Skip to content
Sign in
Politics · Global

Regime change term being used loosely , credibility of electoral system must be restored : Former Union Minister Anand

Anand Sharma said talk of “regime change” in India misuses the term and that governments in a democracy change through elections. He also said the Election Commission’s credibility must be restored.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 4 independent reports from 7 outlets · Article text read from 1 of 4 reportsHow it's made

View timeline · 7 entries
7 outlets2 regionsLatest reporting 3 min read
Coverage: MixedL 0 · C 2 · R 2 · 3 unrated

What happened

Key facts

  • Anand Sharma said the term “regime change” was being used loosely in discussion about India (per asianetnews.com, indiasnews.net, moneycontrol.com).
  • Sharma said governments in a democracy change through the ballot (per asianetnews.com, moneycontrol.com).
  • Sharma said the credibility of the Election Commission must be restored (per asianetnews.com).
  • Sharma said a “regime” refers to the broader framework, including the Constitution, which he said his party is defending and protecting (per asianetnews.com).
  • Sharma told ANI that the term should be used carefully and that the issue should not be sensationalised (per asianetnews.com).
  • Kiren Rijiju said on Saturday that elections and public mandate determine India’s democratic government, and rejected attempts to force unconstitutional political upheaval (per asianetnews.com).
  • Rijiju said, “India is not Bangladesh,” and said the country’s youth are focused on building the nation (per asianetnews.com).

The brief

Anand Sharma said talk of “regime change” in India was using the term loosely, arguing that governments in a democracy change through elections. He also said the credibility of the Election Commission must be restored. Newsable.asianetnews.com reported his remarks, which Sharma made to ANI.

Sharma distinguished between a government and a “regime,” which he described as the broader framework that includes the Constitution. He said his party was defending and protecting that framework. In his account, governments remain in office through votes and public trust, and the term “regime change” should therefore be used carefully.

Sharma also cautioned against sensationalising the issue. He pointed to the Supreme Court, the Election Commission, Parliament and the Constitution as institutions built into India’s system. His remarks linked the discussion of “regime change” to the credibility of the electoral system, without treating the two phrases as interchangeable.

The same account said Kiren Rijiju had spoken on Saturday, saying that elections and public mandate determine India’s democratic government. Rijiju rejected attempts to force what he called unconstitutional political upheaval.

His statement framed the issue around the electoral mandate, while Sharma focused on how the term “regime” should be understood and on the Election Commission’s credibility. Rijiju also said, “India is not Bangladesh,” and said the country’s youth were focused on building the nation rather than pulling it down.

That statement was his characterization of the contrast he was drawing; Sharma’s remarks, as reported, centred on democratic institutions and the ballot.

Together, the two statements address how political change in India should be described: Sharma said governments change through elections and urged care with the phrase “regime change,” while Rijiju said elections and public mandate determine the country’s democratic government.

The account does not specify what steps Sharma believes would restore the Election Commission’s credibility, or identify a particular electoral process or decision at issue.

Why it matters

  • Sharma’s call to restore the Election Commission’s credibility puts the functioning and public standing of that institution at the centre of the debate.
  • His argument that governments change through votes makes the ballot the stated mechanism for political change.
  • Sharma described the Constitution as part of the framework his party is defending, connecting the terminology debate to constitutional institutions.

What to watch next

  • Whether Anand Sharma specifies what measures he believes would restore the Election Commission’s credibility.
  • Whether Kiren Rijiju makes further statements about elections, public mandate or political change.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
7 source articles · 7 unique outlets · 4 distinct reports
Outlet political mix: Mixed· 2 Center · 2 Right · 3 unrated
Where the outlets are based: Asia 71% · US/Canada 14% · Other 15%
Outlet political mix
Mixed
Left
Center
Right
0 outlets
2 outlets
2 outlets
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once. 3 unrated outlets are not included.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
7 unique outletsDominant coverage: Asia
How we measure coverage

How outlets' accounts compare

Updat3 does not yet have enough full reports to compare how outlets framed this story.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. India’s Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  2. The ECI’s constitutional role dates to January 26, 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force.
    Background · from our historical context
  3. The Supreme Court held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala that Parliament could not alter the Constitution’s basic structure.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  4. Seshan v. Union of India* on October 14, 1995, the Supreme Court upheld the arrangement for a multi-member Election Commission.
    Background · from our historical context
  5. In 2023, Parliament passed the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, creating a statutory process for appointments.
    Background · from our historical context
  6. The Supreme Court rejected petitions seeking a return to paper ballots and ordered additional safeguards for checking electronic voting machines.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  7. On June 4, 2024, the ECI published the general-election results, in which the Bharatiya Janata Party won 240 seats and the National Democratic Alliance secured a parliamentary majority.
    Background · from our historical context

How we got here

Before the current debate, India’s 2024 general election had renewed public argument about electoral integrity and the Election Commission of India (ECI).

On April 26, 2024, the Supreme Court rejected petitions seeking a return to paper ballots and ordered additional safeguards for checking electronic voting machines; the ruling followed a challenge to the voting system’s reliability.

Original sources

1 of 7 articles · Unknown · Show all

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.