The conventional term 'possession' has been widely used by anthropologists working in India to give the idea that a being (a god, a spirit, a ghost, a hero) is supposed to act in or through a person. The form that this 'presence' can take may vary largely according to the regional, social and ritual context. The vernacular terms or expressions may point to the idea of an arrival of a being in the body of a person, or to that of an influence, or of being 'seen' or 'caught', or of making this being 'play' or 'dance'. In some cases, the being is thought to make the person say something, or behave in a certain way or it is supposed to just make something happen to them or to their family -an event, a disease, an accident, a dispute.A first point that has to be cleared up is that however widespread the idea of possession is in India, it is not conceived in the same way by everyone, not even by those living in the same village or within the same family. Ethnographic descriptions often tend to neglect that even in places where possession rituals are very institutionalized and celebrated at village level, not everybody necessarily feels committed to them. Some people may, in principle, accept the idea of 'possession', but they may be critical of a particular form in which possession is supposed to occur. In the region of Himachal Pradesh where I worked, criticism towards possession was often linked to ideas regarding power, competence and efficacy. For instance, Brahman practitioners, who are experts in the recitation of mantras and in performing oblations in the fire, often denigrate temple mediums and say that the latter's way of trembling and speaking as a god 'is just a drama'. This does not mean that they themselves do not sometimes explain the problem of a client who consults them as being due to the 'presence' of a being (of a ghost or of a planet). However, they may think that the only way of getting rid of this presence is by calling upon the knowledge of Sanskrit verbal formulas and of Brahmanic expertise. Similarly, the so-called Tantric specialist, who also recites (often vernacular) mantras may look down on temple mediums, yet he may at the same time also refer to a 'possession logic' when he claims, as happens in some regions, that a god is sitting on his tongue (Thompson 1979) or on his back (Gaborieau 1969) But the veracity of the 'other's presence' may also be challenged by people who are completely committed to possession rituals. As I will show in greater detail later in this article, in the region where I did fieldwork, people who carry the village god's palanquin during local festivals are sometimes accused of 'dictating' the movements of the palanquinwhich are supposed to be made by the god's own will-to present their own decisions as coming from the god. This kind of allegation is not new. A Settlement Officer from the nineteenth century referred to an order enacted in presence of an assembly of village elders that banished a local god's palanquin and attendants from an entire district in order to ...