Wading into the raging debate around the demand for “regime change“, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, speaking at his annual Dussehra rally on October 20, warned against any such attempts in India, describing them as influenced by “foreign forces” and “demonic resolve”. Pointing to the current turmoil in France, Albania and earlier in Bangladesh and Nepal, Bhagwat also declared that India was immune to such a “western storm”.The BJP is a much-shaken party these days, fearing loss of power because the narrative for regime change is growing stronger in India. It began amidst the recent agitations demanding electoral integrity and the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.In response, the BJP and RSS have unleashed all their forces to paint “regime change” as the subversion of a democratically elected government. They have almost equated it to treason and unleashing of anarchy in collusion with “foreign forces” that are “against India”. They are claiming that the Opposition wants to remove this government through violent means, as happened in some neighbouring countries.But the larger question that we the people must raise and answer is whether regime change is democratic or not, especially when there is strong evidence of power capture through electoral manipulations? Is an elected government that breaks the social compact still assured of its five-year term under all circumstances? What is the way out for the people if all the legal avenues for removal of such a government are blocked?Electoral malpracticesAfter the Indian Express exposed the brazen and illegal malpractices in the Election Commission like the CEC usurping of the powers of the two Election Commissioners, the illegal changes in Form 6, the centralisation of the powers to add or delete voters in Delhi through the ECI’s own IT department, a convoluted SIR designed to leave out targeted voters, it became amply clear that industrial-scale electoral manipulations have been done to benefit the ruling party.In such a scenario, the democratic mandate is shattered, the legitimacy of the government is under serious doubt and the argument for the immediate dismissal of such a government and the calling of fresh elections becomes a democratic necessity.When the core institutions of a democracy – specifically its electoral machinery – are systematically hijacked, and there is credible evidence pointing towards large-scale electoral manipulations by the ruling party, a critical tipping point arrives in which the public moves from demanding systemic reform to demanding “regime change”.Is there a mandate – or just a regime?The core argument against enduring a regime that has “captured” democracy rests on the concept of political legitimacy. A government does not possess inherent authority; its power is entirely derivative, loaned to it by the citizens through the mechanism of free and fair elections.When a regime faces charges of “election capture”, after it has captured constitutional institutions by utilising state machinery to win elections, monopolising financial power, taming the Election Commission, tailoring the selection committee for selecting pliant Election Commissioners, manipulating voter lists, making huge voting percentage changes after the votes are cast, refusing to show the CCTV footage of the polling booths, unleashing investigative agencies against political opponents, breaking opposition parties and their legislators, freezing their symbols and bank accounts, bringing down opposition governments – the resulting elections cease to be a reflection of the popular will.The situation becomes all the more aggravating when the presiding officers of the legislatures delay decisions to provide a legal cover or frustrate the true mandate and a compliant judiciary fails to uphold justice or simply looks the other way. In such a situation, these constitutional guards become active partners in the electoral fraud.Also read: Crying ‘Regime Change’ Proves Modi Govt Has Lost Control: The Ground Has ShiftedIn our context, disenfranchisement through SIR, the hijacking of free and fair elections and the consequent theft of the vote is a clear case of the denial of the fundamental right of the citizens to vote, which is the heart and soul of a democracy.Such a regime is deemed to have entered a “state of war” with the democratic process and with the people itself, the true sovereign of the country. The citizens must not patiently endure such an illegitimate authority until a predetermined calendar date for the next elections, which may be manipulated anyway like the earlier ones.The failure of institutional redressA government that governs without people’s mandate or consent solely depends on force to rule. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract, argued that “might does not make right, and the duty of obedience is owed only to legitimate powers. Since force alone bestows no right, all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants”.He also wrote about the degeneration of the state when private or partisan interests hijack the “general will”, an iconic term by which he meant people’s mandate. When the social compact is broken via the hijacking of the electoral machinery, the government becomes legally and morally null.When the institutions mandated to check such a regime fail completely, they can no longer serve as neutral arbiters or safety valves for public anger. So, to suggest that citizens should wait for institutions to fix themselves is a contradiction in terms and futile. An elite that has successfully captured a democracy will rarely voluntarily surrender its advantages. The failure of institutions means that the political arena naturally shifts from parliament and the courts to the streets.From reformation to regime changeIf every legitimate avenue for redress remains closed, a popular upsurge for regime change is the only rational outcome. In classic political theory, this is known as the “appeal to heaven”, the ultimate right of a populace to overthrow a tyrannical or illegitimate authority when no earthly judge remains impartial.If a government comes to power or retains power through a playing field so uneven that it appears completely rigged, it has, in literal terms, stolen the election. Political theorist John Locke, in his Second Treatise on Government, argued that when a government acts contrary to its trust, the people’s obligation to obey it ceases. He even advocated that revolt against an unjust state is fully justified, if it denies the natural rights of the citizens.Also read: Regime Change Is Democracy’s Lifeblood and Modi is No Exception: 7 Reasons Why BJP is WrongDemanding immediate, fresh elections is, therefore, an act of political hygiene. A living, democratic society has both the right and the duty to demand an immediate return to the ballot box under independent and free institutions.The fallacy of ‘stability’Defenders of compromised regimes frequently deploy the “political instability” or “unleashing anarchy” argument to deter popular movements. They claim that demanding the immediate dismissal of a government invites chaos, cripples economic growth and undermines the state institutions. This argument is fundamentally flawed for three core reasons.First, tyranny is not stability. Coerced order maintained through institutional capture and a tilted playing field is not true political stability; it is merely institutionalised oppression. True stability requires public trust.Second, delaying the crisis magnifies the chaos. Forcing a population to endure any regime simply for the sake of “maintaining order” will only compress public anger like steam in a pressure cooker. Preventing a peaceful, early transition through fresh elections may lead to a far more explosive, uncontrollable situation later.Third, fresh elections are the ultimate stabiliser. Demanding an early vote is a profound expression of faith in the democratic process. It seeks to resolve conflict not through violence, but through the ballot box.Alignment of legal and political sovereigntyPolitical theorist Albert Venn Dicey noted that the ultimate safety of a state rests on the alignment between legal sovereignty (the government) and political sovereignty (the electors). When a regime uses election capture to subvert the people’s mandate it loses the legal sovereignty, consequently the state enters a prolonged, volatile crisis of legitimacy.Such a regime is illegitimate and allowing it to remain in power not preserve stability. Instead, it shakes the foundational bedrock of the nation. The current regime has failed the test of legitimacy. Therefore, its immediate dismissal and fresh, transparent, free and fair elections are the only genuine way to restore authentic political stability and implement the people’s mandate – the “general will” – which must always prevail.The writer is a farmers’ leader and was actively involved in the farmers’ agitation and wrestlers’ agitation. He is an alumnus of the Institute of Rural Management Anand (IRMA) and frequently writes columns in all the major national newspapers like The Indian Express, Dainik Jagran, Navbharat Times and Amar Ujala.