[Type text]

Boro 1

Religion and politics in Tughlaq

Abstract
Girish Karnad is one of the most important Indian English Dramatist writing in post

independence era. He is often called a renaissance man having historic vision and modern

interpretation. Karnad’s Tughlaq is a historical play that is based on the life of 14th century

historical figure Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq who is well known for his idealism and

vision but is misunderstood and maligned too. It presents the contemporary political reality. It

also reflects the political atmosphere of sixties of Nehru era. Tughlaq is a blend of religion

and politics and this paper focuses on how religion and politics is interfaced or how religion

is used in politics.

Key Words: Religion, Politics, Doomed ruler, Nehruvian era, Idealism

----------------

Tughlaq published in 1964 by Girish Karnad portrays the inner action of the politics, it

exhibits how religion is applied as a means to gain political advantage. Karnad made a

successful attempt to introduce politics and religion in Tughlaq. Tughlaq who is the chief

protagonist of this new drama, is an idealist aiming at Hindu-Muslim unity, at secularism and

also at building a new future of India. The play depicts Tughlaq as a merciless monarch and

deceptive for achieving his own means. He also yearns for power and kills his father and

brother deceitfully and ascends the throne. He passes his time idly most often. There is much

less concern about his kingdom and he invests most of his times eliminating his enemies who

poses a threat to his throne. But at the same time one finds that he wished for creating an

ideal kingdom where there would be no religious differences and where the Hindus and

Muslims would have equal rights and respect. Not only this, he also wanted to strengthen the
[Type text]
Boro 2

economy of the kingdom and so introduced copper coins. In spite of all this wishes that he

fosters for creating an ideal kingdom, he could never come out of his hankering for power.

He kills his father, brother, step mother and the Imam but never repents. The number of his

crimes increase and what he appears in front of his countrymen is different from what he

actually is. Karnad brings out the conflict of the good and evil and also the religious and

political aspects and shows how the rationality with which Tughlaq tries to handle the matter

of his kingdom actually works against him by turning people from his court and community

against him. The hero of the sub plot Aziz, in the play is also a duplication of Tughlaq and

Aziz is at the end set free for all the crimes committed by him much like Tughlaq who at the

end is left alone sleeping when his supporters Najib and Barani leave him.

Sultan practiced the idea of brotherhood, which is an important aspect of human values

in Islam, and this in turn annoyed the ecclesiastics because it undermined their political

interests. The efforts of the Sultan to bridge the difference between Hindus and Muslims

invited anger and displeasure of Mullahs and Maulavis. To unite them, he abolished the jiziya

tax and openly declared that both Hindus and Muslims would be treated impartially and

would be equal in the eyes of the law. But this made him a suspect both in the eyes of the

Hindus and the Muslims. The old man in the first scene mocked at the Sultan’s liberal

attitude towards Hindus:

Beware of the Hindus who embraces you. Before you know what, he’ll turn Islam into

another caste and call the prophet an incarnation of his God. (Tughlaq, Scene One, Page

2, Lines 15-18)

Even Hindus, who were prospering and exempted from jiziya tax, never trusted on

their part. They bore with such insults silently. A Hindu expresses his anguish in the

following words:
[Type text]
Boro 3

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 I’m safe. But the moment a man comes

along and says, I know you are a Hindu, but you are also a human being. (Tughlaq,

Scene1, Page2, Lines10-13)

The young Muslim reacted sharply and violently to this statement of the Hindu and

called him- ‘ungrateful wretch’. Tughlaq remained an idealist and visionary throughout his

life. As he said to his step-mother:

I pray to almighty to save me from sleep. All day long I have to worry about tomorrow

but its only when the night falls that I can step beyond all that. (Tughlaq, Scene2, Page

10, Lines 21-23)

Even at the height of frustration he did not give up his visions and idealism. He tells

the young man:

Nineteen, nice age! An age when you think you can clasp the whole world in your palm

like a rare diamond. I was twenty one when I came to Daulatabad first and built this

fort. I supervised the placing of every brick in it and I said myself, one day I shall build

my own like this brick by brick. (Tughlaq, Scene8, Page 53, Lines 20-25)

By temperament Tughlaq was a rationalist and philosopher and he wanted to build up a

powerful and united nation. The far-sighted Tughlaq announced his policy to shift the capital

by saying that:

This is no mad whim of a tyrant. My ministers and I took this decision after careful

thought and discussion. (Tughlaq, Scene1, Page3, Lines30-32)

The discussion to shift the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad was taken because:
[Type text]
Boro 4

My empire is large now and embraces the south and I need a capital which is at its

heart. Delhi is too near the border and as you well know its peace is never free from the

fear of the invaders. But for me the most important factor is that Daulatabad is a city of

Hindus and as a capital it will symbolize the bond between Muslims and Hindus which

I wish to develop and strengthen in my kingdom. I invite you all to accompany me to

Daulatabad. This is an invitation not an order. Only those who have faith in me may

come with me. With their help I shall build an empire which will be the envy of the

world. (Tughlaq, Scene1, Page3,4 Lines 33-42)

Tughlaq’s rash decision to change the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad is a turning

point in Tughlaq, which results in untold and inexpressible suffering to the common people.

Prayer and religion are vitiated for power and money. Prayer is used to achieve an end and

not an end itself. The word ‘prayer’ is repeated several times and it reverberates throughout

the play. Karnad dexterously shows how prayer affects the ruler and the masses. The

powerful, the prosperous, the rulers can pray in peace. The poor who are exploited and empty

stomachs cannot even think of prayer. Their pray is only to earn bread by the sweat of brow.

To Tughlaq it was an masquerade to hide his guilty conscience and to the hungry people it

was luxury. In the atmosphere of atrociousness, cruelty, killing, sobs and sighs, wailing and

tears which india had during the reign of Muhammad, it was very difficult for the people to

pray.

This play which combines the religion and politics of an idealist, is of great interest to

the people of India. It aims at showing that the idealism of the ruler will fail and ruin the

idealist. Secularism, equality and unity in a country like India are the concepts very much

ahead of the times. The people of India are still led away by the saints and religious heads

who muddle with politics which is a game of seesaw. Still the Muslim saints Bukhari of

Delhi and the Imam of Garib Nawaz of Azmer go round talking about the parties they
[Type text]
Boro 5

propagate for. People believe them more than they do a politician. They are swung this side

and the side by their fiery speeches and vote for or against the rulers. Life of the people is

interrupted by the interactions of the saints and politicians. People suffer as they suffered

during the reign of Tughlaq.

Sultan Tughlaq’s crafty diplomacy of religion entangles him in bad condition. Ain-ul-

Mulk, who is dear friend, the companion of his childhood and the fellow champion in chess

marches on Delhi. On the other hands, Sheikh Imam-ud-din criticizes him publicly. About

Sheikh, Najib informs Sultan Tughlaq that “He says your Majesty has forfeited the right to

rule by murdering your father and brother at prayer time.” Ain-ul-Mulk and Sheikh Imam-ud-

din begin to prick in his eyes. Sultan becomes restless. Najib considers them treacherous and

tells Sultan that a traitor’s a traitor, friend or saint and he must be crushed. Sultan now plans

to thrash them by taking the help of religion. Sheikh is invited to attain a meeting where

Sultan tries to send him as a negotiator but he does not get ready because he has no trust on

Sultan. Sheikh warns Sultan, “Beware Sultan, You are trying to become another God. It is a

sin worst than a parricide.” But Sultan knows how to deal with his opponents and he has the

ability to turn the unfavourable condition into favourable. He uses his diplomatic mind and

expresses:

He respects you as every Muslim in India does. He will trust your words. That’s why

I’m asking you-will you please go as my envoy and dissuade him from this folly?

Please Sheikh Sahib, I am not asking you only for my sake but for all Muslim who will

die at the hands of Muslims if there is a war. (Tughlaq, Scene3, Page23 Lines12-16)

Sultan makes Sheikh ready to stop Ain-ul-Mulk in the name of Muslim. Sheikh is sent

to negotiate with him at Kanauj but he is entangled in Sultan’s trap. In fact, Sheikh Looks

exactly like the Sultan in royal rob who has become a victim of Sultan’s diplomacy. He is
[Type text]
Boro 6

treacherously murdered and Ain-ul-Mulk is made the governor of Deccan. When his body is

brought to Sultan gazes it for some time and pays condolence. Ratan Singh tells Najib:

I have never seen an honest scroundel like your Sultan. He murders a man calmly and

then flagllates himself in remorse. (Tughlaq, Scene4, Page 29, Lines 18-19)

This attack shocked Sultan deeply and he becomes mad in anger. He now does not want

to stay here for a moment. So he issues an order to vacate Delhi immediately. Everyone has

to leave for Daulatabad within fortnight. And he bans prayer till the arrival of holy saint

Ghiyas-ud-din Abbasid, the descent o Khalif. Karnad here shows the hypocrisy of Sultan

Tughlaq who uses religion as an object as an object for his politics at every step and when it

becomes danger to his life, bans it forever. But religion is Tughlaq’s weapon to defend

himself in the field of politics. When he finds no any means the implements it because before

religion everyone bows their head without any objection. When Ghiyas-ud-din Abbasid lands

on Delhi, Azaam kidnaps him and Aziz guises himself as Abbasid by killing him. Here he

become the royal saint. He turns himself into another religion and takes advantage of it. His

religion changing attitude symbolizes the modern Indian leader who changes themselves at

election time.

Sultan is aware of the irony of his life when Aziz, the only character in the play who

skilfully uses all the schemes of Tughlaq for his own designs, kills Ghiyas-ud-din and comes

in disguise as a holy messenger of peace to purify the land and revive the band prayer. Thus

Tughlaq is play of religion that presents the different usage of religion in different forms.

Karnad has beautifully shown how it determines the future of society and dominates people.

Sultan Tughlaq always misused the power of it. Sometimes he uses it as a weapon to kill

other. Sometimes, he applies it as a means to win the heart of public. Another time, he

imposes ban on it. Amirs, Sayyids too imitate his diplomacy. They take religion in their
[Type text]
Boro 7

hands to kill Sultan. Aizi gets reward and is appointed in royal court as an officer. Obviously,

Tughlaq reflects current socio-religious dictates that determine the socio-political system of

country. Tejwant S Gill analyses Tughlaq, \No wonder, the life, rule and time of this

charismatic and erratic emperor has past significance, the present meaning.....is getting more

and more pronounced within the passage of time.

Through the technique of establishing analogy between the past and the present, Girish

Karnad heightens the relevance of the play for the present time. The play does not merely

present a picture a picture of the past, but highlights its implications for the present. An

analogy is developed between Tughlaq’s reign in the play and the political situation of the

Nehruvian era. This analogy and its appropriateness make the play unique in terms of

contemporary relevance. Even after years of its first publication, the play continues to be

perceived as being contemporary.

One of the critical issues that Karnad addresses in Tughlaq is the striking gap between

political aspirations and its reality. In one of his interviews Karnad comments: When I read

about Mohammad bin Tughlaq, I was fascinated. How marvellous this was, I thought.

Tughlaq was a brilliant individual, yet is regarded to be one of the biggest failures. He tried to

introduced policies that seem today to be farsighted to the point of genius, but which earned

him the nickname ‘Mohammad the mad’ then. He ended his career in bloodshed and chaos.

There is a consistent conflict between reality and what is assumed to be the ideal state

of affairs. Tughlaq’s uncompromising idealism is strongly critiqued. As the drama opens,

Tughlaq, implores his subjects to observe a system of imparting justice without any

consideration of might or weakness, religion and creed. Karnad’s depiction of Tughlaq as one

who sought to put aside religious differences in the hopes of embracing secularism is a
[Type text]
Boro 8

powerful issue in the drama. Tughlaq states early on that he wishes to see unity between

Hindus and Muslims as a significant part of his vision:

Daulatabad is a city of Hindus and as a capital, it will symbolize the bond between

Muslims and Hindus which I wish to develop and strengthen in my kingdom. (Tughlaq,

Scene1, Page4, Lines2-3)

The impracticality of his aspiration collides with reality as Tughlaq fails in his vision.

It is because of such a condition that Karnad exposes his propensity to failure. This sense of

analogy that attaches itself to the play is when set against the condition in which it was

written. In 1964, India had been less than two decades removed from partition and

independence. The result was a nation where direction and transformative vision was hard to

establish. A nation born from Gandhian principles was still hopelessly locked in the sectarian

violence and communal hatred, the very elements that Karnad’s Tughlaq desires to overcome

in the drama. The theme of political aspiration being limited by temporal reality is a

significant one in both the drama and the historical condition in whch it was written.

Tughlaq’s initial judgement rendered upon a Brahmin that he should receive a grant of five

hundred silver dinars from the state treasury....and in addition to that...a post in the civil

service to ensure him a regular and adequate income is a reflection of how a transformative

political vision might not necessarily be received well by the public. This theme of political

transformation stumped in the face of temporal reality is a significant part of the drama. It is

reflective of the India that Karnad sees in front of him, a stunning realization between the

gulf between what is and what can be. The chaos and fragmentation that results out of a

vision steeped in genius becomes a part of both the ruler’s narrative and the nation’s history.

Tughlaq’s notion of religious tolerance prompts him to emancipate Hindus from the payment

of jiziya or tax. This vision of his is not properly understood and appreciated by his citizens,

who strongly oppose such a move. His policies and methods of poltical action were all ahead
[Type text]
Boro 9

of his time, and therefore received severe critique from his contemporaries. They were

formulated with the far sighted vision of establishing a secular kingdom, but were instant

failures as they failed as they failed to relate to the immediate reality of the subjects.

Conclusion:

Karnad’s depiction of the political chaos every now and reminds the readers of the

Nehruvian era in India’s political history. Karnad makes a candid confession in saying that he

did not write consciously about the Nehru era. He was always flattered when people told him

that it was about the Nehru era and equally applies to development of politics since then, but

it was not intended to be contemporary play about a contemporary situation. And we also see

from all the above discussions how Karnad presented Tughlaq as a symbol of religiosity. We

get see how in his kingdom Tughlaq tried to bring harmony between Hindus and Muslims.
[Type text]
Boro 10

Works Cited

Gill S Tejwant, Tughlaq: its past significance and present Meaning, Bharati Journal of

Comparative Literature, 2(1)

Karnad, Girish: “Collected Plays: Tughlaq, Hayavadana, Bali, Nagamandala”, Vol. 1 & 2,

Oxford, OUP, 2005

Karnad, Girish, Tughlaq, Oxford Uni. Press., New DELHI: 2007

Nehru Jawaharlal, The Discovery of India: Oxford University Press, 1999.