How we Gravitate towards Evil, Collectively

The same results can be obtained even after reversing the genders.

And the results are far more diabolical when the individual mademoiselle is replaced with a collective mademoiselle. Or monsieur, or whatever other gender on the spectrum, because the phenomenon is gender-neutral.

The results are already quite diabolical due to the effect of the collective gravitating towards the individual evil, but they become exponentially more diabolical when the evil itself is collective and even bigger collective gravitates towards the collective evil.

The above is an example of the malignant type of this phenomenon.

In a highly organised social collection of individuals, as we have in our world at a global scale, individual evil is (at the worst) like a cancerous cell. There exists what we call cancer only when there are a very large number of such cancerous cells. Individual cancerous cells can’t do much damage.

Even a small group of cancerous cells is usually benign. Unless, of course, the collective gravitates towards it.

Here is benign type of the same, that is, some of the seeds of it, lest we forget completely, shown in a very much sanitized version:

We all carry some seeds of individual evil: some more, some less. Most of these seeds are supposed to lie dormant and they often do. They are there, at least partially, for evolutionary reasons. There are more than enough technologies of power (in the Foucauldian sense) to keep individual evil in check (but also keep individual good in check if it conflicts with the interests of the powers that be).

The problem is, these same technologies of power create and facilitate collective evil and/or make the collective gravitate towards it for reasons of their own (such as The Greater Good or The Higher Cause, whichever way these causes are defined, which may not be really good or higher).

So, yes, in that sense it is more a political matter, less a psychological matter.

Who decides what is Good or Higher? Who decides who decides? The collective? Those who represent the collective? Those who claim to represent the collective? Those who have the power to decide on behalf of the collective? Those who have the power and just pretend to decide on behalf of the collective? Those who convince the collective that they are deciding on behalf of the collective or for the good of the collective?

To convert a mainly political matter into a totally psychological matter has always been a tactic dear to socio-political establishments to maintain their power and to maintain the status quo (or to change it to their interests), particularly to totalitarian systems such as the Stalinist Soviet Union or the Maoist China or Nazi Germany. That is what the Re-education Camps and Gulags were for, in terms of the justification given for their existence.

There is no reason why a Capitalist Establishment can’t or won’t use this tactic.

We do know for sure about the use of medical ‘treatment’ for gender-related ‘illnesses’ or ‘disorders’ or ‘diseases’. That is not a Conspiracy Theory. The people — good people, nice people — genuinely hated and dreaded the people with such ‘illnesses’ or ‘disorders’ or ‘diseases’, to the extent we hate pedophiles, for example. In many societies, such gender related phobias (is that the right word, considering what I just said about the psychological and the political?) are still the norm. Not just phobias (or whatever is the right term), there are still laws applying them.

The one below is a less benign case of the same phenomenon, hinting towards the malignant form:

This one, as the others, shows the pushes and pulls (well, technically only pulls) of gravitation between entities, both good and evil, whether in the same person or not, and also (more importantly) between the individual evil and the collective evil. The political here is much more explicit. The psychological is just what humans are. The political is what humans have made for themselves, collectively. That last one is the keyword.

In that case, are there some Special Ones or Chosen Ones, or is the Higher or the Good for everyone?

In the fight between good and evil, the evil always has the upper hand. This is almost a cliche. But also in the fight between the individual evil and the collective evil, the latter is a guaranteed winner.

The collective just brushes aside the individual good. And it crushes the individual evil as a giant can crush a little thing. It does that only when the interests between the two don’t align well. Otherwise, they can get along just fine. That is part of how the world works.

There is less evil in a room with a view. A room at the top, however, is a very different matter. The evil there is immeasurably more.

The room at the top is the control centre of the technologies of power. An evil Mademoiselle or a Monsieur is just the kind of asset that they need there.

Only as long as the interests align.

A room at the top comes, not only with a view, but with much evil, with or without the Mademoiselle or the Monsieur.

Just a Trailer

Ever since our fabulous victory

And after that a repeat triumph

We have been working very hard


But what you have seen so far

Is just a small trailer, a teaser

The full movie is yet to come


That kick you feel in the stomach

That sent you all reeling for long

Accompanied by a hit on the head

As well as our aim for the jugular


Is all just one of our action scenes


Don’t you know that poem?


This is just the beginning

Of our love affair with you

You just wait and watch to see

What is still waiting to happen


Weaponizable Technologies


Weapon are devices

That can harm people

Can also harm property

But that’s less important


Weapons are technologies

Not necessarily physical

As in the Foucauldian sense


In that sense,

They can also

Harm society

And culture,


Humanity itself



More importantly

The very idea of

What humanity is


In the Foucauldian sense, they

Can generate chain reactions

Just like nuclear technologies

And they can destroy humanity

Just like fission-fusion weapons


Weapons or technologies

Are not tied to a particular

Ideology or even a religion


In the Foucauldian sense,

Conventional technologies


Are clandestinely

Or benevolently

Developed, and

Are weaponized


They are proliferated

Then are exposed

Are opposed, and

Then, gradually

Are normalized

Are assimilated

Into our social fabric


The protests against the weapons

And weaponized technologies

As in the world we have made

Not necessarily in the world

That we could perhaps make

Are very predictable phonomena


They can start out very strong

Then they become a shadow of

Themselves, or even a parody


At best they can become, and

Exist for a longish time, even

Perhaps with ups and downs


With limited longish term achievements

Or with very impressive short term ones

Or with no effect on the status quo at all


A connoisseur’s delight

They often are reduced to


At worst they may become

Freak shows on the fringes

As Kipling showed in a story

Even if they are genuine

Not the fake ones: A part

Of Manufactured Dissent


A protest is like a lot like a balm

A protest that is for a single issue

Or, at most, a few such issues

For the people who are hurting


In that sense, they are a good thing

But pardon me, for I feel duty bound

To spoil the positivity with some

Unallied and honest bit of truth


For they are mostly just balms

That give temporary relief

From the symptoms only


They are necessary, but not sufficient

They are not cures in the end

And they come at the expense

Of some other people, who are

Also very much hurting, and

Their issues, symptomatically,

Can be very much different


In fact, they can be the exact

Contraries of the issues of the

First set of people who are hurting


The powers that be are apt to play

The one against the other, and

The little or large bits of evil

In all of us, ensures that we play

That game, of our own volition

Collectively, so that none feels guilty


On our own initiative even, or

So we might convince ourselves


Weaponised technologies then

Not just weaponizables ones


Are morally

And ethically

And legally

Sanctioned finally


That means that

They are approved

By general society


And they become

An integral part

A necessary part

Of the civilization


They are never

Ever sufficient


They become fait accompli

Which is a terrifying phrase


After enough time

They are taken

For granted

Are not even

Noticed in our

Everyday life


Most of us forget what they mean

Or what they are, how they work

They become part of our natural

Reality, our very natural universe


Who can use weapons?


Anyone can use them

If they can get access


To them, somehow, anyhow


And they will be used

Later on, if not sooner

Over there, if not here

At least in the beginning


The good guys can use them

Or those who claim to be so

We all know what that means


The bad guys can use them

The ugly guys can use them

The evil guys can use them


Individually evil can use them

Collectively evil can use them


More likely the latter


Anyone anywhere anytime on

The whole political spectrum

Can use them, if less or more

Individually or collectively


More likely the latter


There is absolutely

No guarantee that

Any of the above

Or indeed all of them

Can’t use them at all

Ever and anywhere


But can the weak and the meek

Or the tired and the poor

Use them as much as the

Strong and the powerful

To the same extent, even

For the purpose of self-defense?


Can single individuals use them

As much as the collective

To the same extent, even

For the purpose of self-defense?


First they are used over there

On those we don’t care about

Then they are used over here


And when that happens

There are fresh protests


We all care about ourselves

Even if we don’t about them


Once again, they

Are exposed: For us

Are opposed, and

Then, gradually

Are normalized

Are assimilated

Into our social fabric

Our very own life


Excluding them over there

They are already included

We still don’t care about them

We still care only for ourselves


Like before, again

They are morally

And ethically

And legally

Sanctioned finally


This time, however

For us, not just them


Some weaponized technologies

Are so totally unthinkably evil

That their existence is not even

Acknowledged, for preserving

Collective sense of being good


Such technologies are only used

Clandestinely, outside all records

So they leave no evidence at all


Who do they mean to target?

The demonized are targeted

Mentally-ill may be targeted

Truly subversive freethinkers

May be targeted, selectively

Misfits and loners can also

Be targeted with these ones


And, above all


The uncontaminated

(Unalloyed, if you like

Or unallied, if you like)

The incorrigible

Truth seekers, As

They may be called

Justice seekers also

Unalloyed or unallied

Can be targeted with

These unacknowledged

Weaponized technologies

In the Foucauldian sense


For The Greater Good

Seems they are called

Coal Mine Canaries

Freelance Test Rats

They may not be paid

May not even consent


They don’t even know this

That have been made that

This is the most evil part

Of the scheme, in which


All “schematism” had to be avoided


So they can’t even share

Without anyone at all

Let alone lodge a protest


They become Dead Canaries

If they come uncomfortably

Close to the truths that matter


In fact, these technologies

Are, by their very nature

Made only for selective use

Personalization is their

Key feature, their identifier


One of them had even

Got put on the record

Perhaps due to naïveté

It was called Zersetzung

It specifically recorded

Naïvely, as it turned out

It specifically wrote down


This kind of weaponised technology

Is a collective, organised and mobilised

Version of what is called gaslighting


A later version of it was called COINTELPRO

Who knows how many different versions of it

Exist today in how many places

Officially or unofficially

Recorded or unrecorded


In the original version called Zersetzung

All “schematism” had to be avoided

Because that would make opposition

And protest against it easily possible


It being: The collective using it?


Individual simply can’t use it

Not to the same degree and reach

Not anywhere remotely close


Or the technology itself only?


Or why not both of them?


But we had better not forget

Technologies are the means

Religions and ideologies are

About the ends, not the means

For them, practically speaking

Ends always justify the means


Even if they are, unthinkably

Unredeemably, only pure evil


However, we are all endowed with

The extreme powers of self-deception

Individually yes, but also collectively


So we still manage to think that they

Are still for them, over there, not us

They are within our society, never us

They are still for them, not over here

Over there can be much nearer now

But it is still over there, and for them


Thus, once more magically

They become fait accompli

With a very different context

But actually the same context


They are always necessary

So it is claimed, benevolently

But they are never sufficient


This is a universal theorem

If you like to be very precise

Then it is at the very least

A pretty likely conjecture


And so we march on forward

Or even backward oftentimes

Or sideways, if necessary

Which can be very effective

If you know what I mean


In search of new weapons

And ever new technologies


That can be weaponized

Easily and yes, inevitably

Even if you don’t believe

In Inevitabilism at all


What really is inevitable

However, is the fact that

Some weak, or the meek

Or an isolated individual

Perhaps crazy, perhaps not

Will use them occasionally

Usually after provocation

But sometimes without it


Or some collective

Rogue or not rogue


A matter of definition


Will also make use of them

Regularly or occasionally


That is a great opportunity

A motivation for finding

Implementing and using

Ever more lethal weapons

Weaponized technologies

And some non-lethal ones

In the Foucauldian sense


We find new evils

We define new evils

We create new evils


We get new weapons

To fight newest evils

Which creates even

More ever new evils


Thus the circle of evil

Closes in upon us all

Over there, over here


So what do you think about it?


Originally published on 14th August, 2019. Updated on 20th September, 2019.

Punishment Determines Crime

Crime and punishment

Are highly correlated


Humanity doesn’t need to live

In the chains of causality

The final frontier for humanity


Causality requires us to understand

The whole continuous bi-directional

Network of effects and their causes




To free humanity from the chains

Of complicated tangled causality

Punishment determines the crime


What was the crime

Based on which

And how much

Was the punishment




In order to reduce crimes, you can

Catch someone: anyone, anywhere

And make sure to punish them well

This can be done: is easily achievable

With near total, complete certainty




If you are someone being punished

You must have committed a crime


Even if you don’t remember it

Even if you think you know

That you haven’t committed it


You surely must have committed it

Why would you be punished

If you hadn’t committed the crime?


It is not logical in a world that has been

Liberated from the clutches of causality


Therefore, for example


All military aged males over there

Wasted in our Double Tap strikes

Are, by definition, *bleep, bleep*

A Great Lesson from History

One of my favourite lessons from History, now in the form of a three part documentary:

Of course, it is not just about alcohol (or any other intoxicant). It is about any moral, ethical or legal issue. It is about unintended consequences. It is also about politics and meta-politics and the influence of religion, race, money etc. over it. It is about racism and anti-immigration. It is about religious bigotry. It is about gender bias. It is about organization and mobilization. It is about rural versus urban life. It is about conservatism versus liberalism. It is about the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie. It is about solidarity. It is about crime and punishment. It is about Human Nature. It is about what is radical in a time and place and what is not. Finally, it is about economics.

All these are connected in real life. The Great Dilemma of real world politics is, however, that the lesson from it seems to be that single issue politics is most likely to succeed in the short term.

But an opposite lesson is that it is also guaranteed to fail in the medium or long term. That’s one of the reasons why real political change is so difficult to achieve.

There are many sub-lessons too, for example in the way the Women’s Suffrage movement thought about Prohibition before and after this great mistake.

Still, in spite of its relevance, we have to keep in mind that times have changed in some very fundamental ways. Just to give a small example, we have no H. L. Mencken now. Nor F. Scott Fitzgerald. Nor even an FDR.

The Mainstream Media has transformed, across the political spectrum, into something I can’t express without using some very very derogatory words. There is widespread TV now, which is far worse than even the Mainstream Media.

Not to mention the technological and economic changes.

And the core specific issue is going to be super-relevant because a whole new generation of intoxicants are on the way. And they are coming from the top, not from the immigrants, but the local heroes of the New Global Establishment. You won’t be able to stop them. You will only be able to regulate them, if you don’t want to repeat history catastrophically.

Have you started thinking about that?


It is not really now. It was aired in 2011. And it was aired on PBS, which is part of the Mainstream Media. Even so, PBS is somewhat special case. Sitting here in India, it seems very special.

The Prohibition itself (the 18th Amendment) started in 1917 and ended in 1933. Till recently, it was not that unusual to see such programs on Mainstream TV almost 80 years after the whole affair ended. To some extent, on some channels in some countries, it still happens. Could it have been made (and shown) before 1933?

In the coming years (or months, or days, who knows in these times) even this kind of History lesson may become hard to get because now History is being re-written like never before, at least since Enlightenment.

Where will future generations find the truth (as much as it can be found, even with best efforts). Some Select Few might still have access to it, but even that does not seem certain now.

How long will PBS last as it exists today?

Big Data and Big Information and Smaller Knowledge and Tiny (or Zero) Understanding. And what is Wisdom? Back to thousands of years ago, perhaps.

What will politics mean then? What does it already mean? Have we reached a point of no return?


But what about Prohibition of the original intoxicant: alcohol? Is it gone forever, or at least everywhere? Not at all. It still exists in many places. Just as it did in the US back then. And it is following almost the same trajectory. And in these places, it can cause even more problems, if not for any other reason than simply because of poverty and the stigma.

Even in the past, Prohibition has been used politically in many other countries. For example, it was used (the movement of it), perhaps not that rigidly, but still as a rallying cry for reform by someone as illustrious as Gandhi. And most Gandhian (or those who call themselves Gandhian: the gap is getting larger as with any other ideology), still argue for it in some or the other form.

In places where it is still used, the reasons given (often very valid ones) are almost the same as for Prohibition in the US. The biggest similarity has been, perhaps in all cases of Prohibition, the support of women, particularly rural women. That support is based on just as valid grounds as the one in the documentary. Another big similarity is that, for similar reasons, it can swing elections. Many politicians have once again realized the political utility of it. Most probably they have known all along, but they didn’t believe it could swing elections.

A party in existential crisis in 2015 won the state elections by promising Prohibition and kept that promise. Seeing the success, others also started talking about it.

Same valid reasons, justifications and grievances. The same disastrous results. The same long term positive effects. Or may be not the last part, may be not in all cases.

I personally have little to do with it. Strange as it may sound, as alcohol use is widespread in India even with the enormous stigma, I hadn’t actually even seen an alcoholic drink till the age of around 25 or more likely 27. It wasn’t till the age of 38 that I had tried out one spoonful out of a glass that someone in a celebration had ordered. Now I have been to many conferences where there are (usually paid) banquets where liquour is served and I have tasted a glass or two several kinds of alcoholic drinks.

However, it is almost embarrassing to admit that I still haven’t developed a taste for such drinks. Not that I have ever been against alcohol as such. Nor do I have anything against those who drink.

One reason for me is that they are so bitter (particularly beer) and we don’t like bitter in India! We like sweets, lots of sweets. Very sweet. Too much sweet. The kind a westerner might taste and say (perhaps silently, Ugh!).  I did too (liked sweet, that is). I still do, but not the ‘sweets’ themselves, just the taste sweet. Moderate sweet. Have I become Europeanized. That is, to some extent, a fact worth taking for granted for all those who are ‘well-educated’ and live in urban areas.

There is a very large number of Indians that drinks, so they must like it for some reasons, but I am not sure whether bitterness is one of them.

I am sure there are many many people in India who have actually never tasted alcohol in their whole life, as they consider it a sin, as did so many people the world over and throughout history.

But I can’t resist repeating again. The world is changing radically. In fact, the word radical isn’t even enough to describe that change.

For both who drink and those who don’t drink. Or those somewhere in between, like me.

Search Query as a Weapon

Sometime after I started this blog, I looked up the stats page to see how was the viewership. I didn’t expect large numbers, but I wanted to check if anyone was reading it at all. It turned out that, at least officially (in a way that would register in WordPress stats), not that many were (except for short periods), considering that even personal Facebook pages or single (personal) YouTube videos can often have very large viewership. At the same time, a lot of people seemed to be aware of what I was writing, because either the content of my posts or the blog itself were often referred to in my conversations with other people. That’s a different story, which I am not going into today.

I also noticed that on the stats page, there was a place where you could see the search queries that were put in the Search box of your blog (blog-specific queries, not web-wide queries), which is supposed to help people find content in a specific blog. It seems only I use this box for this purpose. Because, what I saw was that most of the searches were completely irrelevant to the blog. They were not attempts to find content in the blog at all.

Over the period of last 15 years, I have maintained several websites, one being my personal webpage (now defunct), one an activist website (Hindi version of ZNet, now defunct), a website for an Open Source toolkit that I had developed (also defunct) etc. I was maintaining these at my own expense and now I can’t afford to.

On all these, I noticed the same pattern. No queries to actually find content. They were all either insults hurled at me in this oblique and anonymous manner or sometimes they even sounded like threats. I even mentioned this to some of my colleagues.

As a result, when I joined post-doc in 2012 in another country, I was already aware of weaponization of local (e.g. blog-specific) search queries.

Right from the day I arrived in that country, I had strange experiences. At the workplace, no one would even talk to me (except one Indian post-doc who joined roughly at the same time and occasionally one or two others who seemed to be sympathetic to me, all girls, or as we say in India, ladies), or when they rarely did, they were not really talking, there were doing something else. More about that later.

There was one person (younger than me, but relatively high in the hierarchy of the lab). When we passed by, he would make what sounded like unsavoury comments clearly directed at me, because there was no one else in sight except his friend(s). He would look at me so I knew he was commenting about me.

One day, while I was coming to the office, perhaps a day I was not feeling well or was somehow not in a good mood, he and one of his friends passed me by (no one nearby again). He looked at me and sort of shouted something like ‘le pouet a vendu’. I could guess the meaning, or at least the word ‘vendu’, but still when I reached the computer, I typed in the sentence into Google Translate, according to which the translation was ‘the squealer (or squeaker) has been sold’. This was soon after I had joined the job. Right now, today, I tried again after all these years and Google now says ‘squirrel’.  I positively remember the word ‘pouet’, not just because I heard it used near me many times again, but also because I was so fed up with it that I once put it in one of my passwords. It is probably an ambiguous colloquial word.

When I had joined, I was given a copy of the contract and I was asked to go through it, which I did quickly, as I can read fast. What caught my attention was that it clearly mentioned the fact (in 2012) that various ‘tracking devices’ were placed in various places and the activities of the employees will be monitored. This was not very surprising in itself to me, but the fact that it was clearly written was. This was a government research centre. I had already experienced online and other kinds of surveillance.

So, that day, that comment really got on my nerves and finally I thought I should respond in some way, but what could I do? I was in a foreign country. I needed the job and I had not even yet received my work permit (which is another story). I had no friends there. So I remembered the weaponized queries which were being used against me even then. I had also once been to a Google office and had seen Google search queries being displayed on a large board in the welcome room. I then opened a Google search page on my work terminal and typed the following (perhaps not exact words, but very close):

Why does X alway keep yapping at Singh? What has Singh ever done to X? Is there a secret history between them?

There is also a story behind why I used ‘Singh’ and not my first or second name, or both. There is even a story behind why I used the word ‘yapping’.

The office of the head of the lab was right in front of my room and from where I was asked to sit for work, I could clearly see him through glass walls. I could even see his computer, which was in a corner, though obviously I could not read what was on the screen from that distance. He could see me too and perhaps that was the point of making me sit there.

Barely a minute after my typing in the query, a person (also a post-doc, I think) whose responsibilities included working as kind of systems administrator for the lab, came to the head’s office and said something to him. I was expecting something like this to happen, because I already knew how things work in places with total surveillance. From where I was sitting, it seemed he was reporting to him something about which something should be done. He asked the head to go to the computer and have a look at something. The head did that, read something. He too seemed concerned, but he basically shrugged his shoulders.

From that moment on, person X never made any comments to me any more. He never even acknowledged my presence. Not that the people there started treating me any better. In some ways, it only got worse.

This was not all. When I was nearing the completion of my contract, I went to my supervisor and asked him if my contract will be renewed. He evaded the question first, but then he said he will tell me sometime later. Later, when I asked again, we had a long conversation (which is also worth going into later), where he gave various reasons, but clearly said that my work was not the problem. Finally, when I countered all his arguments, he said in any case he will not be associated with the lab soon and X will be in-charge of the lab.

He then said, I can’t see you working together with X. I had never mentioned  X to him or to anyone else.

I never even had a conversation with X. I had never said anything to him, nor even commented back at him, except that search query. There was no reason why anyone would say that my relations with him were bad (or good). In fact, there were no relations of any kind, as far as I was concerned and, if he had talked to me and wanted to work with me, I would most probably have agreed, even after that. After all, I did not really have relations (good or bad) even with my supervisor. We just discussed some research questions, mostly over email.

I did respect him (the supervisor), though. He is a seasoned and very good researcher and certainly not a bad person. The same goes for the head. X is also an accomplished researcher, although I hesitate to say that he is a good person.

Did that query cost me the extension?


A couple of days after I started keeping the Zersetzung 21C Journal on my blog, there was this local query in my blog Search box:


Although I have no idea what it means, it (the first one) is clearly not a genuine query.


And this when I had gone to my home town where my parents reside:

Search Query Abuse

Is it (the first one), as it appears to be, just vile abuse? Or is supposed to be some kind of twisted sermon in vile abusive language (and with the same kind of sick thinking). Is it also a some kind of Skinnerian or Zersetzung device?


Updated on 13th August, 2019.

Keeping Radiation Logs

I will be keeping radiation logs, if possible from today. Also, the related Zersetzung 21C Journal.


Updated for 10th to 20th August, 2019.

Updated for 5th to 9th August, 2019.


Zersetzung 21C Journal updated on 5th August, 2019.

Updated for 4th August, 2019.

Updated for 1st to 3rd August, 2019.

Updated for 31st July, 2019.

Updated for 30th July, 2019.

Updated for 29th July, 2019.

Updated for 28th July, 2019.

The Coup at Kailash

Kailash Mansarovar, a geographical as well as a mythological place, now in China (or rather, Tibet), is considered the heavenly abode of Lord Shiva (the Destroyer), one among the many Hindu Gods, albeit a very important one, as he is a part of the triad, or Trimurti, which also includes Vishnu (the Maintainer) and Brahma  (the Creator).

You might have come across an ‘artistic representation’ of Kailash, even if you are not familiar with its name. Think of a heavenly place with a lake with swans swimming in it, surrounded by a divine garden.

There was even a South Park episode where a character tries to meditate by thinking of a place like this. Someone from the sub-continent must have suggested that to him.

The abode is considered to be at Mansarovar, but the city most associated with him within India is Varanasi, a Shaivaite centre, apart from being one of the most ancient living cities.

Hinduism earlier was mainly divided into two streams, according to one taxonomy. These two streams were Shaivaites (devotees of Lord Shiva) and Vaishnavaites (devotees of Lord Vishnu and his Avatars). Now that distinction is being lost. More on that later.

There were also Shakts (or Shaktas), the devotees of the Goddess, but perhaps they are lesser in number. Devotees of one did not (or do not) necessarily disbelieve in the other Gods, as most ‘Hindus’ are polytheists. Even those who believe in One God, also believed in other specific Gods, perhaps as manifestations of the One God. In fact, its hard to say if a ‘Hindu’ is polytheist or monotheist. Survey, or some behavioural technique won’t help you in finding out.

Lord Shiva has ruled for ages over the hearts of ‘Hindu’, especially Shaivaite devotees (there is history and linguistics behind the quotation marks), one among many Gods. For more than a thousand years at the very least. Most probably much longer.

Starting in 2014, however, there has been coup to dethrone him and the coup has completed now in 2019. There is a new successor to Lord Shiva, in human form. That is unusual in ‘Hinduism’, but it has happened. Usually, when the Lords of the Heaven appear on the Earth, they come themselves (or parts – amsha – of them) in human forms: the Avatars (now you know the origin of the trendy English global term, ubiquitous on the Internet). This time, a human, with help from meta-organizations and through years of meta-politics (since long before 2014) has dethroned the heavenly Lord Shiva, while claiming to be his devotee.

Accordingly, the words associated with Lord Shiva have now been transferred to the Human Replacement. By an electoral process.

Namo, actually, Namah, but many Hindi speakers pronounce Namah as Namo  (as in Om Namo Shivay) is now not used for Lord Shiva, but for the Human Replacement.

Har Har (as in Har Har Mahadev, where Mahadev is one of the names of Lord Shiva) is also now not used for Lord Shiva, but for the Human Replacement.

The word bhakti (roughly meaning devotion), which has a long Indian history (philosophical, political and literary) is a slightly different case, It was meant, as you can guess, not just for Lord Shiva, but for all the Gods of ‘Hinduism’, and even for the One God (Brahm or Brahman, not Brahma) in the monotheistic variety of ‘Hinduism’. The same goes (even more) for Bhakt (a devotee).

Now, 2014 onwards, the word bhakti is meant not for any Gods or the One God, but for the Human Replacement. Search on Twitter for Bhakt. Or even on the Urban Dictionary. It is an English word now.

Ancient and old chants, hymns, songs, slogans and so on have, thus, acquired new meanings.

It is not restricted to Lord Shiva, however. All ‘Hindu’ Gods, even the One God, are in danger of being dethroned. If you do a little bit of online research, you can find who has dethroned Lord Hanuman, the second most popular God in Varanasi. Also immensely popular all over India, but particularly in North, West and East India. By extension, the person whose devotee the Human Replacement of Lord Hanuman is, is the same one who has dethroned Lord Shiva. So, perhaps, the same one has also dethroned Lord Ram (often spelled Rama), perhaps the most popular God of today among ‘Hindus’. Lord Ram was an Avatar of Vishnu, and he has become more popular than Vishnu himself. This is common in ‘Hinduism’.

The thing to note is that Rama, being an Avatar of Vishnu, is the preferred God for Vaishnavas (Gandhi was a Vaishanava). The Human Replacement, so, has dethroned both Shaivaite and Vaishanavaite Gods.

Are you aware that Buddha, Gautam Buddha, the Enlightened One, is conisdered in ‘Hinduism’ the ninth Avatar of Vishnu?

Related to Lord Ram, there was once upon a time a chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’. A kind of greeting. This was one among many many such chants/greetings in the extremely diverse country that India was.

Since the late 1980 (the fall of the Soviet Empire, the Global March of Superpower Capitalism, you know the history), ‘Jai Shri Ram’ has become perhaps the most politically loaded chant in India, replacing ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ (Long Live the Revolution, although there really was no revolution in India and most people chanting it didn’t even know its literal meaning or significance). It became the slogan of a new form of political ‘Hinduism’, which one can argue is not ‘Hinduism’ at all.

Just as the use of the slogan ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ most of the time had nothing to do with Revolution, the new ‘Jai Shri Ram’ chant also has little to do with Lord Ram.

After the goals have now been achieved, that of unquestionable political power, now the chant has come to the street in a very ‘streetish’ form. It now means simply, ‘We will come into your own house and beat you up’, as said by the Human Replacement of Lord Shiva (and Lord Rama, perhaps). The remark, an election campaign promise (no, not condemned at all by the ‘media’), was already being put in force before the elections. For the optics, it was aimed at the country on north-west of India and the *bleep*s (Magic Word) within India, but it was a Dog Whistle meant for certain communities and for all the critics, dissenters, dissidents, activists, truth seekers, pacifists and peaceniks and whatnots.

In Folk Hinduism, every God has his vehicle, on which he/she travels. The vehicle is a divine animal, with superpowers of its own. In this enterprise, the services of these vehicles have also been employed. The ruler of the largest state in India promised that those who oppose them will be taught a lesson (a hard one, presumably) by Nandi, the Bull, who is the vehicle of Lord Shiva.

Can you guess the Human Replacement of Nandi?

One of the campaign ads introduced just before the campaign ended went something like this:

A: Brother, why to vote for the same government again?

B: See, earlier the *bleeps* (Magic Word) used to roam freely in India. Now they can’t even roam freely within their own homes.

Again, the Magic Word was a Dog Whistle for critics, dissidents etc.

It appears the Human Replacements have an obsession with breaking into other people’s homes and messing them up (the homes and the people).

You might think that you are not familiar with Lord Ram if you live outside the sub-continent, but you might actually be familiar in the same way as you may be for Kailash.

Recently the Martin Scorsese documentary Rolling Thunder Revue was released. The movie ends with some words of wisdom from the great Allen Ginsberg. He is wearing around his shoulders what we call a shawl. The shawl has a pattern made out of the word Ram written in giant letters in Devanagari. Earlier in the movie, we see Bob Dylan singing with the same kind of shawl around his shoulders. This was not unusual for those who were called, or were associated with those who were called the Hippies.

During the long long campaign, there was no talk of future policies, no promises, no plans. No mention of previous achievements and promises fulfilled. Except *bleeps*. On and on.

After the campaign, no talk of future plans or promises. Not even the Shiny Vision. Only, yes, talk of *bleeps*. And how the *bleeps* are having increased heart rate.

Out of all the problems of the sub-continent with one sixth of the world’s population, the topic is the *bleeps* from the inimical neighbuoring country.

*bleeps* is Bread-and-Butter.

*bleeps* is the Philosophy and the Economy and Business.

*bleeps* is the Social Sciences.

Science and technology is for taking care of *bleeps*.

*bleeps* is also Entertainment and ‘Arts’.

*bleeps* is almost the only ‘News’.

(The list includes almost everything.)

The fight for ‘Hinduism’ was purportedly the fight against the ‘Abrahamaic Religions’. Now, *bleeps* plays the same role as Satan played in the worst days of the ‘Abrahamaic Religions’.

The Human Replacement is worshipped on TV by the chanting of Praise and the unmusical and unpoetical verses about how the Human Replacement slays the *bleeps*.

In 2014, there were literally a couple of temples made for the Human Replacement. Now the whole country is a great temple for the Human Replacement.

Why not use the pronoun, instead of repeating the appellation? I am not sure how to. You can say ‘his’ for human beings. You say ‘His’ for God. What do you write for the Human Replacement? We need new kinds of theologians.

But this is mainly optics. The real thing is what was earlier called Selling the Country Out. Now it is called Making the Nation Great Again.

This is an example of the greatest Political Magic Trick of all times.

The old meanings are not completely gone, but in India of 2019, you can’t be sure which one is meant, when you encounter any of these words, chants, slogans etc. And so, you have to be careful.

Any of these chants could be a test, a threat, a greeting, a sign of devotion, a slogan before a hate crime or a mass hate crime, or a celebratory slogan afterwards. Or an open, public incitement to violence with complete impunity. It could simply be used to annoy and psychologically harass those considered by anyone to be anti-Hindu, and therefore, anti-national.

India’s National Anthem was written by Rabindranath Tagore. If you don’t stand up when it is played before a movie in a movie theatre, you can be beaten up by a mob with impunity. The members of the mob may not have read anything by Tagore. What were the views of the author of this poem (the Anthem) on Nationalism? They were these. Here is a sample quotation:

Yes, this is the logic of the Nation. And it will never heed the voice of truth and goodness. It will go on in its ring-dance of moral corruption, linking steel unto steel, and machine unto machine; trampling under its tread all the sweet flowers of simple faith and the living ideals of man.

Swan, by the way, is the vehicle of Saraswati, the Goddess of Learning. One shudders to think of a possible future where ‘Jai Saraswati’ becomes the same kind of slogan. Perhaps it is good that no one cares much for Saraswati (note that I am not writing ‘Lady Saraswati’). A day is, however, dedicated to her and She is worshipped (officially) once a day by performing Saraswati Puja every year in all educational institutions of India. That’s about it.

There is constant rivalry between Goddess Saraswati and Goddess Laxmi (who is the Goddess of Wealth). According to one well-known Hindi saying, Laxmi and Saraswati can never live together, say with the same person, that is, a person can either have learning or wealth, never both.

I am not aware of a saying about having neither.

Oh, how I miss the many many (tens of millions) Gods of ‘Hinduism’. This has become another reason for nostalgia for the days gone by.

Let’s see where we go from here.

Originally published on June 2, 2019. Last modified on 19th June, 2019.