Tughlaq is a historical play, but while writing it Karnad himself was struck by the parallelism between the reign of Tughlaq and contemporary history. Tughlaq was a powerful personality, but he disintegrated within a short span of twenty years, and the mood of disillusionment that set in corresponds well with the mood of frustration at the end of the Nehru era.
“I did not consciously write about the Nehru era. I am always flattered when people tell me that it was about the Nehru era and equally applies to development of politics since then. But I think, well, that is a compliment that any playwright would be thrilled to get but it was not intended to be a contemporary play about contemporary situation. I think if one gets involved with one’s character’s or one’s play then it should develop into some kind of a true statement about oneself. I think a play can be only as contemporary as the playwright is. If the writer does not have contemporary convictions or is not committed, the play will not be contemporary. You cannot be fashionably committed or fashionably involved. If you are involved, the issues will come which if you are not involved don’t emerge.”
At every step the play reflects the chaos, disillusionment and corruption that followed the Nehru era, and this is one of the most important reasons of the popularity of the play. Tughlaq ruled in the 14th century and Nehru in the 1950s and 1960s. Striking parallels can easily be drawn between the two ages. This makes Tughlaq a great political allegory. An allegory is apparently a story but it carries within it a hidden moral lesson for the more discerning readers. It tells the story of the reign of Tughlaq and the rapid disintegration of his personality. It also tells of the shattering of ideals after the death of Nehru and the frustration and corruption that followed. A brief analysis of the facts would make the point clear.
Also Read:
- Plot Construction in Tughlaq by Girish Karnad
- Tughlaq as a Historical Play
- Tughlaq by Girish Karnad Questions and Answers
Karnad uses history and places facts of history in the midst of imaginary incidents and situations to dramatise history. The Hindus and the Muslims did not trust one another. The Muslims called the Hindus bloody infidels who deserved to be kicked. And the Hindus suspected the Muslims and could hardly believe that a Muslim was going to see them prosper and to exempt them from taxes without having his own benefit in view. A Hindu said:
“We didn’t want an exemption. Look, when a Sultan kicks me in the teeth and says, ‘Pay up, you Hindu dog’. I’m happy. I know you are a Hindu, but you are also a human being, well, that makes me nervous.”
The young Muslim reacted sharply and violently to this statement of the Hindu and called him an ‘ungrateful wretch’. The old Muslim warned the young Muslim becoming a friend of the Hindu. He said,
“Beware of the Hindu who embraces you, before you know what, he’ll turn Islam into another caste and call the prophet an incarnation of his god.”
Despite the best efforts of Muhammad to bring the Hindus and Muslims together, he failed. This fact of fourteenth century still holds good. Gandhi, the idealist, made attempts to unite the Hindus and the Muslims. Nehru followed in Gandhi’s footsteps. As a Prime Minister, he wanted to unite the two but he failed. There were Hindu-Muslim riots and deep rooted suspicion.
Karnad makes Tughlaq an idealist and establishes that in politics idealism does not pay. It is bound to fail, especially when the idealist is impulsive. Tughlaq is very intelligent and works very hard for the people. He is not able to sleep even at nights. Even the enemies of the Sultan recognize his learning and scholarship. Imam-ud-din, his staunch critic, tells the Sultan,
“You are one of the most powerful kings on earth today and you could spread the kingdom of Heaven on earth. God has given you everything power, learning, intelligence, talent.”
But this learned and talented Sultan is very impulsive. He cannot tolerate opposition. By means which are not always straight, he puts down dissension and wipes away the dissenters from his path of glory. Sheikh Iman-ud-din is his greatest critic. He rouses the people of Kanpur with his fiery speeches. He tells them that the Sultan is guilty of parricide and fratricide and that he is a great transgressor of Islamic tenets. The audience goes wild and burns down half of Kanpur.
The Sultan comes to know of the people’s rising and invites Iman- ud-din to Delhi to address his people and to analyse the Sultan’s administration and show where he has gone wrong. The Imam is caught in the trap. When he comes to Delhi he finds no audience to listen to him. Tughlaq has manoeuvred people’s staying behind at the point of bayonet. The Sheikh is depressed.
He is flattered by the Sultan and requested to be the royal envoy to the Nawab of Avadh to plead for peace in the name of Islam. The Imam puts on the royal robes and looking very much like the Sultan rides the elephant to the scene of the battle. All of a sudden the charge is sounded and the battle begins. The Sheikh is killed. Later Tughlaq murders Shihab with his own hands. He orders his mother to be dragged and killed for murdering Najib, the Sultan’s most trusted lieutenant. These murders in Muhammad’s own words, gave him what he wanted-power, strength to shape his own thoughts, strength to act, strength to recognize himself. All his idealism is shattered and thrown to the winds. Even Barani who was the best of his advisers tells him,
“Your Majesty. there was a time when you believed in love, in peace, in God, what has happened to those ideals? You won’t let your subjects pray. You torture them for the smallest offence. Hang them on suspicion. Why this bloodshed?”
This double facedness of Muhammad very much resembles the two faces of the politicians of today. The craftiness of Tughlaq is parallel in the arch-trickery and meanness adopted by those in power to wipe out the opposition and also that of the opposition to throw out the rulers in India after Independence and also in the eighties, the longing to rule by all means is as true as it was during the reign of Tughlaq. Gandhi was murdered by a mad Hindu. Pandit Nehru had to give up Tughlaq’s method of curbing the opposition. The rulers and politicians of our democracy adopted subtle methods which remain unseen by common eyes. In this, the rulers of the twentieth century are in no way different from the monarch of fourteenth century India.
Tughlaq’s character is used only as background to portray what is happening today. Tughlaq thinks that whatever he does is right and for the good of the people. He wants his path to lead towards greater justice, equality, progress and peace; he aims at a more purposeful life. And to achieve this end he proposes to take a new step to transfer his capital from Delhi to Daulatabad. He explains to the people that his empire cannot flourish with Delhi as capital. Daulatabad as a symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity will help to achieve his ideal. He seeks the cooperation of his people in this project. He says, “I hope I shall have your support and cooperation.” But they do not understand him. His idea is much ahead of the times and beyond the understanding of the common man. Besides, the Amirs of his court are not ready to carry out that even the best projects if not understood by the people and if not executed in a planned way, will only remain a dream and may frighten the people with tortures and sufferings. In contemporary India a large number of projects are set afloat for the welfare and prosperity of the country but because they are not wellexecuted, they fail.
People incharge of the project take bribes as was done during Tughlaq’s days while people were going to Daulatabad. The administrators become indifferent to the convenience of the common people as do Aziz and Aazam in Tughlaq, the people are bound to suffer. In India today crores of rupees are spent to check famine and drought and also to uplift the poor and the depressed, yet their condition does not improve because most of the money is misappropriated by administrators. Are we not shocked? A poor low paid servant dies and his pension is not paid to his crying widow and starving children for years together. When authority is placed in the hands of the official concerned the reward, for obtaining convenience (suvidha shulk), immediately makes the official work and help the needy. Was Tughlaq’s time in any way different from that of India today?
In Tughlaq, Karnad puts forward some of the historical facts: the burning of Kanpur, the revolt of the Nawab of Avadh, Fakr-ud-din’s revolt in Bengal, the uprising in Deccan and in Malabar. Ehsansha’s declaration of independence and Bahal-ud-din Gashtasp’s collecting the army against the Sultan, the revolt of Ain-ul-Mulk and Shihab-ud-din. All these incidents look like similar fissiparous tendencies in India today. The people in the South wanted a linguistic state, it was given to them, in the North the Punjabis demanding Khalistan are vocal from without and within and have been the cause of the murder of our beloved Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. Who does not know that a cold war is going on between the rulers of Bengal and Andhra Pradesh and those at the Centre? How is the India of today different from that of Tughlaq’s days? Only the people and personages have changed, the forces and the causes haven’t. The struggle to gain power and to perpetuate it is the basic fact that remains unaltered.
Karnad makes use of some actions of Tughlaq to bear upon the actions in contemporary India. Tughlaq lifted the jiziya and imposed taxes impartially on the Hindus and Muslims alike. This was done with a view to maintaining absolute impartiality. But this move of his was misconstrued by the Hindus. Ratan Singh, the adopted brother of Shihab, mocked at the impartiality of Tughlaq. He said,
“He is impartial. He levied such taxes on the poor farmers that they preferred to starve. And of course Hindus and Muslims are dying with absolute impartiality.”
Any tax imposed today is resented. Direct tax may be house tax, water tax, wealth tax or income tax is most vehemently criticised. They hardly realise that the taxes thus collected can be utilised for the building of roads and railways, for providing more and more conveniences and comforts to the people. Their only aim is to make the best use of the issue of taxes for rousing the people against the government
What Karnad shows in Tughlaq is that the idealist and his idealism do not go pand in hand with a politician and his politics. The idealist politician is a misnomer in any age. There are many idealists today who have to face challenges which they try to curb down in their own crafty manner. They are trying to make history not only in their statecraft but by producing lasting results. In this the attempt of Tughlaq failed. He could not produce any lasting result. Hence he was called mad. His idealism had become a mockery. Every act, sane or foolish, he wanted to justify. This is done by our modern rulers also. Even wars which cost innumerable lives and cause greatest of havoc, are justified. Nobody calls these rulers mad as the historians called Tughlaq, though they are no less mad than Tughlaq.
Karnad has succeeded in giving the feel of life of the fourteenth century which is quite relevant to the contemporary reality in India. Through Tughlaq he has shown not just the form but coiled intestines of history. Tughlaq was surrounded by the Amirs who were most stupid. They were in collusion with the king in robbing people and punishing them for being robbed. They did not advise him correctly; nor did they carry out his plans honestly. Karnad has satirised a nobleman, an Amir, a courtier, a very important clog of the government mischinery. In Tughlaq. Aziz says to Aazam “You are stupid. So you’ll make a good nobleman-an Amir.” What a similarity between an Amir and the politician courtiers of today.
Hello, Viewers! Besides being the Founder and Owner of this website, I am a Government Officer. As a hardcore literary lover, I am pursuing my dream by writing notes and articles related to Literature. Drop me a line anytime, whether it’s about any queries or demands or just to share your well-being. I’d love to hear from you. Thanks for stopping by!
