top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

BJP closer to RS majority as strategic gains reshape math

Mumbai: The Bharatiya Janata Party has moved decisively closer to an outright majority in the Rajya Sabha after the latest biennial polls, a shift that political strategists say is the product of careful arithmetic, opportunistic cross voting and a sustained focus on state level strength. With the ruling party now holding 106 of the 245 seats in the Upper House, it stands 17 short of the 123 seat majority mark; yet the pattern of recent results and the calendar of forthcoming vacancies make a...

BJP closer to RS majority as strategic gains reshape math

Mumbai: The Bharatiya Janata Party has moved decisively closer to an outright majority in the Rajya Sabha after the latest biennial polls, a shift that political strategists say is the product of careful arithmetic, opportunistic cross voting and a sustained focus on state level strength. With the ruling party now holding 106 of the 245 seats in the Upper House, it stands 17 short of the 123 seat majority mark; yet the pattern of recent results and the calendar of forthcoming vacancies make a clear path to an absolute majority by 2028 increasingly plausible. The immediate momentum came from the most recent contest for 37 Rajya Sabha seats, where the ruling combine secured 22 seats against the opposition’s 15. That outcome not only added two seats beyond the BJP’s assured tally but also exposed fault lines within the opposition, where discipline lapses and strategic miscalculations allowed the ruling side to convert narrow advantages into concrete gains. Analysts point to instances of cross voting and the inability of opposition parties to present united slates as decisive factors that amplified the BJP’s returns beyond what raw assembly numbers might have predicted. In the months ahead, 35 more Rajya Sabha seats are scheduled for election, with vacancies arising in states such as Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Based on current assembly compositions, projections suggest the BJP could add roughly six seats in the near term, nudging its tally to about 112. That incremental growth, while not decisive on its own, tightens the margin and increases the leverage the party enjoys in parliamentary negotiations. Next Calendar The calendar beyond the immediate cycle further favors the ruling party. In 2027 only a handful of seats — largely from Kerala — are due to fall vacant, offering little opportunity for a major shift. The pivotal year appears to be 2028, when multiple vacancies are expected in politically consequential states. Maharashtra, where the BJP’s legislative strength allows it to elect more candidates than the number of retiring members, and Uttar Pradesh, which will see a significant tranche of 11 seats vacated, are likely to be the main battlegrounds. Given the BJP’s current foothold in both states, party strategists and observers alike regard the 2028 cycle as the most probable moment when the 17 seat deficit could be erased. Political operatives describe the BJP’s approach as a blend of long term state level investment and short term tactical manoeuvres. At the state level, the party has focused on winning assembly elections and building alliances that translate into Rajya Sabha strength. Tactically, the recent polls demonstrated an ability to exploit divisions within the opposition, whether through direct negotiations with regional leaders, leveraging dissident legislators, or capitalising on the fragmented nature of multi party contests. The result is a steady accumulation of seats that, over successive biennial cycles, compounds into a structural advantage in the Upper House. For the opposition, the challenge is two-fold: to defend regional strongholds in the upcoming state elections and to maintain internal cohesion. The Rajya Sabha’s indirect electoral mechanism means that every state assembly contest carries national significance; a swing in a single assembly can alter the Upper House calculus months later. Opposition leaders face the immediate task of shoring up their legislative numbers and preventing defections or tactical cross voting that could further erode their position.

When Meritocracy Starts to Feel Like Favoritism

At The Workshop, nobody said it aloud. But everyone felt it. It wasn’t a policy. It wasn’t a memo. It was a pattern. The founder, Rohit, had a rhythm … a gravitational pull toward certain people. The ones he brainstormed with, called into client meetings, turned to for “quick feedback”.


It didn’t look like favoritism. But it didn’t feel like meritocracy either. And that’s where the distortion begins … not in what leaders intend, but in what teams observe. Two months after the grand town hall, the strategy wasn't what people were trying to decode anymore.


They were decoding proximity:

Who does Rohit trust? Who gets access without asking? Whose mistakes are overlooked? Whose ideas make it to execution?


There were no formal rules for this. But everyone was learning them. And Rohit? He had no idea. Because in his mind, he was just moving with speed while leaning on the people who “got it” fastest. But what the team saw was something else: A quiet hierarchy of influence. One built not on titles, but on closeness.


That moment

It happened during a Friday sprint retro. Aman proposed a workflow change. Bold, unconventional … the kind of idea Rohit usually encouraged. But instead of responding, Rohit turned to Meera: “Let’s hold that thought. Meera, what do you think?”


Meera had worked with him the longest. Her judgment was sharp. Trusted. But to everyone else in the room: Aman felt dismissed. The interns updated their playbook: “Run bold ideas through Meera.” The ops lead made a mental note: “Pitch safely, not directly.”


Rohit hadn’t intended to promote a gatekeeper. But in that moment, the team had just created one.


Favoritism before leaders

Because leaders operate from intention. Teams live with impact. Rohit didn’t like Meera more. He simply trusted her process. She could take his half-sentence and turn it into action without much translation. He wasn’t rewarding loyalty. He was rewarding ease. But that distinction doesn’t matter when the team sees the same voices dominate every meeting. Familiarity starts looking like favoritism. And culture quietly reshapes around that perception.


Echo chamber

Most founders don’t wake up wanting to build echo chambers. They just gravitate … toward the people who mirror their speed, their style, their language.


Here’s what happens:

The founder starts ideating more with “trusted” voices. Those voices gain unofficial influence. Everyone else speaks less – not from fear, but from futility. Decision quality drops. Alignment fractures. Initiative dies.


Before you know it, you’re not building a meritocracy. You’re building a familiarity loop.


And in fast-growth companies, loops are sticky.


Real case

In a national sales team we worked with, the VP insisted decisions were data-driven. Until we ran a blind assessment. A top performer was barely visible. A mid-level player got promoted … not because of results, but because she was always in the VP’s orbit. A high-potential new joiner was overlooked because he didn’t “sound confident”.


When we showed the gap, the VP was stunned. What he thought was merit… was actually compatibility.


In a factory setup, a supervisor promoted the wrong person for three cycles in a row.


Not due to bias. Due to comfort. He chose: The one who never challenged him. The one who echoed his thinking. The one who felt “safe.”


Meanwhile, the real performers watched quietly. One line worker summed it up best: “Performance is for the reports. Promotions are for the familiar.”


Team effect

The damage isn’t instant. It’s cumulative. First, people stop pitching bold ideas.


Then, they stop asking questions. Eventually, they stop trying to compete at all.


Because the game feels rigged… even if it’s not.


And that’s the real cost of the Power Paradox. The leader thinks they’re being objective. The team experiences a hierarchy of trust.


Real paradox

Founders say, “We’re a meritocracy.” The team replies, “Then why does the same inner circle always win?” They’re not wrong. Neither is the founder. Because power isn’t about what you say.


It’s about how often you say it to the same people.


And when that circle goes unexamined, it quietly shapes a culture where: Familiarity outruns contribution, access outranks talent, and initiative dies before it begins.


Meritocracy is not just what you believe. It’s what your team can see.


(Rahul Kulkarni is Co-founder at PPS Consulting. He writes about the human mechanics of growth where systems evolve, and emotions learn to keep up. Views personal. Write to rahul@ppsconsulting.biz)

Comments


bottom of page