Is change.org a Reliable Petition Public platform for Justice?

Abstract

This article interrogates the structural contradictions and opaque operational logic of Change.org, a platform widely regarded as a grassroots petition engine for justice. Drawing on the author’s lived experience with unexplained signature count reductions and suspected content suppression, it situates Change.org within the broader economy of digital activism where public outrage is algorithmically packaged for visibility and monetization. Despite popular assumptions of its progressive orientation, this paper argues that the platform’s apparent ideological tilt is symptomatic not of political commitment but of profit-maximizing emotional amplification. Furthermore, the piece contextualizes these concerns within a case study of the OBMA campaign for DHFL victims, where legal intimidation and social media censorship—allegedly linked to corporate interests—highlight the fragility of digital dissent. The article challenges both the ethical legitimacy and the epistemic reliability of Change.org as a site of justice-oriented mobilization.

Keywords: Change.org, digital activism, commodification of outrage, online petition platforms, SLAPP suits, DHFL scam, OBMA campaign, algorithmic suppression, platform capitalism, Ajay Piramal, media censorship, participatory justice, signature manipulation

Change.org is the largest petition platform globally, with over 400 million users. It allows anyone to start a petition, share it widely, and potentially go viral. It has been involved in some high-profile “victories”—from changes in corporate policies to national regulations.

For anyone looking to mobilize public opinion, Change.org can provide the first spark.

However,….

It’s Far From Perfect

Despite its popularity, Change.org is not a nonprofit organization. It is a for-profit B-Corp that earns revenue through promoted petitions, data analytics, and sponsored content. Many users—myself included—were shocked to learn this only after engaging with the platform.

1. When the Platform Becomes the Problem

My experience with Change.org—watching supporters vanish without explanation, signatures mysteriously decrease overnight, and data inconsistencies creep into my campaign—has been not just disheartening, but deeply revealing. What began as a hopeful attempt to rally collective support around a just cause quickly turned into a lesson in the limits and contradictions of digital activism.

[According to my Excel download, the petition had 289 signatures at time X. Yet, in the subsequent period, the total declined to just 256—with no explanation provided.]

At first glance, Change.org seems like a democratizing force—a digital megaphone in the hands of ordinary people. It offers the illusion of empowerment: with just a few clicks, one can create a petition, share it with the world, and potentially effect change. But behind this accessible façade lies a structure that often undermines the very grassroots spirit it claims to support.

Like many platforms in the tech-driven activism economy, Change.org commodifies outrage. It converts pain, protest, and public sentiment into metrics—clicks, shares, donations, and data—while keeping real control centralized. Users are encouraged to promote, donate, and disseminate, yet they remain largely powerless over how their petitions are ranked, shown, or shadowed. It is activism mediated, managed, and ultimately monetized.

What shocked me most—and continues to alarm countless users—is that Change.org is not a nonprofit. Despite the “.org” in its name, which implies credibility and public interest, it is in fact a for-profit B Corporation. It earns its revenue through promoted petitions, data analytics, and sponsored campaigns. This business model raises serious questions: Who benefits when a petition goes viral? Where does donated money actually go? And why are some causes amplified while others fade into digital obscurity?

1.2. Possible Causes for Signature Reduction

• Unverified Emails: If a signer doesn’t confirm their email, their signature might not be counted.
• Suspicious Email Addresses: Signatures from addresses like “info@…” or those with “+” in them may be auto-removed by the system.
• User Removals: People can delete their own signatures at any time. But realistically, how many do that daily?
• System Delays or Glitches: High traffic periods can cause dashboards and exports to lag behind real-time counts—or so we’re told.

Yet these reasons don’t quite explain persistent and seemingly targeted reductions in everyday morning. If these are automated filters, why are they acting post-facto? Why are signature totals often rolled back without notification?

This experience has led me to ask a more fundamental question: Is change.org a reliable petition public platform for Justice?

This article isn’t just a complaint. It’s a cautionary tale. It’s a closer look at how platforms like Change.org, while useful at first glance, may subtly erode the very agency they claim to enable. Through my own petition’s strange trajectory—and the stories of many others—I want to explore what happens when digital activism is hosted on a platform that profits from protest.

2. ChatGpt answered:

2.1. What it’s good for:

(a) Raising awareness and reaching mass audiences
It’s easy to create and share petitions, so you can quickly gather signatures and draw attention to issues. Change.org reports having hundreds of millions of users Reddit+2newmode.net+2Trustpilot+2.

(b) Occasional real-world wins
There are documented cases where petitions led to policy changes or corporate reversals—like safety improvements in Brazil’s ride-hailing apps newmode.net+2Trustpilot+2Trustpilot+2Wikipedia. The platform claims thousands of “victories” worldwide .

2.2. Limitations & criticisms:

(a)Mostly “slacktivism”
Signing is symbolic: real change usually requires follow‑up steps such as contacting officials, media outreach, or building offline pressure Better Business Bureau+15newmode.net+15The Daily Wildcat+15.

(b)For-profit, not a charity
Despite the “.org” name, Change.org is a public-benefit B‑corp that earns revenue from ad sponsors and promoting petitions Better Business Bureau+13Forbes+13Reddit+13.

(c) Opaque money practices
Donations you make often go toward boosting petition visibility, not directly to causes or beneficiaries. Critics say the site profits off popular petitions like the George Floyd petition newmode.net+10Betches+10Reddit+10.

(d) Privacy & automated subscriptions issues
Users report being enrolled in unwanted monthly donations and getting inundated with marketing emails. Some have struggled to unsubscribe WIRED+15Trustpilot+15Complaints Board+15.

(e) Inconsistent vetting
Petitions have been removed for misinformation or harassment (e.g., Raygun petition) News.com.au+2theguardian.com+2News.com.au+2. At the same time, other incorrect or misleading campaigns have slipped through Reddit.

(f) Perceived ideological bias
Media watchdogs rate Change.org as left‑leaning (?) with mixed factual rigor, since petitions are typically user‑generated and not fact-checked .

3. Grok Said

Key Points and Analysis

Slacktivism Criticism

• Assessment: The “slacktivism” label is a common critique, as signing petitions often feels like low-effort activism. Change.org’s strength is in amplifying issues, but real change typically requires offline follow-up (e.g., lobbying, protests, or media campaigns). Data from Change.org’s own impact reports suggests only a small percentage of petitions lead to tangible outcomes, often when paired with strategic advocacy.
• Additional Insight: A 2023 study cited on The Conversation noted that online petitions can boost awareness but rarely shift policy without sustained pressure. X posts echo this, with users praising Change.org for visibility but criticizing its limited impact without further action.

For-Profit Status

• Assessment: Correct, Change.org is a B-Corp, not a nonprofit, despite the “.org” domain. It generates revenue through promoted petitions and ads, which can confuse users expecting a charity. Forbes (2021) and BBB reports confirm this, noting that while the platform is transparent about its model in fine print, the branding can mislead.
• Additional Insight: Some X users have expressed frustration over Change.org’s monetization, especially when high-profile petitions (e.g., George Floyd) are used to drive revenue through promoted content.

Opaque Money Practices

• Assessment: Donations often fund petition promotion rather than the cause itself, which critics argue exploits emotional campaigns. Betches and Reddit threads highlight user confusion over donation flows, with many assuming funds go directly to organizers.
• Additional Insight: A 2022 WIRED article noted that Change.org’s donation prompts lack clarity, and users on X have shared similar complaints about unexpected charges or unclear fund allocation.

Privacy and Subscription Issues

• Assessment: User reports on Trustpilot and Complaints Board frequently mention unwanted emails and difficulty unsubscribing from recurring donations. Change.org’s privacy policy allows data sharing with third parties unless opted out, which isn’t always clear to users.
• Additional Insight: Recent X posts (2024-2025) mention persistent marketing emails, with some users advising checking account settings to disable data sharing or cancel subscriptions.

Inconsistent Vetting

• Assessment: Change.org’s user-generated model means minimal vetting, leading to both impactful and misleading petitions. High-profile removals (e.g., Raygun petition, per News.com.au) show responsiveness to backlash, but Reddit discussions point to cases where false or inflammatory petitions persist.
• Additional Insight: A 2023 Guardian article noted Change.org’s reactive moderation, removing petitions only after public outcry, which undermines trust in content reliability.

Perceived Ideological Bias

• Assessment: Media watchdogs like AllSides rate Change.org as left-leaning(?) due to the progressive tilt of many high-profile petitions. However, this reflects user demographics more than platform policy, as anyone can start a petition. Fact-checking is absent, so reliability varies by petition.
• Additional Insight: X posts show polarized views—some users see Change.org as a progressive echo chamber, while others view it as a neutral tool for diverse causes.

Verdict and Recommendations: verdict is spot-on: Change.org is reliable for raising awareness but less so for driving policy change without follow-up. Its for-profit model, privacy issues, and inconsistent vetting are valid concerns.

Related NewsRecent articles (e.g., The Guardian, 2024) highlight Change.org’s role in amplifying niche causes but reiterate its limitations in effecting systemic change. X posts from 2025 show ongoing debates about its monetization and privacy practices, with some users advocating alternatives like Avaaz for nonprofit-driven activism. In short, Change.org is a useful tool for visibility but requires careful use and supplementary action to be effective. Let me know if you want me to dig deeper into any specific aspect, like recent petition outcomes or user experiences on X!

4. Microsoft Copilot: Your AI companion replied:

Change.org is one of the most widely used online petition platforms, but its reliability depends on what you’re expecting it to achieve. Here’s a breakdown to help you decide:

Strengths

• Massive Reach: With millions of users globally, it’s great for raising awareness and showing public support.
• User-Friendly: Easy to create and share petitions, even for first-timers.
• Occasional Impact: Some petitions have led to real-world changes, especially when they gain media attention or political traction.

Limitations

• Symbolic Power: Many experts consider Change.org petitions more symbolic than actionable unless paired with offline activism.
• For-Profit Model: Despite its social mission, Change.org is a venture-backed, for-profit company, which has raised concerns about transparency and motives.
• Donation Confusion: Users have reported being unknowingly enrolled in monthly donations after making one-time contributions3.
• Content Moderation: Some petitions have been removed without clear explanation, frustrating users who invested time and money.

Bottom Line

Change.org can be a powerful tool for visibility and solidarity, but it’s not a guaranteed path to policy change. If you’re looking to influence legislation or corporate behavior, pairing your petition with direct advocacy or media outreach is key.

Want help crafting a petition that stands out or exploring alternative platforms? I’ve got ideas.

To Sum Up:

(A)Monetization of Activism

When you donate to a petition, your money does not go to the petition creators or the cause. It funds Change.org’s internal system to “promote” your petition to more users. This is not always transparent—and many have donated thinking they were supporting the grassroots organizer directly.

(B)Privacy and Consent Issues

Users frequently report being signed up for recurring donations without clear consent. Others are overwhelmed by emails and notifications, finding it hard to unsubscribe or opt out.

(C) Opaque Moderation and Signature Policies

Change.org has been known to remove or freeze petitions deemed controversial, politically sensitive, or in conflict with its internal moderation guidelines. And yet, the platform has hosted misleading or borderline false petitions with little scrutiny.

(D) “Slacktivism” and Symbolism

Most petition victories involve offline action—emails, press, lobbying, protests—not just signatures. A Change.org petition alone rarely creates institutional change unless it is backed by a real-world movement.

(E) Bias and Content Curation

There’s a growing perception that the platform leans ideologically—which shapes which petitions get visibility and which quietly fade. Some petitions appear to get algorithmic boosts, while others stagnate despite high organic support.

Now add to this a troubling dynamic on so-called neutral platforms like Change.org. As I’ve experienced firsthand, this petition platform is neither neutral nor entirely public-interest driven. Change.org commodifies outrage—transforming moral urgency into marketable traffic, algorithmic boosts, and advertising revenue. Its decisions are not governed by ideological commitment but by the logic of visibility, virality, and profit.

Therefore, I do not subscribe to the claim that “…[m]edia watchdogs like AllSides rate Change.org as left-leaning due to the progressive tilt of many high-profile petitions.” The platform’s apparent ideological lean is not rooted in principle but in profit-driven amplification of emotionally resonant content. The “tilt” isn’t political—it’s transactional.

Conclusion: A Few Conjectures—And an Open Question

Ajay  Piramal the deus ex machina?

Am I merely succumbing to persecutory paranoia, or is there a concerted effort to silence dissent? Consider the pattern:

• Legal intimidation. Billionaire Ajay Piramal, displeased with OBMA’s coverage of the DHFL crisis, initiated a defamation suit—a classic SLAPP tactic—against Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay. The case fizzled, but the message was clear: challenge power and be prepared for costly litigation. Mr. Piramal tried to block OBMA–linked pages on LinkedIn, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter), but he had cut a sorry figure.
• Platform interference. In rapid succession, Quora abruptly restricted our account, and our long‑running blog  onceinabluemoon2021 has become non-operative. Each incident, taken alone, could be a platform glitch; together, they form a troubling mosaic.

Is Mr Ajay  Piramal, probably, the deus ex machina behind these digital setbacks, orchestrating takedowns from behind the curtain? I cannot yet prove causality—but the coincidences pile up like dominoes. Until transparency replaces opacity, suspicion will flourish.

If raising these questions is paranoia, then perhaps a little paranoia is the price of vigilance.

 

MEMO SUBMITTED: Demand for a Judicial Truth Commission on the DHFL Verdict

Posted on 9th July, 2025 (GMT 10:24 hrs)

Abstract
This article announces the submission of a people’s memorandum to India’s highest constitutional and judicial offices, demanding a Judicial Truth and Accountability Commission to probe the DHFL Supreme Court verdict—a decision that legitimized the corporate expropriation of thousands of depositors’ life savings. The memo exposes judicial silence, regulatory complicity, and the erasure of dissent. Backed by a rapidly growing online mass petition, this is a collective cry for justice, transparency, and the restoration of democratic integrity in the face of systemic betrayal.

Commission, or Con-Mission— which one is the correct spelling? We Wonder!

In a determined move toward transparency, justice, and institutional accountability, a comprehensive memorandum has been formally submitted via email to the highest constitutional and judicial authorities of the Republic of India. The memo calls for the immediate constitution of a Judicial Truth and Accountability Commission to investigate the controversial Supreme Court verdict in the DHFL insolvency case—a ruling that, in effect, sanctioned the expropriation of depositors’ savings and erased any semblance of dissent in judicial deliberation.

This memorandum has been addressed and sent (via email) to the following authorities:

• The Hon’ble President of India
• The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
• The Hon’ble Chairperson, Law Commission of India
• The Hon’ble Chairperson, Standing Committee on Law and Justice
• The Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India

VIEW THE ENTIRE MEMO HERE ⤡

At the heart of this appeal is a demand to uphold the sanctity of justice in a democracy that claims to be governed by the rule of law. The DHFL resolution, upheld by the apex court, has left thousands of depositors—many of them senior citizens—economically devastated, and morally betrayed.

We are not alone. An online mass petition, linked below, has been launched to gather public support and keep the momentum alive. The petition has been gaining signatories every hour, reflecting the simmering public discontent and the shared demand for accountability from all pillars of state.

We are not alone. An online mass petition, linked below, has been launched to gather public support and keep the momentum alive. The petition has been gaining signatories every hour, reflecting the simmering public discontent and the shared demand for accountability from all pillars of state.

 Sign the Petition Here

Why This Memo Matters
This is not just a legal issue—it is a democratic reckoning. When judicial pronouncements appear to legitimize corporate profiteering at the cost of citizen savings, the moral compass of the judiciary must be examined.

The memo does more than question the verdict—it challenges the ethical foundations of the judicial process itself. It calls for:

1. A public inquiry into the judicial reasoning and ethical conduct behind the verdict.
2. Scrutiny of the Solicitor General’s role in the proceedings.
3. An investigation into the regulatory silence of institutions meant to safeguard public interest.
4. Formal inclusion of depositor voices and civil society in any retrospective or remedial process.

A public inquiry into the judicial reasoning and ethical conduct behind the verdict. The Supreme Court, in its April 1, 2025 ruling, upheld the Piramal Resolution Plan, effectively legitimising a massive haircut for fixed deposit holders. In doing so, it departed sharply from the NCLT’s observations in its May 19th, 2021 verdict to reconsider the Wadhawan brothers’ 100% repayment proposal. Moreover, the resolution plan does not adequately address the claims of small depositors who are neither shareholders nor secured creditors, yet are the worst hit.

Scrutiny of the Solicitor General’s role, especially given how his submissions overlooked the constitutional duty to protect senior citizens and small savers—many of whom had invested their life savings in good faith. The NCLAT, in its January 27, 2022 order, had flagged several lacuna in the resolution process and plan. Furthermore, the absence of any provision for retail fixed deposit holders in the resolution plan makes the plan appear tilted in favour of corporate interests and raises serious questions about equity.

An investigation into the regulatory silence of institutions like the RBI, SEBI, and credit rating agencies that remained passive while the resolution process unfolded in a manner that stripped thousands of citizens of their rights under a cloak of legal finality.

Formal inclusion of depositor voices and civil society representatives in any retrospective or remedial process.

Democracy demands that justice be participatory and inclusive—especially in cases where the impact of insolvency proceedings extends far beyond the boardroom.

From Silence to Solidarity
The memo is not just a letter—it is a people’s document of dissent. It challenges silence, demands explanation, and insists on justice. Depositors are no longer isolated complainants; they are claimants of constitutional rights.

We urge concerned citizens, legal professionals, activists, and journalists to endorse this call and amplify the petition. Justice must not only be done—it must be seen to be done, transparently, and in public view. 

 

Demanding a Truth Commission from Indian Institutions Embedded in Untruth

Published on 10th July, 2025, GMT 05.09 hrs

ABSTRACT

In post-2014 India, the state’s strategic deployment of disinformation, judicial opacity, and media spectacle has rendered truth both criminalized and performative. This paper interrogates the paradox of demanding a Truth and Accountability Commission from institutions deeply embedded in untruth. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s critique of confession, Derrida’s concept of archive fever, Freud’s metaphor of the mystic pad, Arendt’s theorization of lying in politics, and Guattari’s notion of pseudology, we propose the “mystique pad” as an insurgent counter-archive. Anchored in the empirical landscape of electoral manipulation, SLAPP suits, RTI evasions, and media censorship in India (2014–2025), the paper posits that civil society’s imperative is no longer merely revelation—but memorialization. Truth, in this schema, is not the opposite of falsehood but its residue.

Keywords: Truth commission, archive fever, mystique pad, Foucault, Freud, Derrida, Guattari, pseudology, SLAPP, Indian politics, post-truth society, RTI, judiciary, civil society, Post-Truth Society, sinthome, Lacan, Hannah Arendt, silenceme⤡, Will To Hide (jugupsā or erit celare)

Truth in an Era of Strategic Forgetting

“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

― attributed to George Orwell

In post-2014 India, the state has weaponized information, rendering truth both dangerous and dispensable. This article explores the paradoxical demand for truth commissions from institutions complicit in untruth, foregrounding Michel Foucault’s reflections on power and confession, Jacques Derrida’s concept of archive fever, Sigmund Freud’s notion of the mystic pad, Hannah Arendt’s critique of lying in politics, and Félix Guattari’s insights on pseudology.

Drawing upon the Indian context—ranging from the BJP’s IT Cell’s digital propaganda machinery to SLAPP suits filed by politico-corporate collusions targeting whistleblowers—this article argues that truth has shifted from revelation to preservation. In an age of orchestrated forgetting and post-truth society, the civil-political society’s duty is no longer to expose hidden facts but to archive and memorialize institutional falsehood. The “mystique pad” (cf. Freud’s Mystic Pad)” becomes both metaphor and method: an insurgent ledger of contested memory.

The call for a Truth Commission in such a climate is neither naïve nor rhetorical—it is a Foucauldian performance of resistance, where demanding truth becomes an exposure of the lie’s architecture.

0. The Initiatory Instance

Indian SC ordered for an Election Commission with opposition leader, CJI but the executive refused it

The controversy surrounding the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs) in India. 

Here’s a breakdown of the events:

• Supreme Court Ruling (March 2023): The Supreme Court of India ruled that a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India should select the CEC and ECs until Parliament enacted a law. This aimed to protect the Election Commission’s independence.
• Parliament Enacts New Law (December 2023): Parliament passed the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. This new law replaced the Chief Justice of India on the selection panel with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The panel now includes the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition.
• Challenges in the Supreme Court: Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the new law’s constitutionality, arguing it undermines the Election Commission’s independence and violates the separation of powers. Petitioners contended that excluding the CJI gives the executive control over appointments.
• Supreme Court Refusal to Stay the Act: The Supreme Court has refused to stay the new Act or appointments made under it, citing the potential for chaos during upcoming elections. The Court is scheduled to hear further arguments on the law’s validity. 

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court initially required the CJI’s involvement in selecting Election Commissioners for independence. However, the executive enacted a new law removing the CJI. The Supreme Court is reviewing the law’s validity but has not paused its operation or the appointments made under it. 

Is the political executive currently overpowering the “independent” judiciary? Who am I, then, rather than an insignificant, unheard citizen?

1. The Paradox of Demanding Truth from Sovereigns of Falsehood

If the apex court’s order is denied by the Executive, who am I to demand a Truth Commission?

In connection with the above question, let us embark on a conversation between two seemingly “fictional” characters, as the boundaries between fact and fiction blur in an era when the Indian socio-political landscape stifles open discourse.

Gregor Samsa: Is it not an oxymoron: we are demanding Truth Commission⤡ from a bunch of liars? Indian government, through their IT cell control headed by Amit Malavya, is spreding damn lies through “Godi Media” and WhatsApp University following Goebbelsian style. However, these lies are immediately caught by Alt.news and other non-godi media–the fifth pillar of democracy. Moreover, the executive did not pay any heed to CJI’s suggestion to constitute Election Commission, then who are we to be heard? India is now land of pseudology. To sum up, the ultimate questions are:

1. Is it not an oxymoron or rather a paradox to demand a Truth Commission from the very sovereign powers entrenched in systemic lying and cover-up?
2. When the Indian state deploys disinformation through IT Cells, Godi Media, and digital platforms, does a demand for truth have any meaning—or is it mere performance?
3. What, then, is the role of civil society, whistleblowers, and activists when the truth is not hidden but overrun by strategic falsehoods?
4. Can the archive of lies itself become the ground from which truth re-emerges?
5. How do thinkers like Freud, Derrida, Arendt, and Guattari help reimagine this crisis epistemologically and politically?

Joseph K: Yes, at one level, it is an oxymoron to demand a Truth Commission from institutions embedded in untruth—where state machinery, judiciary, media, and executive often appear to be complicit in manufacturing post-truth realities. When lies are systematically institutionalized—via IT cells, “Godi Media,” and the WhatsApp propaganda complex—truth becomes not just endangered, but criminalized. And yet, here we are, demanding truth from the very system that has repeatedly betrayed it.

But here’s the paradox that holds democratic dissent together:

To demand truth in a system of lies is not naïveté—it is a subversive act of resistance.

When the state no longer listens, when the judiciary shrinks from justice, and when executive silence-me becomes deafening—we raise our voice not because we expect to be heard, but because silence-eme is complicity.

Even in Nazi Germany, there were dissenting pamphleteers, clandestine truth-tellers. In Modi’s India, Alt News, The Wire, Scroll, NewsClick (raided and hounded), and numerous independent researchers are performing the function that official institutions abandoned: keeping the record honest.

So yes, India may have become the land of pseudology—the science of lies—but truth doesn’t die because it’s ignored. It survives through documentation, resistance, and collective memory. A Truth and Accountability Commission, even if symbolic now, is a people’s moral counter-narrative. It stakes a claim in history: We saw. We documented. We did not forget.

And when the tide shifts—as it must, eventually—this record may be the only thing left standing.

Our point-at-focus here isn’t cynical. It’s a call for strategic clarity:

• Demand truth not because they will give it, but because they fear it.
• Demand a commission not to flatter power, but to expose its hollowness.
• Name the liars. Archive the betrayals. Keep the moral ledger open.

That, in a time of orchestrated forgetting, is revolutionary.

Gregor Samsa: Remembering Foucault’s observation on demanding right from the sovereign, whom the subjects oppose (History of Sexuality, vol I). Thus, whistleblowers job is now to archive lies/ falsehood/undetermined to prove the “truth”. We, the part of civil and political society must maintain a “mystic pad” to write down lies and that is our archive fever–will to archive!

Joseph K: Brilliantly put—your invocation of Foucault’s paradox is both timely and profound.

Indeed, in History of Sexuality, Vol. I, Foucault reveals the absurdity—and yet the necessity—of asking for rights from the very sovereign whose authority we seek to dismantle. The sovereign is both the source of power and the target of critique. Likewise, when we demand truth commissions or accountability from the Indian state, it is not because we are deluded into thinking they will grant it honestly, but because naming the demand exposes the hypocrisy, the theatricality of sovereignty itself.

Today’s whistleblowers are not merely revealing secrets; they are cataloguing falsehood. Their task has mutated. It is no longer to uncover what is hidden, but to document what is repeatedly denied, gaslit, erased, or overwritten. It is a shift from revelation to memorialization.

The truth now emerges from the archive of lies.

The “mystique pad”—is poetic and apt. It echoes both Derrida’s “archive fever” and Benjamin’s angel of history—swept by a storm of progress while recording the wreckage. In our context, it is not enough to denounce the lie. We must write it down, date it, and hold it as evidence—as testimony.

That archive fever, then, is no longer institutional. It is insurgent. It lives in:

• RTI filings and redacted replies

• Screenshots of government tweets later deleted: For Instance, in June 2024, a screenshot claiming to show ANI tweeting that Prime Minister Modi was ignored in the G7 Summit group photo with the hashtag “#BoycottG7Summit” went viral. However, a detailed investigation by Alt News found that ANI never posted or deleted such a tweet. They examined ANI’s official X account posts between 14:20 and 14:40 IST on June 17, 2024, and found no evidence of the tweet. Furthermore, ANI Editor Smita Prakash confirmed the tweet was fabricated. The screenshot showed typical signs of being user-generated misinformation, such as identical engagement numbers and the absence of archival proof or reply threads. This incident fits into a broader trend of fake screenshots purporting to show deleted government or media tweets, which are often circulated to mislead public opinion. The fact-check by Alt News serves as a reminder to verify the authenticity of such claims before sharing. The full report is available at Alt News: Did ANI share & delete X post on Modi being ignored in G7 photo? No, viral screenshot is doctored.
• Debates transcribed before they are misquoted
• Defamation suits that prove the power of dissent⤡
• Boycotted farewells of judges who authored betrayal⤡

Gregor Samsa: Yes. This will to archive is our subversive act of hope. Because one day, when the regime collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, the people’s mystique pad will speak louder than its courtrooms.

In that sense, demand for a Truth Commission is not naïve—it is a performance of resistance, a civil epistemology built not on belief in the state, but on trust in memory or re-cognition (pratyabhijñā1).

Joseph K: As Michel Foucault argued in The History of Sexuality, Vol. I, power no longer operates by repression but through confession. Paradoxically, the subject is required to confess truth to the very authority that disciplines and punishes truth-telling. In the same way, civil society’s demand for a “Truth and Accountability Commission” from a judicial-executive complex mired in cronyism is less about expectation and more about unmasking power’s self-legitimating theatrics. It is not belief in state redemption—it is resistance as performance.

2. Empirical Terrain: India, 2014–2025

2.1. Setting the Preliminaries: The Gold-Covered Mouth of Truth

“hiraṇmayena pātreṇa satyasyāpihitaṁ mukham…” — Īśopaniṣad (15)
“The face of truth is hidden by a golden disk…”

This invocation anticipates our central concern: the deliberate occlusion of truth by sovereign power through dazzling spectacle and deceptive archives. What the Upanishad calls the “golden disk,” we might today read as the manicured judgments, technocratic policies, and spectacular media illusions that conceal systemic violence and injustice.

Much like the ancient verse, this paper pleads for the unveiling—not in a theological sense, but through critical theory, whistleblowing, and counter-archives.

We allegorize this as the thief-Police game, a ritualized cycle of concealment and pursuit where roles are reversed, blurred, and manipulated. The thief hides, the police seek—but when the thief is caught, the roles reverse, and the police become the thief. In this endless vicious loop of role-reversal, those entrusted with uncovering truth participate in its concealment, erasing distinctions between the governed and the governors, between transparency and tyranny.

This is the central performance of jugupsā—a willful, pathological concealment rooted not just in deceit, but in a deeper, schizoid impulse to govern through opacity. In the mystique of democratic institutions, truth is not just covered—it is systemically mystified. The sovereign’s will to power now leads to “Will To Hide (jugupsā or erit celare)“.

On the other hand, the sovereign is “will to know” their subjects’ docile bodies’ secret by deploying the conjoined systems—National Population Register (NPR), National Register of Citizens (NRC), and Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)—serve as a comprehensive biopolitical mechanism. Through documentary enumeration and legal exclusion (especially targeting Muslims and marginalized communities), the state exerts unprecedented control over bodies, citizenship, and belonging. This creates what the author terms an “anatomo‑bio‑political archipelago” — a network of territories marked by differentiated state power and exclusion.

NPR-NRC-CAA-DPB: THE ANATOMO-BIO-POLITICAL INTERVENTION WITHIN THE ARCHIPELAGO ⤡

The above paper provides a powerful lens to understand how modern governance in India operates through biometric, bureaucratic, religious, and territorial filters, creating an “archipelago” of inclusion and exclusion. It connects lived realities in Assam to philosophical frameworks and national strategies—highlighting the deeply embodied nature of these citizenship interventions and the urgent political stakes they raise.

In post-2014 India, the archive is not merely a site of truth, but of strategic concealment. The golden mask of democratic governance veils systemic lies—revealing, through repetition, a new form of political pseudology.

• IT Cell Disinformation Campaigns: Use of Twitter/X, bots, and fake news amplified by coordinated trolls and YouTube influencers, especially during elections and protests (e.g., 2020 Farmers’ Protest).
• SLAPP Suits Against Activists: Numerous defamation cases against Alt News, Scroll, and individual activists for exposing corruption, including those relating to DHFL and SEBI.
• Institutional Cover-Ups: RTI replies from RBI, CAG, and IBBI revealing no documentation of key financial decisions in the DHFL insolvency case.
• Boycotts and Judicial Disquiet: The boycott of Justice Bela Trivedi’s farewell by SCBA and SCAORA after the April 1, 2025 DHFL verdict—an unprecedented act of silent rebellion.
• Obfuscation of Electoral Bonds Data: Until forced disclosure by Supreme Court in 2024, key information about donors remained opaque despite demands for transparency.

2.2. Electoral Capture and the CEC Appointment Controversy

The 2023 CEC Appointment Act replaced judicial oversight with executive dominance. Despite Supreme Court intervention, Parliament reshaped the appointment panel, marginalizing the Chief Justice. This reflects not a legal oversight but a systemic erosion of institutional autonomy.

2.3. SLAPPs and the DHFL Case

Certain activists and depositors in the DHFL insolvency scam were subjected to defamation suits. The judiciary’s refusal to stay the appointments under the CEC Act, and its upholding of the DHFL resolution plan (April 1, 2025), reveal how truth is not denied, but overwritten.

Institutional Lies and Strategic Silence–me

• RTI evasions: IBBI, RBI, and CAG denied knowledge of key documents in the DHFL fraud.
• Media Raids: NewsClick and The Wire faced coercion for publishing investigative reports.
• Judicial Disquiet: Boycott of Justice Bela Trivedi’s farewell by SCBA after the controversial DHFL ruling.
• Electoral Bonds: Disclosures only forced by Supreme Court in 2024 after years of opacity.

2.4. Case Study: DHFL and the Corporate-Judiciary-Executive Nexus

The Supreme Court’s DHFL verdict (April 1, 2025) validated a resolution plan that wiped out small depositors’ claims. This is now etched into the mystique pad—not as jurisprudence, but as betrayal. The RTI archives, boycott records, and investigative journalism form the collective counter-archive to the judiciary’s legitimating narrative.

3. Theoretical Foundations

3.1. Freud’s Mystic Writing Pad: Residue, Memory without Erasure

Freud’s metaphor of the Mystic Writing Pad (1925) is especially relevant here. It is a child’s slate where inscriptions can be wiped clean on the surface, but traces remain etched beneath. This duality parallels India’s “Godi Media” erasing facts in public discourse, while civil archives, testimonies, and digital repositories quietly retain memory. The truth does not disappear; it goes underground—awaiting its reactivation by future justice.

From Mystic Pad to Mystique Pad: Archiving as Aesthetic Resistance (sinthome)

The mystique pad, reinvents Freud’s metaphor as an insurgent ledger—infused with political charisma and mnemonic force. Unlike the passive storage of the mystic pad, the mystique pad:

• Enchants memory in an era of mass erasure
• Archives lies with poetic subversion
• Transforms documentation into performance

It is both a ledger and a lamp—illuminating the darkness of systemic silenceme.

3.2, Hannah Arendt on Lying in Politics

In her classic essay Truth and Politics (1967), Arendt makes a vital distinction between rational lies (propaganda) and factual lies (revisionism). Post-2014 India has weaponized both. From the distortion of electoral bonds data to the downplaying of economic frauds (e.g., DHFL, Adani–SEBI reports), the Indian state has normalized factual falsehoods. In this context, truth-telling becomes a revolutionary act, and the archive a battleground.

3.3. Derrida: Archive Fever and Civil Memorialization

Jacques Derrida’s Archive Fever (1995) underscores the idea that archives are not neutral containers but sites of power. The feverish desire to archive arises precisely when there is fear that memory will be destroyed. In India, the rise of “WhatsApp Universities,” deep-fake propaganda, and judicial opacity after 2014 has intensified civil society’s urge to record—even if these records are not yet admissible in official forums. Thus, truth survives in exile, in Dropbox folders, PDF exposés, RTI petitions, and boycotted judicial farewells.

3.4. Guattari and the Logic of Pseudology

Félix Guattari suggestively warned against pseudology—the industrialization of lying through “semiotic machines.” This is best exemplified in India by the BJP’s IT Cell (reportedly headed by Amit Malviya), which engineers digital narratives that obscure facts and disorient the public. Here, lies are not anomalies but programmed outputs of a communicative system. In such a milieu, to archive the lie is to disarm it, to make it stutter against its own temporal contradictions.

3.5. Foucault: Power, Confession, and the Performance of Truth

Foucault, in The History of Sexuality, posits that modern power no longer represses but demands confession. The sovereign compels the subject to speak truth, only to punish it. Likewise, demanding justice from the judiciary or electoral integrity from the EC—when both are undermined by executive capture—is itself a revelation of power’s theatricality.

3.6. Engaging the Trope: “Sex, Lies, and Videotape”

Steven Soderbergh’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) portrayed the video camera as a confessional device—more honest than spoken words. Today, India’s political apparatus behaves inversely: video becomes doctored, news gets scripted, and reality is reverse-engineered for public consumption. But just as the videotapes in the film bore uncomfortable truths, archived lies in India—when strung together—reveal the grotesque choreography of deception. This is not voyeurism; it is a politics of forensic reconstruction.

4. Against Erasure, Toward a Mystique of Memory

To demand a Truth and Accountability Commission from institutions complicit in orchestrated forgetting may seem paradoxical—if not absurd. But in an age of post-truth, when sovereignty is performed through lies and silenceme is legislated as compliance, such a demand becomes an act of radical remembrance. It is not premised on institutional faith but on epistemic defiance. The archive—reimagined here as the mystique pad—emerges not as a neutral site of record, but as a space of insurgent memory and moral inscription.

As Freud warned, the erased inscription always leaves its trace. As Derrida noted, the archive fever intensifies when memory is under siege. And as Foucault, Arendt, and Guattari remind us, power operates not just through repression, but through the management and circulation of lies masquerading as truth.

Thus, the task before civil society is no longer to uncover a buried truth, but to catalogue the manufactured falsehoods that constitute official reality. The mystique pad is the ledger of this struggle. It is where the forensic meets the poetic, where whistleblowing becomes world-building, and where memory resists its own extinction.

We do not demand a Truth Commission to be heard by the state—we demand it so that future generations will know we did not consent. In that refusal, in that act of writing when all else is erasure, lies the pulse of a democracy still breathing.

4.1. Archive as Sovereign Counterweight

In post-truth India, the mystique pad becomes civil society’s enchanted weapon:

• Against forgetting, it documents.
• Against gaslighting, it bears witness.
• Against sovereign immunity, it moralizes.

To demand a Truth Commission is not to expect redemption—but to assert resistance. In the words of Foucault, confession to the sovereign is paradoxical—but it is in that paradox that power is unmasked. Archive fever is no longer a symptom; it is a strategy: a sinthome!

Takeaway Box: Key Propositions for Readers & Activists

Insight	Summary
1. Archive as Resistance	In post-truth India, the act of documenting lies is itself a political rebellion.
2. Truth Demands from Untruthful States	Demanding truth commissions from corrupt regimes is not naive—it’s a performative exposure of their moral bankruptcy.
3. From Freud to Foucault	Psychoanalytic and poststructural thinkers help us reimagine truth not as revelation, but as inscription amidst repression.
4. The “Mystique Pad”	A neologism combining Freud’s mystic pad and Derrida’s archive fever—symbolizing memory charged with political voltage.
5. Civil Society’s New Role	No longer just whistleblowers—we are now archivists of betrayal, witnesses of silence, keepers of the democratic ledger.

Epilogue: The Archive Will Testify

One day,
when the screen flickers go dark,
when verdicts lie forgotten in unread PDFs,
and the last troll logs out—
a page will remain.

Not of law,
but of longing.
Not of power,
but of memory.
It will whisper not what they said,
but what we endured,
what we recorded,
what we refused to forget.

And in this post-truth society—
where facts are bruised,
and forgetting is policy—
it remembers for us all.

That page—creased, contested,
is the mystique pad.
It does not forgive.
It does not erase.
It waits.

Bibliography

• Arendt, Hannah. Truth and Politics. In Between Past and Future. Penguin, 2006.
• Derrida, Jacques. Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression. University of Chicago Press, 1996.
• Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, Vol. I. Vintage, 1990.
• Freud, Sigmund. A Note upon the Mystic Writing-Pad (1925).
• Guattari, Félix. Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm. Power Publications, 1995.
• Soderbergh, Steven. Sex, Lies, and Videotape. Film, 1989.
• Scroll.in, AltNews.in, The Wire.in – Various investigations into Indian misinformation ecosystems
• RTI Responses from RBI, CAG, IBBI (2023–2025) – Filed and published by OBMA activists
• Supreme Court of India, PIL Judgment on Electoral Bonds, 2024
• Once in a Blue Moon Academia. From Silence to Storm: DHFL Victims Fight Beyond the Judiciary, 2025

Appendix

From Freud’s Mystic Pad to the Mystique Pad: A Shift in Political Semiotics

By replacing Freud’s “mystic writing-pad” with a neologism, “mystique pad,” the author infuse the archive not merely with psychological depth but with political aura, affective charge, and subversive power. Let’s unpack this elaboration on multiple registers:

1. Freud’s Mystic Pad: Mechanical Memory and Repression

Freud’s 1925 essay, A Note upon the Mystic Writing-Pad, introduced a metaphor for the psyche: a notepad where superficial inscriptions can be wiped away, but deeper impressions remain embedded. This model helped him explain how memory works through retention and repression—the surface may be clean, but the unconscious holds traces of the past.

This device was passive, mechanical, and epistemologically about storage—a metaphor for mental inscription and repression.

2. Mystique Pad: Archive as Aura, Resistance, and Spectacle

In contrast, “mystique pad” is an active, insurgent device—not just storing traces of betrayal but demanding political reckoning. The word mystique (from the French mystique, meaning “mysterious or magical aura”) invokes power, charisma, and a subversive glamour. In your usage:

• Mystique is not concealment but revelation with force.
• It is not repression, but memory with political voltage.
• It suggests that the very act of archiving lies—publicly, aesthetically, dangerously—is charged with dissident charisma.

Think of it as a secular grimoire: a spellbook of lies, contradictions, evasions, court verdicts, RTI denials, and digital manipulations that together glow with accusatory power.

3. Why Mystique Matters Now

In a society flooded by banal lies, ordinary facts no longer scandalize. The mystique pad, then, serves a dual purpose:

• Archival: It preserves the anatomy of deception (court judgments, official documents, regulatory silencemes).
• Affective: It glamourizes truth-telling in a time when truth has been rendered boring, disposable, or even punishable.

Your mystique pad doesn’t merely document—it seduces the public imagination back toward political clarity. It’s a site of enchantment in a disenchanting era.

4. From Archive Fever to Mystique Fever

While Derrida’s archive fever denotes the compulsive will to preserve memory, your mystique pad suggests a political fever with aesthetic charge—a desire not just to document, but to imbue memory with symbolic potency.

In post-2014 India, where the state fabricates “truth” and forgets in real-time, the mystique pad:

• Frames memory as protest
• Translates bureaucratic opacity into poetic clarity
• Transfigures documentation into drama

 Example Usage

The Supreme Court’s April 1, 2025 DHFL verdict has now entered the mystique pad—not for its legality, but for its betrayal. It seemingly stands not as jurisprudence, but as performance of power—and the mystique pad glows hotter with every redaction, every SLAPP suit, every regulator’s shrug.

Conclusion

The term “mystique pad” expands the archive from Freud’s psychological metaphor to a politico-aesthetic project of truth-making, memory-keeping, and democratic resistance. It offers:

• The glamour of memory in an era of gaslighting
• The power of inscription when institutions erase
• A ritual of remembering, when the sovereign commands forgetting

In short: it is the citizen’s enchanted weapon—a ledger of lies that becomes a shrine of truth in the heart of a post-truth society.

ENDNOTE

1. Pratyabhijñā, central to the Kashmir Śaiva traditions, is the doctrine of re-cognition (pratyabhijñāna) whereby the individual self (jīva) realizes its identity with the supreme consciousness (Paramasiva). Rooted in non-dual Śaiva metaphysics, it asserts that bondage (bandha) is due to āṇava mala—the limiting impurity that conceals one’s true nature—and liberation (mokṣa) arises not through external ritual or asceticism but through intuitive re-cognition (vimarśa) of one’s inherent divinity. This process, guided by śāmbhavopāya (the method of pure will or insight), transcends duality (dvaita) and affirms caitanya (universal consciousness) as both the ontological substratum and the epistemic ground of all experience. Thus, pratyabhijñā reconciles cit (consciousness) and śakti (power) in the act of self-recognition. In Nyāya philosophy, pratyabhijñā refers to the cognitive recognition of an object as being the same as one previously experienced—typically formulated as “so’yam” (saḥ ayam), meaning “that is this.” It is analyzed as a saṃsargavijñāna (relational cognition) involving a synthesis of present perception (pratyakṣa) and past memory (smṛti), mediated by tādātmyapratīti (apprehension of identity). Nyāya holds that such recognition is a valid pramāṇa (means of knowledge), grounded in the yogyatā (competency of conditions), sannidhāna (spatio-temporal proximity), and saṃskāra (mental impression). This epistemic event exemplifies the inferential process (anumāna) where the cognition of sameness arises from the discernment of shared qualifiers (sādhāraṇa dharma) across temporal instances, maintaining Nyāya’s commitment to realism and the correspondence theory of truth. ↩︎