Paper 14; Module 16; E Text

(A) Personal Details

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof. Tutun

Mukherjee

University of Hyderabad

Paper Coordinator Prof. Asha Kuthari

Chaudhuri,

Guwahati University

Content Writer/Author

(CW)

Dr. Saurabhi

Sarmah, .

Guwahati University

Content Reviewer (CR) Dr. Lalan Kishore

Singh

Dept. of English, Guwahati

University

Language Editor (LE) Dr. Dolikajyoti

Sharma,

Assistant Professor, Guwahati

University

(B) Description of Module

Item Description of module

Subject Name English

Paper name Indian Writing in English

Module title Recreating the Past: Girish Karnad’s

Tughlaq

Module ID MODULE 16

Module -16

Recreating the Past: Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq

Introducing the playwright:

A playwright, director, screen writer and an actor, Girish Karnad has made a remarkable

contribution to the world of Indian theatre by writing plays in Kannada and translating them

into English. Born in 1938 in Maharashtra, Karnad had his schooling in Marathi. Later on,

when he was 14 years old, his family moved to Dharward in Karnataka where he grew up. He

did his graduation from Dharwad University and then went to England to pursue his higher

studies in philosophy, politics and Economics. After coming back to India, he worked with

the Oxford University press; but finally he left his job to pursue writing as his full time

career. During his tenure at the University of Chicago, his play Nagamandala had its world

premiere at the Guthrie theatre in Minneapolis. The performance was based on Karnad’s

translation of Nagamandala into English.

Karnad is one of the leading figures of what is known as the Theatre of the Roots movement

in India. This movement is an attempt by a group of playwrights to represent the

contemporary Indian society by going back to the root. Karnad uses myth and history to

represent the contemporary issues in his plays. History, myth, folklore and the native things

attract him most which he incorporates into his plays with a modernist point of view. He

stands as one of the most important figures of post-independence Indian English literature

whose plays have been translated not only into English but into various regional languages

like Assamese, Hindi and Bengali etc. All his plays have received both global and

countrywide acclaim. He himself has translated all his major plays into English which is

another outstanding talent this playwright possesses. Karnad is also the pioneer of modern

drama in Kannada just as Tendulkar did it for Marathi and Mohan Rakesh for Hindi theatre.

Karnad has been awarded with Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan by the Government of India.

He was awarded with The Jnanpith award for Kannada literature. He also received Sahitya

Academy, Kalidas Samman, Rajyotsava Award and Film fare awards for Best director to

name a few. In the year 2011, Karnad was conferred honorary doctorate degree by the

University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

In his modern plays, Karnad makes an attempt to recreate the past in the present. Herein

Karnad’s move resembles what T.S. Eliot said in his famous essay “Tradition and Individual

Talent (1919)”. According to Eliot, neither a poet and nor an artist of any art has his complete

meaning alone. His significance lies in his relation to the dead poets. In order to value him,

one has to set him in the past for contrast and comparison. Eliot also said that the difference

between the present and the past is that the conscious present is an awareness of the past

(1963: 141-142).

Girish Karnad has chosen to write in a language which is neither English nor his mother

tongue Konkani; but in Kannada. During the time when Karnad started writing, Kannada

literature was highly under the influence of Western renaissance and its literature. But,

Karnad keeps himself away from such influence and goes back to his past and tries to revive

it in the present. He collects the historical and mythological sources and tries to represent the

contemporary issues in relation to them. Thus, he writes his first play Yayati (1961) which

represents the ironies of life through the characters in Mahabharata. The play receives much

popularity and soon gets translated into various languages. Tughlaq (1964) is another play

which establishes Karnad as one of the most promising playwrights of the contemporary

India. The play has been translated into German and Hungarian, apart from English and

other regional languages. His plays include – Hayavadana, Yayati, Tughlaq, The Fire and the

Rain, Nagamandala, The Dreams of Tipu Sultan to name a few. Apart from writing plays,

he has also worked as director, actor and screenwriter for many Kannada movies such as

Kadu, Kanooru Heggadithi, Samskara, Vamsha Vriksha etc.

In this module, we discuss Tughlaq - a historical play written by Girish Karnad. Originally

written in Kannada, Tughlaq has been translated into English by Girish Karnad himself.

Hence, we can put Tughlaq in the genre of Indian writing in English.

Understanding Historical Plays:

A historical play is based on historical narratives. It may be set in any period of the past. The

trend of writing historical plays was set by William Shakespeare with his plays like Henry VI,

Henry V, King John, Richard II, Richard III etc. His plays still define the genre in the West.

History is one of the three main genres in Western theatre along with tragedy and comedy

In India, the emergence of historical plays is a 19th century development. The growth of

historical plays coincided with the growth of people's interest in the Indian past and history in

general. The Indian dramatist realised the importance of using the past as a means for social

and political change and betterment. Simultaneously, the Western influence also impacted a

lot by influencing Indian writers take interest in European historical romances and theatre.

Thematically, the historical plays deal with widely diversified themes and characters

compared to the social realist plays and mythological plays which exhibit a unity in terms of

themes. In Assam, the trend of writing historical plays was initiated by Lakshminath

Bezbaroa who chose to write a play on the life of Jaymati Kuwari. Simultaneously, several

Marathi writers chose to write on the life of historical characters like Shivaji with great pride;

the Bengali writers chose to write on the lives of Pratapadiya and Sirajuddaula. Thus, the

celebration of regional and leaders and heroines made a substantial contribution to the growth

of historical plays. The playwrights found enough source of information to write plays based

on history and the genre of writing historical plays came be established as a part of Indian

literature.

The genre played a major role in the rebirth of political theatre in India. Girish Chandra

Ghosh, known as the father of Bengali theatre wrote Sirajuddaula in 1905, Chhatrapati in

1908 and Mirkasim in 1906 inspired by the partition movement in India. Apart from

Girishchandra, there were other playwrights like D.L. Roy who wrote historical plays such

as Mewar Patan (the downfall of the Mewar), Chandragupta, Rana Pratapsinha, and

Nurjahan to name a few. These are some of the examples of historical plays written during

the pre-independence period. And these plays were mostly written in the regional languages.

However, when we talk about Indian drama in English and especially historical plays written

in the contemporary period, the numbers are very less.

Among the post independent dramatist, it is only Girish Karnad who has made a serious

attempt to write plays on historical themes. Tughlaq is Girish Karnad’s second play after

Yayati. Tughlaq was first published in 1964 in Kannada. Later on, the play has been

translated into Urdu, English and many other Indian languages. The English translation of

Tughlaq has been done by Karnad himself after being requested by Alyque Padamsee. The

first production of Tughlaq took place in Kannada in 1965. At the same time it was also

performed in Hindi by the National School of drama. The performance of Tughlaq was a

great success on the stage which encouraged many theatre enthusiasts to translate the play

and perform it in other languages. Apart from Kannada, Tughlaq has been performed in the

languages like Marathi, Bengali and Assamese. The English production of Tughlaq appeared

in 1970 in Mumbai. Produced by Alyque Padamsee at Bhulabhai Desai Auditorium, this

English production helps the play to get a good amount publicity and popularity which it

deserves.

About Mohammad-bin- Tughlaq:

Mohammad -bin-tughlaq was one of Mughal emperors who ruled India in the 14th century.

He was the eldest son of Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq. He ruled for 26 years in India, from 1325 to

1351. Popularly known as the ‘man of ideas’, Tughlaq was one of the most brilliant kings to

come to the throne of Delhi. Despite his great and innovative ideas, his reign was marked by

great failures. His impatience and haste in executing his ideas into reality are considered to be

the major reasons of those failures.

History behind the creation of Tughlaq:

The history behind the creation of Tughlaq by Karnad is the criticism of Kritinath Kurtkoti on

Kannada drama that no Kannada writer has made the effort to take up the historical events

and explore the new layers of truth that may arise out of them; no attempt has been made in

Kannada literature to explore the Indian past in the present. Karnad found it a point to be

contemplated and started reading Indian history extensively. Finally, the history of 14th

century India drew his attention, particularly the period of Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq as

Karnad could find my resemblances between that period and the India of his time. So, Karnad

decides to explore this episode further in his writing.

Summary and Analysis of Tughlaq in the light of History:

Tughlaq is based on the life and story of Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq— the most controversial

ruler of the Delhi sultanate. The play begins with a group of citizens (including both the

Muslims and the Hindus) discussing the activities of the present Sultan Mohammad-bin-

Tughlaq. The majority of the crowd is dissatisfied with the new royal policies and

improvement measures developed and implemented by the sultan. The Muslim population

envy the sultan because he gives the Hindus equal share of justice, listens to their complaints

and works for their improvement; while the majority of the Hindus find it difficult to accept

that a Muslim ruler can be so compassionate about the Hindus. Contrary to Tughlaq’s

imagination, his unbiased treatment towards the Hindus turns him into a man suspect

intentions for the Hindus. Only a very few people support Tughlaq and defend the king

against all the accusations.

One day, the king makes a sudden announcement before his people that he has decided to

shift the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad. He thinks that Delhi is too near to the broader and

easily viable for the invaders to attack, whereas Daulatabad is situated at the heart of the

country. His second concern is that Daulatabad is a city populated by the Hindus and as a

capital it will help in building the bond between the Hindus and Muslims. So, Tughlaq

appeals to his citizens to support and cooperate with him in this venture. But, instead

welcoming this decision by the inhabitants of Delhi, many silent protests come up; but all go

in vain. Out of fear, the inhabitants of Delhi shift to Daulatabad. In the whole journey many

people lose their lives; famine occurs and the normal life gets disrupted.

The play also depicts Tughlaq’s second major decision to introduce copper currency in the

place of silver currency as he notices that silver coins are becoming very limited in stock. A

copper coin will have the same value as a silver coin has. However, this decision also leads to

failure as people do not understand its significance, and many people take advantage of this

decision by producing fake currency and bringing the economy down. Thus, the calculated

and far sighted moves of Tughlaq have been misunderstood by the majority, and misused by

a group of his opponents. No doubt, Tughlaq takes some important decisions to tighten and

secure the future of the country; but he is misinterpreted as a mad king by his ruled class.

The play also represents the psychological dilemma faced by the king. He goes through a

deep mental set back after committing the countless number of murders. He would order a

death sentence to anybody who would exhibit signs of infidelity or turns out to be an obstacle

in his path. His father, brother and even his step mother whom he loved most, failed to

escape his wrath. He orders a death sentence for his step mother for killing Najib, one of his

best friends and advisers. Immediately after passing the judgments Tughlaq breaks into tears.

The two sides of his personality - anger and self-repentance – is powerfully represented in the

play.

Tughlaq also represents the creative side of the character of Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq. The so

called mad king is a poet, a philosopher and a great lover of history. His introspective nature

comes to light when he questions his very identity as a king by raising so many philosophical

questions before himself. Finally, the play comes to an end amidst great disorder, confusion

and rebellion engulfing Daulatabad. Towards the end of the play Barani (his best friend,

guide and historian) also decides to leave Tughlaq. Finally, Tughlaq finds himself in a

position where he is all alone. Gradually the empire disintegrates as one by one his provinces

start revolting against him. Amidst all this chaos, Mohammad Bin Tughlaq died in 1351.

Considered as one of the literary masterpieces in Kannada, Tughlaq is a historical and

political play dealing with the region of the most controversial Mughal emperor Mohammad

Bin Tughlaq. Tughlaq is defined as a historical play because the chief protagonist is a

character taken from history and the play documents a series of past events that took place

during the reign Tughlaq. It can also be considered as a political play as it represents the reign

of a king and his various moves to unify the Hindus and Muslims, and establish a just

kingdom in Delhi.

Tughlaq is based on Girish Karnad’s extensive research on Indian history. As he himself says

“I borrowed an elementary textbook of Indian history from the library and started with

Mohenjodaro… I began combing my way through the various ages, kingdoms, and dynasties,

scanning the landscape for some figure or event…I reached fourteenth century and there in

the reign of Muhammad Tughlaq, I came to a halt”.

The play is an attempt to explore and re-read the character of Tughlaq and his reign. The play

deals with a series of events that occurred during his reign. Guided by his reformist zeal,

Tughlaq had a tendency to run and think ahead of his time. He had great ideas, but there were

problems in implementation because he did not receive adequate support from his ruled class

and fellow employees. His fellow Muslim employees and the Hindus did not support his

ideas of keeping religion out of politics and forming a unified India. The play discusses the

consequences of his decisions which the members of his court did not welcome; rather

misinterpreted his great decisions. The play aims at capturing the helplessness of a great ruler

and his downfall in the hands of his own religion and business class.

Tughlaq is the dominant character of the play with all its ambiguities. Tughlaq is what he

chooses to be, and he is self-confident enough of the truthfulness of his choice/decision. That

his choice is a well thought one, it becomes evident when he says to Sheikh Imam-ud-Din

that he has read about Sukarat taking poison to give the world the drink of God; Aflatoon

who condemned the poet himself wrote excellent poetry and likewise Tughlaq himself has

also felt the thrill of a new world, a world which he had not found in the Koran. In the play,

we see him making certain difficult decisions. But his choice was guided by the best

intentions. But his decisions, ideas and policies were continuously rebelled against and

resisted by his citizens which compelled him to take very rash steps against his own citizens.

He not only dares to kill Sheik Imam ud-din, but also thousands of his own citizens, his own

father, brother, and stepmother.

The main source of Tughlaq for Karnad was Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi – a historical chronicle

written by Zia-ud-din Barani who spent almost 17 years at Tughlaq’s court and finally died of

self-imposed poverty. Using the basic narrative provided by Barani and also studying his

attitude to the Sultan, Karnad has a created the play which contains thirteen scenes. Now, the

question is how far objective Barani’s account of the Sultan given that Barani himself did not

support many of his decisions and ideas. In her essay on “Historical Fictions and Post-

colonial Representation: Reading Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq”, Aparna Dharwadkar discusses

this point. According to her Barani complains of the Sultan from being highly influenced by

the dogmas of the philosophers. Besides, Barani did not like the merciless killings of the

Musulmans, and the execution of true believers. Dharwadkar points out that Peter Hardy was

the first modern historian to point out that Barani’s religious orthodoxy shaped his narrative

of Tughlaq; because Barani belonged to the class of Ulema whose political influence Tughlaq

wanted to diminish (in Tughlaq 2014: 96- 97). Many historians seem to agree that portraying

Tughlaq in a negative manner was Barani’s deliberate choice as he was strongly critical of

anything that defied or went against the Islamic tradition.

Perhaps, this is where the element of subjectivity touches the historical narrative of Tughlaq

recorded by Barani. In his book What Is History? (1961), E.H. Carr has pointed out the

subjective nature of historical narratives. According to Carr, the facts of history can only

speak when the historian wants them to speak. The facts are dependent on the consciousness

and personal choice of the historian who selects, arranges and interpret the facts. Likewise,

Barani’s attempt to portray Tughlaq in this light can be his personal choice - as personally he

had not supported many of his moves which destabilised the religious differences and the

power of the Musulmans.

In the play Tughlaq, Karnad makes an attempt to explore this historical character further, and

also this relatively unfamiliar phase of Islamic imperialism in India. This important phase of

Indian history got marginalised in the collective history of Indian people by the later periods

of Mughal Empire and British imperialism which Karnad tries to retrieve in Tughlaq.

Besides, the play enables the reader to question and subvert the dominant construction of

Tughlaq’s image as an intelligent but incapable ruler of the Delhi Sultanate by bringing out

the positive aspects of his character and his best intentions. For Karnad, he was a Sultan “who

was not worried about his enemies; but only worried about his people.” (2014:11).

Not only does Tughlaq contain a historical account of the reign of Tughlaq, but it also

represents the very process of history making and the importance of history as a genre. The

famous historian Barani is one of the characters included in the play through whom Karnad

brings into discussion how history is created by the historians, and how it is dependent on

their personal likes and dislikes.

Tughlaq offers a new direction to the past in the present. Beside, the contemporary relevance

of the Tughlaq is immense which the author himself has talked about. The play’s

resemblance to a particular period in the postcolonial India – that is the Nehruvian era – has

often been noticed. The play was produced in Marathi by Satyadev Dubey in Pune and this

was a time when Indira Gandhi had been assassinated by her personal bodyguard in her own

residence. To Karnad’s utter surprise, the audience could relate the play’s theme to the

current political scenario. The audience seemed to greet the line “…invariably, forts crumble

from inside”. According to Karnad, this kind of linking of a line spoken on stage to

something outside the world reveals the great strength that theatre can possess. Karnad has

also commented on the contemporary relevance of the play Tughlaq:

“What struck me absolutely about Tughlaq’s history was that it was contemporary.

The fact that here was the most idealistic, the most intelligent king ever to come on

the throne of Delhi…and of the greatest failures also…And I felt in the early sixties

India had also come very far in the same direction—the twenty- year period seemed to

me very much a striking parallel”

Although the play was not intended as a direct political allegory, its resemblance to the then

contemporary situation cannot be overlooked. The same idea has been pointed out by U. K.

Ananthamurthy, one of most important writers and critic of contemporary times. According

to him, one of the main reasons that the play appealed most to the Indian audience is that the

play came out in 1960s and seemed to reflect the political mood of disillusionment that

followed the Nehruvian era of idealism in India (xxv-xxvi). In one of his interviews, Karnad

says that twenty-two year period of Tughlaq’s decline offers a striking parallel to the first

two decades of Indian independence under Nehru’s leadership and Nehru was remarkably

like Tughlaq in his propensity for failure despite an extraordinary intellect ( in Tughlaq:99-

100).

Aparna Dharwadkar in the same essay discusses some connections/similarities between

Tughlaq and Nehru. For Nehru, India was in his blood and there was much in her that

instinctively thrilled him. He wanted his people to realise the hidden and stored energy in

them that would help his people to move on. The same line of thinking is also noticeable in

Tughlaq who expresses the same desire for a transformative and unprecedented union with

his people. Nehru adopted a secularist stance towards the citizens. His idea of Indian culture

was an assimilative, secularist and pluralistic one and he was totally intolerant about religious

orthodoxy. But in reality, that secularism never came. The same attempts had been made by

Tughlaq also; but secular nationhood was far away. In a sense Tughlaq’s history gets

repeated during the reign of Nehru. Both Tughlaq and Nehru tried to unify the Hindus and the

Muslims which finally ended up with disillusionment and chaos.

The comparison of the Nehruvian era to Tughlaq’s reign is something that points to the

similar situations that occurred in the 14th and 17th century respectively. Apart from this

comparison or the contemporaneity of the play in the 17th century, if we place the play in our

own time and re-read it, we still find that the play and its issues are still relevant. The

unattainability of idealistic politics and secularism in India are the two major issues that had

not only shaken Tughlaq’s reign, we are also affected by the same problems. Even the 21st

century continues to fight for similar socio-political issues. The continued power struggle

between different political parties, their attack on each other in the name of power and the

conflict between people separated by caste, class, gender, race and religion – these are some

of the problems that existed in the past and also exists in the present. The demand for

different states by different minority groups is still an ongoing issue in India. Be it the

demand for Bodoland or Telengana— the struggle for power and identity is everywhere.

Hence, the issues represented in Tughlaq, although they are historical, are still relevant in the

contemporary context.

Tughlaq can be considered as a modern play because it touches upon various aspects of our

modern day existence. The play incorporates both symbolism and allegory to represent the

past. The existential choice in Tughlaq, his split personality – these are some of the aspects

which have given the play a modern touch. The two characters Barani and Nazib represent

the two selves that Tughlaq carries with him— a historian and a hard-core politician. The

play also emphasises the outcome of the choices that Tughlaq makes. He makes all his

choices and decisions with full knowledge and awareness. But the same choices/decisions

bring about his downfall. But, he is a person who stands firm in his decisions despite its

horrible outcomes.

Tughlaq is a sensitive portrayal of a visionary ruler who was progressive in his outlook and

wanted to establish a political system based on equality irrespective of the existing class,

caste and religious difference. But his citizens and fellow employees could hardly understand

his far-sightedness and opposed him. According V.N.Das, Tughlaq is an objective and

detached study of an important era with Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq at the centre. It is a

dramatic interpretation of the process of history in terms of an individual character (in

Mukherjee: 91).