Whatever the use we put language to, the words we employ impose limits on what we can meaningfully convey using them.
For example, the word ‘regional party’ (translated as ‘pradeshika paksha’ in Kannada) imposes a psychological limit on the one who employs it. It tends to associate an insignificance, a smallness, a trivialness with what that party represents. To speak of increasing the significance, perceived size or importance of those parties is psychologically inconsistent with the fundamental meaning conveyed by the word ‘regional party’.
Similarly about the word ‘national party’: it attributes a greater significance, largeness, and greater importance of what such a party represents, right off the bat. A party only needs to be called a ‘national party’, and the psychology of those on whom the word is wielded is already transformed into believing that it is something better, more grand, more important, more significant than ‘regional parties’.
The Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once famously said that ‘the limits of my language are the limits of my world’. (‘Die Grenzen meiner Sprache sind die Grenzen meiner Welt’). The limits of language created by the terms ‘regional party’ and ‘national party’ act to create psychological limits on those who use the terms, and consequently, impose limits on the political changes that are at all possible.
Therefore, let’s switch to terms like ‘state party’ and ‘federal party’. These terms don’t imply a hierarchy of importance; rather, they stand for the functions that are desired from them.