of 87 years. Will his age not work against him? Does it mean that the party is openly admitting that it has a paucity of seasoned politicians other than the former prime minister? With the Corona virus spreading all over the country, health experts are warning that it is dangerous for senior citizens to be active in public. If the Congress and JDS had encouraged and groomed youngsters, would they have been facing the situation of having to choose aged politicians with health issues?
BJP has in its fold several seasoned and experienced thinkers and politicians. The party could have given its grass-roots workers ticket to contest the Lok Sabha or Assembly seats and sent seasoned politicians to the Rajya Sabha. The JDS, on the other hand, could have selected a candidate such as former MLA Y.S.V. Dutta to the Rajya Sabha instead of imposing on Deve Gowda the pressures of being a Rajya Sabha member. Of all the candidates selected to the Rajya Sabha, the selection of Kharge seems fair but at 77, the age is a factor to be considered in his case too. The Congress should also identify and recognize other seasoned leaders who can take Kharge’s place.
When it is becoming increasingly important for the Rajya Sabha to include experienced and seasoned political faces to correct the Lok Sabha which is going astray because of its financial might, it is difficult to accept the selection of these four candidates.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
US SC rejects 26/11 attack accused Tahawwur Rana’s plea seeking stay on his extradition to India
New York, Apr 7 (PTI): The US Supreme Court has rejected 26/11 Mumbai terror attack accused Tahawwur Rana's appeal seeking a stay on his extradition to India, moving him closer to being handed over to Indian authorities to face justice.
Rana, 64, a Canadian national of Pakistani origin, is currently lodged at a metropolitan detention centre in Los Angeles.
He is known to be associated with Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley, one of the main conspirators of the 26/11 attacks. Headley conducted a recce of Mumbai before the attacks by posing as an employee of Rana’s immigration consultancy.
Rana had submitted an ‘Emergency Application For Stay Pending Litigation of Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus' on February 27, 2025, with Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit Elena Kagan.
Kagan had denied the application earlier last month.
Rana had then renewed his ‘Emergency Application for Stay Pending Litigation of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus previously addressed to Justice Kagan’, and requested that the renewed application be directed to US Chief Justice John Roberts.
An order on the Supreme Court website noted that Rana's renewed application had been “distributed for Conference” on April 4 and the “application” has been “referred to the Court.”
A notice on the Supreme Court website Monday said that “Application denied by the Court.”
Rana was convicted in the US of one count of conspiracy to provide material support to the terrorist plot in Denmark and one count of providing material support to Pakistan-based terrorist organisation Lashker-e-Taiba which was responsible for the attacks in Mumbai.
New York-based Indian-American attorney Ravi Batra had told PTI that Rana had made his application to the Supreme Court to prevent extradition, which Justice Kagan denied on March 6. The application was then submitted before Roberts, “who has shared it with the Court to conference so as to harness the entire Court’s view.”
The Supreme Court justices are Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In his emergency application, Rana had sought a stay of his extradition and surrender to India pending litigation (including exhaustion of all appeals) on the merits of his February 13.
In that petition, Rana argued that his extradition to India violates US law and the UN Convention Against Torture "because there are substantial grounds for believing that, if extradited to India, the petitioner will be in danger of being subjected to torture."
"The likelihood of torture in this case is even higher though as petitioner faces acute risk as a Muslim of Pakistani origin charged in the Mumbai attacks,” the application said.
The application also said that his “severe medical conditions” render extradition to Indian detention facilities a “de facto" death sentence in this case.
The US Supreme Court denied Rana's petition for a writ of certiorari relating to his original habeas petition on January 21. The application notes that on that same day, newly-confirmed Secretary of State Marco Rubio had met with External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar.
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Washington on February 12 to meet with Trump, Rana’s counsel received a letter from the Department of State, stating that “on February 11, 2025, the Secretary of State decided to authorise” Rana’s "surrender to India,” pursuant to the “Extradition Treaty between the United States and India”.
Rana’s Counsel requested from the State Department the complete administrative record on which Secretary Rubio based his decision to authorize Rana’s surrender to India.
The Counsel also requested immediate information of any commitment the United States has obtained from India with respect to Rana’s treatment. “The government declined to provide any information in response to these requests,” the application said.
It added that given Rana’s underlying health conditions and the State Department’s findings regarding the treatment of prisoners, it is very likely “Rana will not survive long enough to be tried in India".
During a joint press conference with Prime Minister Modi in the White House in February, President Donald Trump announced that his administration has approved the extradition of "very evil" Rana, wanted by Indian law enforcement agencies for his role in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, "to face justice in India”.
A total of 166 people, including six Americans, were killed in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks in which 10 Pakistani terrorists laid a more than 60-hour siege, attacking and killing people at iconic and vital locations in Mumbai.
