Mr Chidambaram's attempts at verbal sophistry are at once amusing and pathetic. Harvard has never published an English dictionary so we must draw his attention to Oxford, which publishes the most authoritative of English dictionaries, often with a deep dive into a word - or phrase’s etymology. He's asking why anyone should question the phrase “regime change”. Well Oxford defines it as “defined as the replacement of one government or political system with another, particularly a complete change of government - often one brought about or influenced by force, military intervention, or external pressure from another country.” Rather an inconvenient qualification to leave out of your lecture! Unfortunately, verbal choreography cannot make inconvenient connotations disappear. So pretending it carries no connotations of coercion, overthrow or intervention is an impressive exercise in selective reading. Of course the Opposition has every right to defeat a government through elections. That proposition is so uncontroversial that dressing it up as a courageous constitutional discovery deserves its own applause track. “Oppose, expose and depose” is catchy. Unfortunately, three rhyming verbs cannot do the work of an argument. A political slogan is not a dictionary amendment. Say “win elections”. Say “secure a majority”. Say “replace this government through the ballot”. The English language offers ample options without requiring a subsequent clarification department. Instead, choosing a loaded expression and then accuse those questioning it of “feigned rage”. How convenient but then this man has always been the slave to a convenient dynasty. And lest we forget, it's the same man who was one of the proponents of the FAKE 'hindu terror' narrative to save terrorists. Therefore he is not entitled to an uncontested rewrite of political vocabulary.