Sobriquets, Pseudonyms, and the Like

TO: IMAM DIN CHOWKIDAR

VERY GOOD BROTHER. YOU ARE A GOOD CHOWKIDAR. KEEP WRITING AND WATCHING BUDDY.

Re: Anita Zaidi

Aldous Huxley once wrote, “...the inattention of the powerful is the key to freedom.”

For example suppose a person was:

1) Living in the USA and was a vocal advocate of a tax revolt (or for that matter open use of marijuana for recreational or medicinal purposes), or,

2) living in Turkey and was an ardent proponent of imposing Islamic Shriat Law, or,

3) living in Pakistan (or Saudi Arabia) and discussed the extraordinary matrimonial privileges assumed by Prophet Mohammed,

the law enforcement agencies of each of these countries would descend upon that person with full force. Under those circumstance it would be foolhardy to “own up and be proud of one’s writing”.

Here on the CHOWK, however, there does need to be some semblance of orderliness, so I like the idea of a one-time registration (with password) before making any postings. Browsers should not have to register.

(Thank you, for introducing this new word - “sobriquets” - into my vocabulary. I had to look it up in the Dictionary.)

Re: Imam Din Chowkidar

This is a confession: I have been using a pseudonym, Sohail Rabbani. My true name is Abdul Gupanguf Khan, son of, Chingbing Chambly Chambalish Khan. We are originally from Luknow where my great-grandfather used to have vast gardens of parsley and cilantro.

Dear Afrasiyab,

Thanks for the warm welcome. I much prefer your pen-name to your `real` name; I`m glad you are still using it.

Missed you in the futile debate about concealed identity. Hope you feel better

Regards
Afrasiyab

Hey, Anita.

So, we have some kind of agreement. All except my reason for wanting to use a psuedonymn, which I stubbornly refuse to give. Let me hint at it though: none of us are totally alone. At times our actions can affect the lives of people we are intimately connected with. And taking responsibility for and respecting `our` shared spaces can be a reason for wanting to remain anonymous.

I agree that it would be nice to meet some of the chowkwallas in person (other than the ones I already know). But I cant presume reciprocity and mutual desire to meet. That would have to be established whether or not people write under a psuedonymn or their real names.

Fightin` the `flu as best as I can, with your help :)

bad girl

Re: BG

Was wondering what happened to you.

I will admit that I was surprised that so many people felt the need to ``come out``. I certainly wasn`t expecting it and it wasn`t my intention - what I was expecting was more like your thoughtful response, a vigorous defense for pseudonyms, and some explanations for using them. I agree, and have pointed out earlier that there are many reasonable reasons(fear, I think is a ``reasonable`` reason)for using one - and I support people`s right to do so - or some very provocative writing will not be written. And I gave a lot of examples of such writing - from erotica, to not wanting professional colleagues to know, to wanting to be taken seriously or not seriously.

On the other hand, I wanted people to think about WHY they are using one - and is it just a convenient mask for them to hide behind and make personal attacks? Also, I don`t think you can discount that some people who write under pen-names do so, because the ``writer lacks courage of their conviction``. You can only speak for yourself. Neither you, nor I can prove our point - it remains speculation. But as a crusader for public health, I know that I am much more effective combining what I say in real life with what I say in the virtual version. I can see that your writing has an ``agenda`` (an agenda that I admire btw) but I can also see that one has to be ready to live that kind of life in its total sense and that timing and mental readiness may be all important in making that decision.

I too am for some regulation in the interact section - not to prevent pseudonym/sobriquet use, but to keep it consistent and hold people accountable for what they say - right now, I can type BG in and pretend to be you, or 10 different people. One way to do it could be to send Chowk staff a mail the first time one wants to interact, with one`s ``chosen`` name and e-mail address. One would get assigned a password which would be e-mailed back to the requestor in a reasonable time frame. Every time one puts their password in, their chosen name should come thru.

Lastly, let`s not forget that although ideas and thoughts count more than WHO one is, there are some advantages in writing under ones own name - the most important that one can make new friends in real life - a real life chowk if you will. For all I know, you might be in the same town as I, but I can`t meet you. But Adil Najam I can, and did. To me, that`s one of the greatest things about Chowk. So many of us are getting to know about one another and can meet either via private e-mail or in person - a way to overcome the dispersion of our diaspora!
AZ

PS. Missed you from the debate earlier, and hope you are feeling better. Had you mentioned your `flu sooner - may have been able to use my Infectious Disease resources to get you some amantadine!

Hi, there Anita.

Darned `flu kept me away from this debate - I`m not convinced it wasnt a blesssing :)

As everyone else has said: ITS THE IDEAS/THE THOUGHTS THAT COUNT. What`s in a name?... Your name, ``Anita Zaidi`` means as much to me as ``Bubba``. I am interested in WHAT people have to say, not WHO they are.

Incidentally, your enumeration of reasons why people take on pseudonymns (and I use this word deliberately because I think a fake name is a fake name, whether it sounds real or not)do not include my reason. It`s a good reason. I`m happy with it and with not taking credit for my writing (at least for now).

I am not going to be blackmailed into `confessing` my real identity to anyone or into giving an explanation for my use of a pseudonymn. If you remain irritated with my use of the pseudonymn `bad girl`, well so be it ;)

I also do not agree with your speculation that the use of a psuedonymn might reflect that the writer lacks courage of their conviction. You do not know any of the writers personally and how they choose to lead their lives. We all have lives outside chowk, where we may take personal risks every day and speak up for what we believe. Please remember that this is one forum where people may choose to interact in a certain way and that it does not mean that its how they interact ALWAYS.

I agree with whoever said that some form of regulation is necessary, like registering and using passwords so that participants can be a little more responsible and accountable. Responsibility and accountability are currently a problem whether or not people use pseudonymns. (some individuals, writing under their real names, have made hideous personal remarks about others. and there is no way of stopping you, for instance, from writing under a myriad other names, even if you write under your real name.)

Re : Chowkidar & others....

Dear Chowkidar,
I read your reply, indeed with great scrutiny, three times, and the following are my penny`s worth of observations regarding it...

:)

1. Indeed disagreement on discussions is the norm in civilised societies, but i am afraid we are not memebrs of one such society, and neither are we going to be, any time soon, so please dont hold your breath.

2. In civilised societies, some proof or responsiblity is normally undertaken by the accuser such as a testimony from a reliable resource, when accusations such as ``Mr Hayat has never been a student at Aitchison.... ``, are made which are basically blunt provocation grande, to undermine the credibility of one`s opponent. I agree that it was this provocation which of course is so lame and baseless, really unnerved me, and resulted in the strong language used to condemn a fellow who is trying to damage my rep, and dignity by casting aspersion on my character..... Indeed i felt initially, the rage, and that rage got the better of half of me, to act in a,.... reprehensible manner, in that, i took it personally... when if i had let it alone... it might have vaned off...

3. My problem is that i am sometimes away on business excursions, and hence unable to keep up with the charades of such innuendo-agenda.Hence i wanted to quell their approach of ridiculing my testimony, somewhat like Marshal Law.... unbeknowingly the negative effect it might have on my readership, and also on my reputation... Indeed the need for speed in trying to answer back to the said ``provocateur``, resulted in my losing the better judgement, and hence resulted in the diatribe.... which if u do look closely, still is based on the fact that ``No Registrar of Aitchison has still come forward to state otherwise``. Why ? Because the truth shall shine, one day inspite of these being the most overcast days of our lives!!!!

3. Yes, indeed perhaps the above in some way displays the regret...i feel, and hence i decided to intervene, in this case as in another one, elsewhere, to basically inform others of not falling for the same trap, that i had fallen into, and hence i am perhaps a better man to have admitted my ``folly``, and not carried on with the rhetoric.... and i expect the same from the others.... There are but many a fallen angels....

:)

Indeed i respect the need for respect here, on Chowk, specially more, as i do not intend to see it being converted into another soc.culture.pakistan, which is indeed about as low as it can go...in terms of having standards and code of ethics.... etc..But having said that, i would expect the others to not directly initiate a pissing-contest such as the one i had fallen a victim to, about questioning somebodys crediblity, and integrity.... as that has to be taken for granted,,,,,, for a meaningful discussion to take place...

Hope the above helps in clearing any misconceptions and hardfeelings, and let me start our acquaintance once again by saying ``Hi, My name is Asim Hayat, Indeed i live abroad but still I am concerned for my country, and i want to contribute something for its betterment and my personal reform; The contribution might be talking about something positive and/or something negative (initially mostly negative.....and perhaps verging on hope... but gradually shifting to the positive side.... so please bear with me) As a learned writer once said, whose name evades me now `I may not agree with what you say, but i will fight for your right to say it till the end```
Indeed i stand by these famous last words, from here on, in my quest for knowledge and reform, starting from deep within and extending outwards..

Big Words indeed.... hoping others might now start to see a bigger picture....

Truce ? :)

Kindest Regards to all

Asim

P.S I feel its O.K once in a while to deal with tangential subjects with good humour and wit, and since i am lacking in either one `` :-(``, i shall refrain from responding to the one you posed and let the ``said`` article do its talking itself on its own merit....

Re :Chowkidar

Dear Chowkidar, i have generally found your comments to be informative and also at times thought-provoking, over the short time i had had the pleasure of subscribing to Chowk. Yet i feel however this time, that Ms Zaidi, perhaps is not after the information you had kindly divulged about yourself, in a gentlemanly fashion, of course... She is looking indeed at a bigger picture, for us the readers to come up with individual reasons as to why we would like to use these fancy names instead of our usual ones..

As far as i can read, in the debate so far, she is merely asking us to take a look at ourselves in an unbiassed manner, and come up with the reasons to hide ones name...

There could be a whole plethora of reasons, but somehow she feels that the majority of reasons could be due to perhaps some ``negative`` aspects, though not necessarily limited to them. It could be attributable to the adjectives she has mentioned, but could be extended to shyness at being recognised by your friends, to be not known for years later that such as such guy had said a controversial thing about such a subject etc...

But i have tried to brain-wave, allegedly, about the positive aspects of nicknames on a forum such as this.... but i cant come up with very many convincing arguments for it save for the fact that we are a very conformist society, and that one`s views which are tangential to conventionally accepted dogma, will indeed be used by the majority in Pakistan(read as non free thinkers, primarily due to education restraints), to ostracise and shun us away from the society. Its this fear of being shunned by so many that perhaps puts the fear of Allah into our souls, so that we should not expose our true identity, least we be held accountable for our views,,,, and maybe even persecuted because of them...

Indeed, if i recall correctly, Chowkidar Sahib, you had kindly told me that i had written a much-needed article about Christians in Pakistan, and had congratulated me for standing up to my beliefs. Yet you also mentioned that i might have been killed as a ``proclaimed offender``, had i been in Pakistan, under a police encounter. To be honest, i had not really thought about the repercussions till you pointed out.... and i was not a relieved man.

Sure i have views contrary to public opinion;pls see my other article, and the immense criticism i recived there, by people who failed to see the whole point of the exercise, thinking that i only want to sling mud at an old and supposedly reputable ``institution``, and very few realised that my agenda was about exposing the ``wrong`` and possibly try to rectify the wrong thats is being done there since time immemorial..Of course very few realise or even care to contemplate that such a soul-baring expose has a tremendous toll on one, as it hurt me gravely to write about my alma mater in a critical and unbiased fashion, but sometimes one has to, in order for truth to shine... and some good to come out of in the exercise..

Chowkidar, i honestly used to think, before your admittance about your true indentuty, that you were somehow linked to the Chowk Staff, like maybe Messr Umair and Safwan, rolled into one, and so i attributed your comments once to Umair Khan in a feedback letter, saying thanx for warning me about the possibilities of something like a police encounter in Pakistan. Naive..., ignorant yes, you may call me... because i associated Chowkidar nickname as being associated with the Chowk Enterprises, i.e the management and staff ....In addition to associating yourself to the establishment, thus paying special importance to what these gentlemen had to say, considering it came straight from the ``horse`s`` mouth.... :)

I hope the above serves to clarify some aspects of sobriquets, and let us not try to critique each other for the sake of critique, but for valid important issues, which perhaps is the most important landmark of Chowk.

AfteR All isnt chowk ``where one is welcomed to read, write, and .....THINK`` in order to become better at treading the paths we tread...?

Kind Regards

Asim

Re: Imam Din aka chowkidaar

Aap tou naraaz ho gai. Nothing was further from my intention. And I do not insist on knowing your or anybody`s name - as I have outlined, people have their reasons. I am just interested in exploring those reasons.

Re: Barq Farangi.

I note that you neatly circumvent answering my question - can you think of ANY OTHER reasons for hiding behind aliases - positive or negative? Incidentally, a ``negative`` value label is something you have attached to all these adjectives - writing under an alias in jest, or writing under a pseudonym b/c one fears reprisals b/c of the highly controversial nature of the writing are not in my view negative reasons.

Allow me speculate here: why do I get the feeling that you are Faisal Siddiqui aka Afrasiyab? Perhaps it is your distinctive style of writing, or perhaps it is the use of sobriquets steeped in ``high`` Urdu :)

I liked the sentiment in your article. It is wonderful to suggest that all of us should be more at peace with whatever we write. I have realised though that it is a tall order. I used to feel strongly about the issue and much the same as you until I realised that if indeed to me the idea is more important than the person, than what indeed is in a name?. However, I wholeheartedly agree that targetting the person writing than what is written is quite rude and unfairly mean. It also is useless for other readers as whatever merits the writing may have, becomes overshadowed by slinging matches. These may be therapeutic I hope and eventually we may become used to each other.

RE:Barq Farangi

...``I will never label (passing judgement) a Bubba or a BG ``paranoid, voyeuristic, etc.``.
Can`t you really think of a single valid reason (that you APPROVE) why a person will use a fictitious name?``

Barq Farangi (incidentally, an interesting choice for a sobriquet) I did not call Bubba or BG paranoid or voyeuristic. I asked a QUESTION which included many adjectives to choose from, for a reason for concealing identity: Among them scared, embarrassed, not want to be taken seriously... And no, I can`t think of any other valid reasons to hide one`s identity. Can you? Educate me. Btw wanting to maintain privacy is not a reason, only the end result of one of the above.

RE: chowkidar aka Iman Din

Dear Sir, you misunderstand me. I do not want to know the intimate details of your life. Just why the need to hide behind an alias in the broadest of terms i.e. are you scared, embarrassed, paranoid ...etc?

RE: Shawzya Ikbal and Asim Hayat

Appreciate your comments.

RE: Faisal Siddiqui aka Afrasiyab

You can have as much ``space`` as you need. How about an exposition on existentialism as a Chowk article? You`ll be able to vent all you want.

AZ

A Pakistani Judge wrote:

``..........In viewing and analysing the material provided by different witnesses I conclude Mr. Asim Hayat lied in his article and completely based on fictitious events. He infatuated the readers with his piquant rant and trampled the feelings of indelible Aitchisonians....``





I just could not help stop laughing my head off at this most recent act of histrionics and macabre theatre, by this fellow, who had the insolence to assume an honourable pseudonym, without having had the slightest idea about the immense responsibility, and code of honour underlying such a grand title.!!!!!

:)

Perhaps the above is a convenient example about the ``negative`` aspect of allowing pseudonyms, (i shall not call them sobriquet, for a fair number of who use them here, are not actually out to make a valid point, but in reality to spread malicious, ill-informed judgements based on mere speculation.

Take the e.g of the said gentleman, (as i know it has to be yet another persistent Aitchisonian, trying to defend his 2 penny worth of morality, and tradition), by involving the judiciary in his trivial infantile pursuits, and not having the foggies as to what it entails!!!!!

As they say in the west, one should have the brawn and the brain to stand up to what views they subscribe to. Thus my view is people will invariably use a pseudonym for slander(as sometimes the voice of conscience within their heart of hearts actually stops them at best, from using their own name for shame and cpmromise.

I would subscribe to the idea of having a password for access to writing forums as tomorrow any ``na-laique`` can claim to attribute any non-sense he prescribes by simply writing my name and submitting it.

It will be equally difficult to renounce as a hypothtical scenario like the one above can confirm.

Say it memorably, say it with conviction and say it with style, and then be prepared to stand by your written word, and dont become a revolving door, unless somebody really shows you the light of day, resulting in your becoming a better human being, and a better person!!!!

I want to know people here, and not just names. People have personalities which filter through, inadvertently, even with pseudonyms if used consistently, but i feel there might be people who use a pseudonym once and discard it. Real names lend more credibility to the piece, though this is only my personal opinion.

Judge presented me with a great opportunity to voice how i feel about ``false name`` users, real time, so i decided to write my penny`s worth about it.

Regrds

Asim

P.S Needless to say, Dr Zaidi, you are indeed to be commended for hitting the nail right on the head, three times in a row!!!!

``Jolly good old chap``, oooops!!! (being an Aitchisonian, i dont know how to acknowledge a learned Lady who is indeed a great writer and a wonderful read)

As an omniscient, self-reflective entity once
niChawarofied the profound moti, on some unsuspecting pseudo-intellectual I believe:

halaNkeh is say farq to paRta naheeN!

Aapka khadim,
maTha

Shukriya Saleem bhai. BTW, your point is?

Re: ``judgmentalism``

As an aside to this discussion, since a couple of people have taken the time to point out that my irritation at indiscriminate pseudonym use is evidence of judgmentalism, I feel moved to comment further.

In my view, judgmentalism is almost as elusive a concept as complete freedom of speech. How do we define it? When one has lived in this land of the free for a while, one comes to realize that here, judgementalism is a 4-letter word, a moral atrocity. Yet, as a person, I seem to be making judgments about people (and situations) every day - both in a professional and a personal capacity. As a physician, I am probably just as judgmental as a ``judge`` is. I make judgments about people`s likelihood of having diseases based on their risk of certain behaviours such as promiscuity, their ethnic origin, their socio-economic background, their education, their level of comprehension etc. I make judgments about junior physicians` competence and honesty - very important when you play with peoples` lives! Outside of professional life, I make judgments about a financial counselor`s professional expertise, a car mechanic`s honesty, a baby-sitter`s character and so on. As a parent, I struggle with teaching values, distinguishing right from wrong - I have the hardest time teaching my daughter that strangers can be dangerous, and that Muslims don`t like pigs because they are ``dirty`` - through no fault of the pig - they don`t really have free will and any choice in the matter!

Over the years, after much angst, I have come to terms with this realization - ``judgmentalism`` is a fault of mine. Every time I attach a label to something or someone, I am being judgmental - Also, that the same is true for people who bandy about the word like a 4-letter epithet. For the very act of calling someone ``judgmental`` makes them guilty of the same sin - they are attaching a value label to someone else`s thought process.

If Afrasiyab would reflect for a moment, he/she would realize that labeling someone`s thinking as ``fascist`` or ``orientalist`` or their writing ``constipated axiomatic dogma`` or ``trivia`` is very much evidence of ``judgmentalism``.

Similarily, Barq Farangi by telling me not to preach and live and let live, is guilty of the same - PREACHING! Now, if this isn`t AXIOMATIC, what is?

...AZ