From ‘Gen-Z’ to ‘Regime Change’: How words are being weaponised to shape public perception

Recently, I was interacting with a group of school students when the subject of ‘Gen-Z’ came up. I asked them to write ‘Gen-Z’ in English. All of them wrote exactly that -‘GEN-Z’! I then asked them how they pronounced the letter Z. Their answer was unanimous: ‘Zed’. So I posed another question: If you pronounce Z as ‘Zed’, how does ‘Gen-Z’ suddenly become ‘Gen-Zee’? Why does the same letter Z, which you pronounce as ‘Zed’ individually, turn into ‘Zee’ when it is combined with ‘Gen’? Why? They had no answer. In American English, Z is pronounced ‘Zee’, whereas in British English, it is pronounced ‘Zed’. Bharat has historically been influenced by British English, and Z is generally pronounced ‘Zed’ here. Against this linguistic backdrop, the growing popularity of ‘Gen-Zee’ instead of ‘Gen-Zed’ in Bharat is certainly a linguistic shift worth examining. My concern is not to declare one pronunciation right and the other wrong, but to question how seriously we examine the processes that shape the usage and popularity of certain words. Let us now try to understand this through another term that has recently gained considerable currency in Bharat: ‘Regime Change’. Political groups associated with the Congress and communist ideologies are increasingly using the expression ‘Regime Change’ quite openly. But Bharat is neither a monarchy nor a dictatorship. It has a government elected democratically under the Constitution. This raises an obvious question: What exactly is the ‘regime’ in Bharat? A Google search for the meaning of ‘regime’ brings up definitions that associate the term with a method or system of government, especially one that has not been elected fairly. Similar interpretations can also be found in different contexts on Wikipedia. The point worth considering is this: when Bharat has a democratically elected government, why is the expression ‘Regime Change’ being used? The choice of such terminology is somewhat unsettling. In Bharat, we commonly use expressions such as ‘change of government’ or ‘government change’ when referring to a change in political power. So why the deliberate use of the word ‘regime’? Is it merely a matter of choosing one word over another, or is there a larger game at play? When the term ‘regime’ is repeatedly used to describe a democratically elected government, it becomes important to examine the perception being cultivated in the public mind. We must distinguish between a word’s literal meaning and the political context in which it is used. Let us now examine this politics of narrative-building in the context of the recent activities of the Congress and the wider Opposition. From ‘Vote Chori’ to ‘Public Impeachment’: What Does the Opposition Want to Establish in the Public Mind? For some time now, the Congress and the Indi alliance have been running a sustained political campaign around allegations of ‘vote chori’ (vote theft). Questions are being raised about the impartiality of the Election Commission and the Chief Election Commissioner. The familiar refrain that democracy is under threat is being repeated. On October 31, as part of this campaign, a symbolic ‘Public Impeachment’ proceeding was also organised against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar presided over the proceedings, while Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge presented the resolution. Rahul Gandhi and several other Opposition leaders participated in the event. Now, consider the terminology and the format of this exercise. The word ‘impeachment’ is generally associated with removing constitutional office-holders through a prescribed parliamentary procedure. In Bharat, the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner is also governed by a specific constitutional safeguard. Under Article 324(5) of the Constitution, the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. However, a resolution passed at a symbolic gathering organised by a political party, or alliance, cannot, by itself, remove the Chief Election Commissioner from office under the Constitution. This was not an actual parliamentary impeachment proceeding; it was essentially a political demonstration. This raises an important question: When a constitutional procedure is already available through Parliament, what political message is conveyed by organising a symbolic exercise alongside it? Is this merely a way of registering political protest, or is it also an attempt to create the impression among the public that the country’s constitutional institutions have lost their impartiality? In the same sequence of events, a major rally has also been organised at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan on November 1 against alleged ‘vote chori’. Here, we need to pay attention to the language or words being used: ‘Vote Chori’, ‘Vote Chor’, ‘Public Impeachment’, and ‘Democracy in Danger’. When such expressions are repeatedly used to convey the same message, they stop being ordinary political terminology. Their cumulative effect can create doubts in ordinary citizens’ minds about the electoral process, the Election Commission, and the government’s legitimacy. In a democracy, making an allegation and proving that allegation are two entirely different things. If votes have indeed been stolen, evidence must be presented, the relevant cases must be impartially investigated, and those found guilty must face action. The Opposition has every right to question the government and constitutional institutions. However, the right to question must go hand in hand with evidence and respect for constitutional procedures. The people of Bharat must understand the politics of narrative building. Now, consider all three examples together. The pronunciation of a term associated with the younger generation shifts from ‘Gen-Zed’ to ‘Gen-Zee’. The expression ‘Regime Change’ introduces a particular political discourse around a democratically elected government. And terms such as ‘Vote Chori’ and ‘Public Impeachment’ are used to raise sweeping questions about the impartiality of the Election Commission and the credibility of the electoral process. A common thread runs through all these examples: shaping public perception through the strategic use of words. In other words, ‘constructing a narrative’. It would be difficult to dismiss the possibility that anti-Bharat foreign forces may have a coordinated interest in exploiting such terminology and developments. Language, communication, and public opinion have long been used as instruments of influence […]