01. When negative virtual codes can let loose violent provocations

02. Defining the dirt

03. How to slyly atrophy with an affable demeanour

04. An illustration

05. Direction component in words

When negative virtual codes can let loose violent provocations

There was this incident. It was connected to the fact that for a long-time, I had stopped addressing anyone with a lower indicant You and referring to anyone with a lower indicant He, Him, His, She and Her/s. Though this attitude sprung up from my own inner intellectual visualisations of the negativity in these codes, it was seen socially as a weakness in me.

A weakling, softie and effeminate in stances! Well, that was not actually the issue. The real fact, as I experienced it, was that it really required a lot of mental stamina to hold on to this stance. For, many times I was severely provoked to go on the offensive. However, in a calm mood, I would withstand these urges. Yet, at times when the provocation becomes too much, I go in for the offensive which would then feel as if it is from quite a different personality. For, only in real violent outburst would I do such a thing. After that, I would regret that my resolve has been breached by nonentities.

Now the incident. Ashwina and I were taking my mother’s small dog (Rikki) for a walk. If I don’t do it, it remains in the house for days. Which is a very miserable experience. So, I do it frequently. On this particular occasion, as we came out two small boys of age around 10 were coming towards our direction through the foot path. Usually, in such cases, we move out. The place has a lot of Muslim population. (Some of them are my students). There is off course the issue of language also. In Malayalam, if I address the local kids with a Nee, it would give me a power and leadership over them. However, it was a known thing that I wouldn’t do it.

So, there were many youngsters of age up to 25 who used to taunt me with catcalls, and even snigger English greetings, like Good Morning etc from the sideways, in the earlier days. I had to take it in the stride. For, to react to them would force me to use powerful Malayalam words in a soft manner. When using such powerful Malayalam words as Nee, Mone (son) etc. one need not raise one’s voice. A soft dialogue would put the youngster in his position of subordination. However, I wouldn’t do it. For, it would be a powerful shift from my position that I would not use pejoratives to subordinate sections if I can help it.

There were vehicles coming on the road, and the Rikki was not leashed. He was held on voice command. I couldn’t ask the dog to move out of the footpath, because of the vehicles. For, I wouldn’t be able to control it from getting on to the road. The boys were standing as if waiting for me to move away from the footpath, for it was the expected stance of mine. And in their own local understandings, I was a softie.

On this occasion, I asked the boys in a very soft voice to move down from the footpath. Just a minor move of around 1 foot and cross us. The boys did that, with one boy acting a pose of surprise. They came near me, and one boy spoke to me. I thought they were asking something. The boy said, ‘Ninte nayikku matrame pokandu?’ In English this dialogue would only mean, ‘Only your dog can go?’ However, in Malayalam, the words are equivalent to asking, ‘Only you stink’s dog can go?’ For the word used for You by a very small boy to me was Nee. I must admit that I was very much provoked.

Any human being who understands Malayalam would react in my position. However such a thing would rarely happen. For the boys would be properly placed in Malayalam, by the senior persons by pejorative addressing of them. However, since I was averse to doing that, the communication code had changed. They naturally positioned me as the subordinate.

The violence in my mood was evidently visible. For I, in a very measured tone, asked the boy, ‘Mone, nee yentha paranjathu?’ (Son, what did you say?). The menace in my tone was obvious and I had for the first time in the locality used the pejorative word Nee to a boy. The other boy simply held him and said, ‘Let us run!’

A very significant observation here was that Ashwina couldn’t understand why I was provoked. For, there was no rising of voice by the boys. However, she did ask me what the issue was and what was going on. This is the exact issue with the native-English speakers. They do not know that a very formidable change of codes has happened and that it has the capability to create violence.

{There is this thing to be mentioned. In current days, English nations do not understand what the real basis of social and civil unrest in many Asian and other feudal language nations is. Interfering without this understanding may sometimes place them on the wrong side. During British colonial days, at least the Englishmen in the colonies understood at least some of the provocative codes in the colonial areas. This much understanding was not there in the stay-at-home Britons in Britain}

I have many years ago written about an incident wherein a Chinese school janitor had attacked school children. The standard contention was that the janitor suffered from some demented mind. The real fact is that the disease would be in that particular Chinese dialect and improper positioning of persons. Many modern psychiatrists and psychologists who write volumes about mental trauma, mental violence, schizophrenia, paranoia and much else do know nothing about what I am alluding to.

CHECK THIS:

DIGRESSION

The exact unintelligence of England and other English nations interfering in civil wars and other belligerent issues in feudal language nations has to be understood from this background. Even when they are there in the geographical area, they do not really get to understand the exact provocation that creates the belligerence. When they take sides, there is always the immense chance that they might side with the wrong side. For, the actual criminal provocation that was sown by the wrong side would never be understood by them. Unless, it is properly explained in words similar to what has been given here.

Defining the dirt

Before moving ahead I need to bring some focus on the expression You stink. Actually, the Malayalam lower indicant word Nee (lowest You) does not mean You stink. The adjective of stink is associated with direction component in the virtual codes. When Nee is used towards a subordinate, it has this adjective of stink only in a limited number of cases.

Thus, when used towards a loyal disciple, an affectionate subordinate, a loving son, a faithful wife and such persons, it is a word that is positive and stands as a powerful link to person who allows himself to be subordinated. However, if it is used to address a clearly disloyal disciple, a hated subordinate, a despised son or a known unfaithful wife, it does not stand as this positive link word. Then it is loaded with a negative energy. But then there may not be an issue of direction component change in all this.

However, if the word Nee (lowest You) is used to the senior person by the disciple, subordinate, son, wife etc. then there is a clear 1800 reversal of direction. The affect of this reversal can be easily understood by a powerful example:

The Indian police department is powerfully arranged by the feudal structuring of indicant words. See the arrangement from top to bottom: IPS (Indian Police Service): Director General of Police (DGP), Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Superintendant of Police

Then, the Non-IPS: lower grade ‘officers’: Deputy Superintendant of Police, Circle Inspector of Police, Sub Inspector of Police

Non-‘officer’ class: Assistant Sub Inspector, Head Constable, Constable.

I have missed out some frill designations. It may be mentioned in a general manner that arrangement of communication word for You towards the upper direction is Saar.

The arrangement of communication words for You towards the lower direction from the top to down is: Nee.

Actually, this not fully true. For, the factor of age and other elements also do come into play in actual life. There are other parallel communication words moving up and down which do not correspond to this route of command flow. This existence of other communication routes does play havoc on the total discipline in the department.

The problem here is that the common man is not actually in the stinking-dirt level position as per the Indian constitution. However, the common man himself is in a wide range of levels. The vertical distance that exists among the common people can be equated to the vertical distance between Mount Everest and the depth of Pacific Ocean. The provision of equal dignity for the Indian people in the Constitution remains like a joke in the evil codes of the ‘Indian’ feudal languages.

However in the Indian army, all other routes of command-flow has being erased by a very inhuman training programme that makes the upward and downward directions very, very clear to everyone.

Now coming back to the police, a Sub Inspector is addressed as Saar by the constable and the Sub Inspector addresses the constable with a Nee. {With the exceptions mentioned above}. This is the exact flow of command. There word Nee is having a positive connotation as far as that command route is concerned. Even though from an English perspective it is a rotten word.

Now suppose the constable dares to address the Sub Inspector with a Nee. What happens? The word is now encoded with the adjective of stinking-dirt. If the same route of communication goes upwards to the Director General of Police, with each lower layer addressing the higher layer with a Nee, then the whole communication structure is totally reversed. There is an adjective of stinking-dirt in every link between each official communication.

In this video (video is seen remove), the female is an IPS officer of resounding status. The other man is obvious someone lower to her in rank. Suppose, he were to address the IPS officer with Nee (lowest You) in a very polite tone, what would happen. Or if he were refer to her with a Aval (lowest She, Her), in a very affable tone, what would happen? Well, no man who doesn’t understand Malayalam would sense that a nuclear bomb has been detonated. The fact is that the reversal of words is a 1800 reversal of direction component with absolutely earth quaking proportions. This word is not allowed.

The next question is that if this word is so ugly and repulsive, how come the Indian officials use it to the common man here?

Also is there any safeguards taken in English nations that such terrific negative codes are not used against the native citizens of that nation? Is the Queen, the Crown Prince and other members of the Royal family suitably protected from such evil negativity?

How to slyly atrophy with an affable demeanour

The young IAS lady ‘officer’ arrives at her office premises in the car. She is the District Collector. Her peon is a much senior-in-age person. He or she addresses the IAS office with an affectionate Nee. Well, what really happens to her is not an affect of affection in its purest form, but downright stinking-dirtification. These are things that can be understood only if one understands feudal languages in its full force.

For example, a young child of the British Royal family is in the hospital. The nurse who attends to her is from a feudal language nation. Well, even though the nurse is quite affectionate to the child, in every word that the nurse mentions this royal person in her native language within her family circle, she would be atrophying him. I mentioned the Royal family because it is a family that is one top of the powerful machinery of British social, political, administrative and judicial conventions. Each word has power to empower or to cause destruction to this machinery.

Actually, this is a very powerful issue with regard to any British citizen who is attended to by a feudal language nurse. For native-English speaking children do not have the experience of being pulled into such depths of dirt, especially by outwardly affable looking persons.

Now, what has to be mentioned here is that in the case of the Indian IAS ‘officer’ such an atrophying would not be done. For, there is a very powerfully maintained decorum which the peon wouldn’t dare to break. For, no one would like his impertinence. However, in the case of the British monarchy, there is no such protection. For, it is very clearly understood that the British monarchy has no means to understand this grand treachery.

Not even a 007 can detect it.

I gave a hint about this in this newspaper’s website:

The second clue was deleted by the newspaper. So, much for their commitment to protecting antique British interests.

An illustration

However, it is not an unknown thing to persons from feudal language nations. I remember the Indian (Hindi) manager in UAE of a particular international retail outlet chain, telling me quite frankly that it is the company policy that the staff inside the outlet should not speak in their native Indian languages. For, he said, thus, ‘They can stand quite near to me and speak things which I cannot understand. They can speak anything about the management, without anyone understanding what it is they are alluding to’. The moment I heard this statement, I understood what exactly he was alluding to. It was not about the staff members (most of them Malayalees, some Philippines) speaking something bad and disreputable, but something more sinister.

I immediately asked him about the company owners. They were Indians settled in Britain. Well, that is it. Any feudal language person knows about this. However the best agent in Her Majesty’s Secret Service cannot enlighten the Queen of England about this dangerous creepiness that can exist right next to her and her other family folk, with a sweet demeanour of gracious affability.

Direction component in words and the disarraying of an English social system

Before continuing with topic, which has taken a very curious detour, I think I would focus once again on the issue of direction component in words. I have already spoken of the fact that physical entities do have a direction component in them that more or less can define them. Like in the case of the Half empty glass versus the Half full glass.

In English, the words You, He, She, His, Her, Hers, They, Them and the various other words like sit, stand, die and much else, including such words as use of names, description of things like female anatomy etc. do not have direction components as powerfully as in the case of feudal languages.

For, whatever varying words are there, for each of them, at best they are synonyms. However, in the case of feudal languages, the varying words for You, such as Nee, Thaan, Eyaal, Ningal, Thangal, Saar etc. are not synonyms even though they may seem to have the same meaning. Meaning, one cannot replace a Thaangal with a Nee, without creating severe communication problems, which may even provoke homicide. In which case, the native-English speaker may identify the provoked man as the criminal. However, a feudal language speaker might be able to identify the person who did the indicant word change as the real criminal.

In pre-British Indian sub continent as well as in British-India, the issue of abusive language was a very prominent one. The issue was that the direction component of the words should be maintained. The relatively lower caste person should use the higher indicant words about and to the higher caste person. The higher caste person had the privilege to use the abusive part of the words to the lower caste person.

Traditionally, the village headman had the power to punish any lower caste person if he transgressed this obligation. When the British egalitarian laws of jurisprudence came into force in British-India, it had to deal with this issue. It is quite possible that the stay-at-home Britons in Great Britain did not understand the real context of this issue, which had to be dealt with by the colonial British officials. They couldn’t totally ignore local social emotions of layers of repulsion towards successive layers of lower castes. There is quote from ETHNOGRAPHIC NOTES in SOUTHERN INDIA by EDGAR THURSTON, which shows the actual power of indicant words and the permitted direction of usage:

In another case which was argued before the High Court of Madras, a Mala, who was a convert to Christianity, was sentenced to confinement in the stocks for using abusive language. The Judge, in summing up, stated that “the test seems to be not what is the offender’s creed, whether Muhammadan, Christian, or Hindu, but what is his caste. If he belongs to one of the lower castes, a change of creed would not, of itself, in my judgment, make any difference, provided he continues to belong to the caste. If he continues to accept the rules of the caste in social and moral matters, acknowledges the authority of the headmen, takes part in caste meetings and ceremonies, and, in fact, generally continues to belong to the caste, then, in my judgment, he would be within the purview of the regulation. If, on the other hand, he adopts the moral standards of Christianity instead of those in his caste, if lie accepts the authority of his pastors and teachers in place of that of the headman of the caste, if he no longer takes part in the distinctive meetings and ceremonies of the caste .... then he can no longer be said to belong to one of the lower castes of the people,’ and his punishment by confinement in the stocks is no longer legal.’

Even the word ‘died’ has levels. In Malayalam, when a small socially-weak person dies, it would be mentioned in the private areas of the upper class as that ‘He Chatthu’. At the same time, if a higher class person dies, it is seen as appropriate to use the word, ‘He Marichu’. Both means, he died. I recently mentioned the words, ‘It died’, as ‘It Marichu’ when speaking about an animal that died. I was immediately corrected by another person, who said, I should use the term, ‘It Chatthu’. Generally, I am mentally programmed to use the higher indicant word about everybody and everything.

Now look at this comment that came on thesun.co.uk:

barrys

QUOTE: Sorry but what did you expect it to travel on from the hold of a plane?

It’s no different in the UK as human remains will be loaded onto a cargo flat bed truck or forklifted into a dolly to stay in a cargo warehouse until it clears customs and is picked up by a van. Don’t try and make out that India is any more undignified with bodies than the rest of the world as it’s not.. END OF QUOTE

MY COMMENT: It is quite apparent that modern Brits do not have the slightest hint of what ‘India’ is. Even when dead, indicant codes of respect versus pejoratives do have their say in feudal languages. However, actually what may feel demeaning is actually the quality of people who crowd round the cask. The powerful presence of feudal-indicant code-clawing looks is feel-able.