With Riaz ul Islam, Ahmed Hasan Dani and Zawar Hussain Zaidi already gone, Khurshid Kemal Aziz's demise has drawn the classical tradition of doing history close to the brink of precipice.

Like his peers, K K Aziz was adequately equipped with historical method that he deployed adroitly in his historical works. Pakistan has yet to see someone better than him in the art of documentation. That way he was Rankean to the core and religiously followed latter's exhortation that ascribed primacy to 'fact'. I have no hesitation in calling Dr Aziz as Ranke of Pakistan.

Fact had been deemed essential to ascertain truth from mid nineteenth century onwards. Thereafter, History embarked on a different course from literature with which it remained entwined for centuries. Hence Historian had no distinct identity. It is important for us to know that Leopold Von Ranke was a Prussian scholar who accorded the discipline of History the modern structure with "fact" and "archival source" as its core ingredients. Thus History found an identity of its own. British historians from nineteenth century onwards followed Ranke only after indigenising his prescription. Edward Gibbon's style of history writing which had literary flair in it was rendered out of vogue.

British historians adhered to the positivist History as they call it which had tangible reflection on the tradition of history writing in the subcontinent. Historians like James Mill, Elliot and Dowson, Elphinston and Stanley Lanepoole provided a format to the local historians which they obsequiously followed. The periodisation and the Hindu-Muslim alienation, conspicuous themes in the Muslim historiography, had been the lasting legacy of these British historians. The Muslim scholars like Shibli Nomani set for themselves the task of constructing Muslim past by following the method of Thomas Carlyle whereby personality held centrality in the narrative of history. Dr Aziz also imbibed that influence and produced a number of books on personalities like Sir Agha Khan, Ameer Ali and Chaudhry Rehmat Ali.

Modern Muslim Historiography took a systematic form with Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi who effected a complete shift of emphasis in the historical discourse that had become quite exclusionary by the fourth decade of twentieth century. K K Aziz, after completing his PhD from Manchester University, joined the Qureshi camp of historians. For a number of years, he kept on churning out the official and state-driven history with ideology as its leitmotif. While looking at such books of Dr K K Aziz like The Making of Pakistan, History of the Idea of Pakistan and The British in India, his expertise of gleaning 'facts' from the husk of random information and documenting those facts was absolutely remarkable but they were, in effect, examples of official history.

His famous book The Murder of History is in a way an extensive corrigendum whereby factual errors have been pointed out and then corrections are suggested. That book is a testimony of how much importance Dr Aziz attached to facts and their authenticity. Besides, his writings hold immense value and worth for any novice in the art of doing history, particularly the technique to marshal facts.

He seemed to have emulated historians like Lord Acton, a renowned Cambridge historian, who professed that facts had no relation with social context. The earlier works of Dr Aziz epitomise that assertion of Prof. Acton. However, his latter books demonstrated different historical trajectory. He not only brought in critical angle to his narratives but also added cultural and social dimension to the historical account. The writings like The Meaning of Islamic Art, Coffee House, his own autobiography and A Journey into Past are culturally informed. Prior to that, Dr Aziz subscribed to the official version of History and vehemently vindicated Muslim separatist tendencies in United India through his books.

Another aspect that sets Dr Aziz apart from the rest of Pakistani historians was his command over various languages. He was, in many ways, lucky to have such an erudite father who was a prolific scholar in his own right. He learnt Urdu English and Persian at home. Hawadis-i-Zamana a biography of his father that he wrote a few years ago is an illustration of his command over Urdu. He has employed a peculiarly classical style while writing that book. Abdullah Malik was not wrong when he likened his style of Urdu prose with Abul Kalam Azad's.

He was known for his panache and zeal for English. The selection of appropriate words and its meticulous use were the hallmark of his writing. At times the laureate Dr K K Aziz seems overpowering the historian K K Aziz. His Autobiography and The Coffee House of Lahore: A Memoir are to a great measure books of literature rather than history. That is what makes them absolutely delightful readings.

The Murder of History, a compilation of his articles that he contributed for daily The Frontier Post during 1990s, brought him acclaim and recognition. Undoubtedly that book had raised many pertinent questions regarding the entrenched stereotypes that caused social and intellectual stasis in Pakistan; hence it is one of the most important books in Dr Aziz's career. However, the best account to the writer's estimation is The Pakistani Historian. It is the most insightful commentary on the state of 'History' in Pakistan, indeed an essential reading for students and teachers of history.

Dr Aziz saw many a vicissitude in his life. He taught at prestigious universities like Cambridge, Oxford, and Heidelberg. He was the Chairman of History Commission in 1970s before he was asked to leave quite unceremoniously. He left for Khartum (Sudan) and taught there for a few years. He was given all the necessary support by Benazir Bhutto Government in 1990s.

All in all, Dr Aziz was not a happy man. He expected much more from this society and state. He had 44 books to his credit. At the fag end of his life, he was a dejected man living a life of seclusion in Lahore's Johar Town. He is no longer with us now but he will live for a long time in his works. His name will keep resonating in the History departments in all major institutions of the globe.

Newspapers and television channels have again carried with prominence the news that Reshman has been given a cheque of Rs one million for her medical treatment by the prime minister. The lingering ailment of Mehdi Hasan too has often captured the headlines, particularly, when paid a visit to and granted some sum to pay off his medical bills by a high government dignitary.

Such news is quite common and is flashed across the media. All this is commendable and gives the impression that the rulers of the country care for their artistes. But one wonders whether there can be a more dignified manner of doing so without it becoming the stuff of media attention. The illness and hospitalisation of a well-known artist should be news worthy but that a benefactor is compensating his/her medical bills probably is in bad taste. It is like putting want and poverty on display.

The ideal situation is that the artistes should be in a position to see their life through thick and thin without having to bring out the begging bowl but it has rarely been the case in Pakistan. Artistes are by temperament not the ones to desist from indulgence and plan out their lives as instructed by insurance companies. It belies their nature of abandon and certain disrespect for the values of the common and the ordinary.

One is aware of the number of bodies both in the public and the private sector involved in charitable work and have helped artistes in need. In the public sector, organisations like the arts councils have budgets for the needy and the deserving. These budgets are both for the artistes as well as the organisations that may have been formed to promote art. The problem with these organisations is that the budget is small and the number of the needy is large. The debate within the committees of these organisations always revolves around whether to give a sizeable chunk to a few or to give to everyone who has asked for it. The decision mostly is in favour of spreading the funds to as many artistes as possible. And usually everyone's share in the pie becomes very small and it adds up to nothing. The pie gets divided into crumbs. The real need is to make the size of the pie bigger.

A number of organisations, in the private sector too, have done a commendable job. In the past the most noticeable was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) Foundations that really helped many poets, writers and artistes to cover the deficit in the payment of their bills. By opening the Urdu Centre in London and bringing out publications, it involved itself into a more comprehensive approach, which helped artistic activity, and if in dire need, helped and bailed out individual artistes as well. A suitable example for the private/corporate to follow in building institutions that promote the arts for promotion means a source of continued sustenance for the artistes.

Reshman is an artiste we all love. She has given us so much pleasure and satisfaction by rendering her repertoire of folk music, which intoned the ethos of the area and the land she belongs to. She has also carried the banner of the country to many a forum, performing before the mighty and the sensitive, always earning a bouquet of accolades in return.  

Reshman comes from a family who as gypsies have roamed the large deserts of Punjab, Rajasthan and Sindh, moving from place to place in their nomadic style. They have also been repositories of some of our ancient performing arts as they have carried with them the very traditional art of string puppetry and often seen performing with their tales and melodies that are centuries old. At the same time, many of them have been the carriers of the traditional music of the area, and have learnt and developed their art forms though inheritance and sheer natural talent. Reshman too was spotted in a mela by a radio official and was invited to more formal platforms to show her immense talent.  Most of her life, even as a well-known person, she lived in tents and temporary huts set up on the outskirts of the cities, particularly Lahore.

Many of the great performers of the past have the same background. One of the greatest vocalists, Gokhi Bai, was instrumental in bringing together the flavour of her background with the classical forms dhrupad and kheyal. Gokhi Bai was a gypsy whom the great Behram Khan heard in the desert and immediately decided to make a shagird. It is also said that the new emerging gaiki of the kheyal by Niamat Khan Sadarang was popularised by the gypsy women whom he had trained during the days of his hiding.  

Probably the time when charity or help was considered an act that better be done in silence has passed. The basic consideration behind anonymity and silence was that the dignity of the needy should not be hurt. It seems those days have been replaced by grand announcements on the media, blowing the biggest trumpet available and in the glare of the cameras track down its very execution like handing over cheques to artistes who can barely move or register what is going on in ICUs or CCUs. The politicians and others do get political mileage out of it but it would be so much nicer if executed in a low-keyed manner -- that helping out people, known people, does not become a sport. The most feasible way maybe by institutionalising the support system and for it to become a matter of routine rather than build it up as a special event demanding media coverage.  

Ajmal Kamal, one of the finest translators of world literature in Urdu, while translating a text from English, consulted the dictionary and found 'Mohsib' as the Urdu equivalent for 'computer'. Mohsib being originally an Arabic word, he searched the Arabic dictionary to discover that the actual users of Arabic had retained the word 'computer' rather than replacing it with Mohsib.

The tendency to use complex language is not just confined to academics and intellectuals; it is equally common among critics, writers and professors of art. Terms like semiotics, symbiosis, semblance, semantics, epistemology, philology, empiricism, float freely on the printed page and on the floor in any discussion on art. An ordinary person attending a meeting, participating in a seminar or reading an article on art in the newspaper may be justified in feeling the need to look up for meaning of different words in a dictionary or seek the help of an expert.

The reasons for employing such difficult expressions during a discussion or in a piece of writing -- where much simpler ones could do -- may be varied. One, of course, is the desire to appear erudite and profound and impress the readers or listeners. The tendency is not peculiar to our surroundings alone. Pick up an introduction for a conference in Delhi or a colloquium in Kandy and you will come across the same labyrinthine jargon presented in the name of language. The phenomenon is almost global.

While trying to deal with profound issues through their highly twisted diction, these writers, thinkers and educators lose the basic function of language -- communication. What Arundhati Roy describes as the function of state language -- especially the one presented at foreign offices -- of concealing the content, may be equally relevant to the present discussion. Most writers, in their attempts to appear sublime, end up hiding the real meaning and intent.

Somehow, the efforts to mystify the world of art and aesthetics -- now extended to art education -- are a means to maintain superiority on matters that are otherwise common and can be easily shared. It may also be true the enigmatic language is only a sign of inability to formulate clear ideas and convincing arguments.

Many of the acknowledged writers on art and culture, whether read in English or in translation, have expressed themselves in the simplest possible way, without making language a barrier for their readers. A piece of art criticism by John Berger, Clement Greenberg, Arthur C. Danto or Thomas McEvilley is never loaded with jargon or baffling terms. Their works communicate smoothly and swiftly. What is impressive about their writing is not words but thoughts and the pleasure of reading. On the contrary, a local magazine or book or a discussion on art in our society is loaded with phrases you just can't understand.

Another notion behind the complexity of expression is that a discourse on art must sound sophisticated and serious. To some extent, language employed in art has become a secret code, like the religious text, which cannot be fathomed unless you are high up in the order or consult a treatise. Art may not exactly have replaced faith, but for some individuals it possesses the power, the mystery and the spirituality that was associated with religion and is incomprehensible for the ordinary literate public.

Following the Brahman priest or preacher of Roman Catholicism, who had the key to interpret the sacred Word, many members of academia and some art critics assume the authority to decode art -- by first turning it into a complex entity and then shedding the meaning according to their whims. Through this process, they grasp an intellectual control on the minions which include painters, sculptors, printmakers, photographers, gallery, buyers and viewers. They keep impressing the general readers and influencing generations of art students who are often bewitched by the tone rather than the content. In fact, at some level, the abundance of obtrusive words and puzzling terms serve as a shield, so that no one is able to comprehend them and thus challenge their authority.

In their urge to turn art discourse into a superb act or sacred entity, most of our writers and academia actually scare the public away from art. Our society, in any case, does not hold a high opinion on art, and is reluctant to associate with it. So upon encountering a text or talk inflated with complex phrases and terms, any person initially interested in art soon gets disappointed, disoriented and distanced.

However, this is not to suggest that the quality of content may be brought down in order to have a more inclusive approach. All one wishes for is that language is made more accessible and is freed from pompous and superfluous expressions.

If it happens, perhaps our writers and academia could be liberated from their complicated concepts and utterances that will be a great service to art, people and the language itself.