A Ph. D. scholar must use terms carefully, as she sure should know the technicality behind that usage, right? Well, that is a basic premise! Given, however, the Indian education scenario, where Ph.D's are dime a dozen and quite some routine, is it any surprise that the furious find of the current 'revolution', as it is unfolding in the capital, should grandly talk of 'regime' change!?!
Sure, Madame may differentiate and distinguish between student sit-in's in Delhi versus Ranchi! That is but okay, as the political bias and ideological inclinations have never been a hide, but seek she doth them openly!
Imagine though using a term like 'regime (and its change)' so very loosely! Apparently in some undated (that is, I am not sure of the date) interview she talks of how Bangladeshi students are her thought leaders as far as regime change in India goes.
Forget the fact that India is NOT Bangladesh from where migrants move in. Does the great lady understand the term 'regime change'? To begin with, 'regime' is related to monarchy and/or autocracy, and its various modes. I am not much in to politicking, but I sure do know that my country, and/or its governance, is a democracy, however flawed it might be, or it may appear to be.
A cursory look at even a basic simple Wikipedia entry is sure to convince anybody moderately literate that regime, as its current politicking usage goes, is first used circa 1792 at the height of the French Revolution!
Reference hence is also always to the 'ancien regime'. The etymological roots of either term is from Latin/Old French 'regere' which continues even today in to daily usages such as diet regime, exercise regime, et al, implying authoritarian, dictatorial, regulatory procedures.
Well, I may not forever flag the famous red book, with-in blank or otherwise. I, however, sure do know that every five years ordinary common citizens like me can vote governments out, if they wish to. India, in brief, does not need regime change, given its post Independence constitution in every sense of the term.
Pratima@ I do not know enough about the tool kits of the deep state, et al, which Mary Milben types are swearing by. I am sure though that the very many checks and balances in the indian institutional structure, refined over the last seven decades, are bulwark against any misuse, even by the ambitious fear/hatemongers cum demogogues lusting after power. Yes, it IS the parliament, and NOT the streets, that would continue to 'govern' ( note please, not to 'rule') India!
Quote of the day: Dwight D. Eisenhower declared, “Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”
Word of the day: checks and balances Checks and balances is a fundamental constitutional principle where different branches of government hold distinct powers that can limit, monitor, and restrain the actions of the other branches.