Taking Action: Contemporary Indian Drama. Sarup Book Publishers, New Delhi. 2013. Juxtaposed Paradoxes: Re-Interpreting Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq Urvashi Kaushal Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat Girish Karnad, one of India’s leading contemporary dramatists is a multifaceted artist with remarkable contribution in the field of Indian poetry, drama, film, television, theatre and criticism. As a noted stage actor and dramatist Karnad is widely admired as a man of immense genius and versatility. He was born on May 19, 1938 in Matheran in a middle class Konkani family. His father was a doctor in Bombay Medical College and was transferred to a number of cities in the western India. Karnad grew up watching plays practiced and performed in all the small towns they went to live. In an interview with Tutun Mukherjee he mentioned that his years in Sirsi, a small town in Karnataka where his father took a job after retirement, gave him ample “opportunity to see theatre in all its glory”. From Sirsi to Dharwad to Bombay to Oxford, where ever Girish Karnad went to continue his education, he pursued his love for the theatre and followed the new trends that were adopted. In Bombay, he was impressed by the use of lights in modern plays to depict the psyche of the protagonists. While in London he experienced some of the best plays by Shakespeare, Shaw, Osborne and Brecht being performed. As a lover of theatre he continued to follow it wherever he went and it helped him develop a critical faculty which later strengthened his writing. Karnad wrote his first play Yayati, while preparing to go to Oxford University on Rhodes scholarship. But like most creative writers, Karnad was not sure of it and did not get very encouraging response from the editors also. However, he modified it later and Yayati initially written in Kannada was later published in various other languages. His other plays Hayavandana, Tale- danda, Nagamandala followed and helped Karnad create a niche for himself in the list of Indian playwrights. Tughlaq, his second play was first written in Kannada in the year 1964 when a critic, Kirthinath Kurtkoti remarked that there were only costume plays and no historical plays in Kannada which appeal to modern sensibilities. Karnad took it as a challenge and decided to write on Muhammad Bin Tughlaq and his controversial regime. According to him it seemed to fit into the mood of the sixties which was dominated by disillusionment that followed Nehru era. Karnad himself had commented on this: 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 one of the greatest failures also. And within a span of twenty years this tremendously capable man had gone to pieces…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.(Enact 1971)
Juxtaposed Paradoxes: Re-Interpreting Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq
Mar 18, 2023
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Taking Action: Contemporary Indian Drama. Sarup Book Publishers, New Delhi. 2013.Taking Action: Contemporary Indian Drama. Sarup Book Publishers, New Delhi. 2013.
Juxtaposed Paradoxes: Re-Interpreting Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq
Urvashi Kaushal Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat
Girish Karnad, one of India’s leading contemporary dramatists is a multifaceted artist
with remarkable contribution in the field of Indian poetry, drama, film, television, theatre and
criticism. As a noted stage actor and dramatist Karnad is widely admired as a man of immense
genius and versatility. He was born on May 19, 1938 in Matheran in a middle class Konkani
family. His father was a doctor in Bombay Medical College and was transferred to a number of
cities in the western India. Karnad grew up watching plays practiced and performed in all the
small towns they went to live. In an interview with Tutun Mukherjee he mentioned that his years
in Sirsi, a small town in Karnataka where his father took a job after retirement, gave him ample
“opportunity to see theatre in all its glory”. From Sirsi to Dharwad to Bombay to Oxford, where
ever Girish Karnad went to continue his education, he pursued his love for the theatre and
followed the new trends that were adopted. In Bombay, he was impressed by the use of lights in
modern plays to depict the psyche of the protagonists. While in London he experienced some of
the best plays by Shakespeare, Shaw, Osborne and Brecht being performed. As a lover of theatre
he continued to follow it wherever he went and it helped him develop a critical faculty which
later strengthened his writing.
Karnad wrote his first play Yayati, while preparing to go to Oxford University on Rhodes
scholarship. But like most creative writers, Karnad was not sure of it and did not get very
encouraging response from the editors also. However, he modified it later and Yayati initially
written in Kannada was later published in various other languages. His other plays
Hayavandana, Tale- danda, Nagamandala followed and helped Karnad create a niche for
himself in the list of Indian playwrights.
Tughlaq, his second play was first written in Kannada in the year 1964 when a critic,
Kirthinath Kurtkoti remarked that there were only costume plays and no historical plays in
Kannada which appeal to modern sensibilities. Karnad took it as a challenge and decided to write
on Muhammad Bin Tughlaq and his controversial regime. According to him it seemed to fit into
the mood of the sixties which was dominated by disillusionment that followed Nehru era. Karnad
himself had commented on this:
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 one of the greatest failures also. And within a span of
twenty years this tremendously capable man had gone to
pieces…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.(Enact 1971)
Taking Action: Contemporary Indian Drama. Sarup Book Publishers, New Delhi. 2013.
In 1965, Tughlaq, which was originally written in Kannada was performed for the first
time and it was a grand success on the Kannada stage. Later it was translated in Hindi, Marathi
and on seeing the popularity of the play in Indian languages, Alyque Padamsee a noted theatre
artist, persuaded Girish Karnad to translate it into English. When its English version was staged
in 1970, the play was applauded by the audience and the critics.
Tughlaq is a historical play depicting the tumultuous reign of Muhammad Bin Tughlaq of
the slave dynasty. The action of the play takes place in Delhi in the year 1327, then on the road
from Delhi to Daulatabad and finally in the fort of Daulatabad. The story revolves around the
central character Muhammad bin Tughlaq as it begins from the time Muhammad accedes to the
throne of Delhi after his father and brother’s accidental deaths. One by one the play unfolds
Muhammad’s ambitious plans to transform his empire into an ideal state. He is introduced as a
great visionary with a vision to create a Utopian world. His scholarly background makes him an
idealist dreamer who wanted to bridge the gap between him and his subjects. As he tells his step
–mother “…Then again I want to climb up, up to the top of the tallest tree in the world and call
out to my people: ‘Come, my people, I am waiting for you. Confide in me your worries. Let me
share your joys. Let’s laugh and cry together and then, let’s pray. Let’s pray till our bodies melt
and flow and our blood turns into air. History is ours to play with- ours now!’ ”(Karnad :10)
Muhammad is portrayed as a young enthusiastic ruler who prays to god for no sleep so
that he has more time to put his plans into action. However, in spite of his enthusiasm his ideas
do not yield the expected results due to his lack of practicality. When he faces failures and is
deceived by his trusted followers, he becomes a bitter and insecured man. Thus the play depicts
the journey of Muhammad from an idealistic and religious person to a cruel and suspicious
tyrant. The play has been studied and critically analysed from various perspectives like political
allegory, historical play, existential concerns or symbols but the present paper aims to study the
use of paradoxes in the play to either bring out the different personae of Muhammad or to show
the varying situations that confronted his regime.
Paradox according to Oxford Reference Dictionary, is “a statement that sounds absurd or seems
to contradict itself, but may in fact be true; a person or thing that combines contradictory
qualities.” (607)
Joseph T. Shipley’s Dictionary of literary terms describes it as “a statement seemingly self-
contradictory or adsurd that on examination proves to be well-founded.”( Shilpey: 230)
The biggest paradox used in the play by Girish Karnad is the character of Muhammad.
Muhammad was the only ruler who had acquired a wide range of knowledge before coming to
the throne. He was a scholar and a learned man who knew logic, philosophy, mathematics,
astronomy and physical sciences. Yet history refers to him as the ‘wisest fool’, even Karnad’s
decision to write on none other than Tughlaq was based on this juxtaposed paradoxes in
Tughlaq’s life. The play highlights the contradictions in the personality of Muhammad . While in
one scene he is shown as a far- sighted and just ruler who wanted to share the joys and sorrows
of his subjects in the other he stabs his governor to death and orders Najib to behead those who
conspired against him and asks him to, “Stuff their bodies with straw and hang them up in the
palace-yard. Let them hang there for a week. No, send them round my kingdom. Let everyone of
my subjects see them.” (Karnad: 43) His acts of cruelty cannot be treated as an impulsive action
Taking Action: Contemporary Indian Drama. Sarup Book Publishers, New Delhi. 2013.
as he later he even justifies his killing as “No, they were not futile. They gave me what I wanted-
power, strength to shape my thoughts, strength to act, strength to recognize myself.”(Karnad: 66)
Secondly, the first scene shows the Sultan as a religious man who prays five times a day
and also makes it compulsory for his people to offer prayers regularly. But in reality the religious
ruler who considered prayers as sacred and holy uses this very occasion to get his father and
brother killed. Even the way he stabs Shihab-ud-din to death during the prayers points out the
two opposite personae of Muhammad, one that is pious and other who is vindictive to the point
of being blasphemous.
Muhammad was a clever man, we see this in the way he handles his staunch critic,
Sheikh Imam-ud-din. He employs a clever trick and gets Sheikh Imam-ud-din killed by his
rebellious Governor, Ain-ul Mulk. But in the very next scene Karnad brings out the impractical
side of Muhammad by showing his decision of introducing copper coins as the new currency and
later replacing every copper coin in his kingdom with silver dinar. His lack of foresight makes
him a bankrupt as every home in his kingdom becomes a mint that easily manufactured copper
coins.
When Muhammad succeeded to the throne of Delhi he was a dreamer and an idealist. He
dreamt of transforming his kingdom into a place of justice, equality, progress, peace and a more
purposeful life. With this thought in mind he introduces a new law which gave his subjects some
right, introduced copper coins, shifted his capital to Daulatabad. All these decisions he takes with
the aim of attaining peace and prosperity for his kingdom but he easily forgets everything and
becomes a cruel tyrant who felt that he only had the correct answers. Even when his idea of
introducing copper coins failed and he had to withdraw his copper coins by going bankrupt he
refuses to accept his mistake. When his historian friend Barani, points out,
“Barani: Your majesty, there was a time when you believed in love, in peace, in God.
What has happened to your ideals? You won’t let your subjects pray. You torture
them for smallest offence. Hang them on suspicion. Why this bloodshed? Please stop
it, and I promise your majesty something better will emerge out of it.
Muhammad: But for that I’ll have to admit I have been wrong all these years. And I
know I haven’t. I have something to give, something to teach, which may open the
eyes of history, but I have to do it within this life. I‘ve got to make them listen to me
before I lose even that!” (Karnad :56)
Moreover the creation of the character of Aziz who is brought in every alternate scene as
a parallel of Muhammad’s character is a paradox. Aziz is juxtaposed to show the negative side of
Muhammad. Hence this character placed as a parallel is a counterpart who matches Muhammad
step by step. While Muhammad uses his knowledge to plan and implement new ideas for the
good of his people, Aziz uses his intellect to find loop holes in these ideas in order to exploit the
situation. Even Muhammad understands that Aziz was a clever man who outwitted him in his
own game, therefore in the end he forgives Aziz. According to Muhammad all his life he waited
for someone to understand him and realizes Aziz understood him too well, therefore he cannot
punish someone, “ who spent five years of his life fitting every act, deed and thought” to his
words. (Karnad :82)
Taking Action: Contemporary Indian Drama. Sarup Book Publishers, New Delhi. 2013.
As a technique Karnad has employed paradox in the clear division of the scenes. While
the first five scenes show hope that Muhammad’s knowledge and ambitious ideas create in the
people, the last eight scenes are contradictory to it as they bring out the sense of dismay and
hopelessness that rules over his empire. The first five scenes of the play tell us about Muhammad
an idealistic ruler, a learned man with great ambition, a religious man who himself prays five
times a day and makes it mandatory for his subjects to also take time out for God. Hence the first
five scenes depict Muhammad, young and ambitious looking forward in anticipation. Whereas
the latter half of the play, mainly eighth to thirteenth scenes are full of cruelty and mindless
killing, they depict Muhammad in a sad light where he becomes suspicious of his closest people,
suffers from insomnia and becomes an egoistic tyrant who bans prayer and religion from his
kingdom.
The play begins with Muhammad‘s new rule to create equality in his kingdom. He sends
a messenger to announce that any injustice done by his government or his officials can be
challenged in the court. While his subjects are amazed by the announcement, Aziz wastes no
time and impersonates as a Brahmin who files a suit and is rewarded with five hundred silver
dinars and a job. To Muhammad it was a way to win the hearts of his subjects as he says, “My
beloved people, you have heard the judgment of the Kazi and seen for yourselves how justice
works in my kingdom- without any consideration of might or weakness, religion or creed. May
this moment burn bright and light up our path towards greater justice, equality, progress and
peace- not just peace but a more purposeful life.”
Thus Muhammad implemented this law with the aim of empowering his subjects and
when a Brahmin with the name Vishnu Prasad filed a complaint that his land had been usurped
by the government, Muhammad saw it as an opportunity to make the Hindus in his kingdom feel
equal. Therefore while Muhammad thought he was being magnanimous as a ruler by paying
compensation to his Hindu subject, he actually was deceived by a Muslim thug.
Karnad deftly creates another paradoxical situation, when Sheikh Imam-ud-Din the
staunchest critic of Muhammad is killed in the battle field, because he was dressed like
Muhammad and resembled him. In a clever trick to kill two birds with one stone, Muhammad
convinces his biggest enemy Sheikh Imam- ud-din to become his messenger of peace and meet
his rebellious Governor. Sheikh Imam-ud-Din, a cleric who had publically criticised him and
developed a consensus against him becomes a victim as he had a striking resemblance to the
Sultan. Dressed like the Sultan when he reaches the battlefield he is mistaken as the Sultan and
brutally killed. Hence a cleric who hated Muhammad is killed in a battle field where he went
with a message of peace, only because he resembled Muhammad.
Yet another paradox can be seen in the last two scenes, when Aziz a shrewd crook and a
murderer disguises himself as Ghiyas- ud-din Abbasid, the descendant of Khalif whom
Muhammad had invited to start prayers in his kingdom after a break of five years. Aziz posed as
a holy figure is at once ironical as he is the murderer of the Holy man he impersonates. The
situation is paradoxical as a corrupt and wily man who had not missed a chance to exploit
anyone masquerades as a saviour and comes to save Muhammad’s kingdom.
Thus with the help of all these paradoxes Karnad highlights the character and reign of
Muhammad, a learned person with the ability of a genius who becomes the biggest failure. His
impractical idealism clashes with rude reality and leaves him to be remembered as the “wisest
Taking Action: Contemporary Indian Drama. Sarup Book Publishers, New Delhi. 2013.
fool” in Indian history. In the words of U. R. Anantha Murthy “Thus, the external action
throughout enacts the inner drama of Tughlaq. Both Tughlaq and his enemies initially appear to
be idealists; yet in the pursuit of the ideal, they perpetrate its opposite. The whole play is
structured on these opposites: the ideal and the real; the divine aspiration and the deft intrigue.”
(ix) Hence, it will not be preposterous to say that paradox forms the leitmotiv in the play
Tughlaq, which not just helps us understand the character better but also gives a methodical
structure to the play.
Compact Oxford Reference Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press. 2001
Karnad, Girish. Tughlaq. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Karnad, Girish. 1971. “Tughlaq.” Enact. June.
Mukherjee, Tutun. Ed. 2008. “In His Own Voice: A Conversation with Girish Karnad” in
Girish Karnad’s play: Performance and Critical Perspectives. Delhi: Pencraft
International.
Murthy, U.R. Anantha. “Introduction” in Tughlaq. New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
1975.(vii-x)
Shipley, Joseph T. Ed. Dictionary of World Literary Terms. New Delhi: Doaba House,
1993.
Juxtaposed Paradoxes: Re-Interpreting Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq
Urvashi Kaushal Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat
Girish Karnad, one of India’s leading contemporary dramatists is a multifaceted artist
with remarkable contribution in the field of Indian poetry, drama, film, television, theatre and
criticism. As a noted stage actor and dramatist Karnad is widely admired as a man of immense
genius and versatility. He was born on May 19, 1938 in Matheran in a middle class Konkani
family. His father was a doctor in Bombay Medical College and was transferred to a number of
cities in the western India. Karnad grew up watching plays practiced and performed in all the
small towns they went to live. In an interview with Tutun Mukherjee he mentioned that his years
in Sirsi, a small town in Karnataka where his father took a job after retirement, gave him ample
“opportunity to see theatre in all its glory”. From Sirsi to Dharwad to Bombay to Oxford, where
ever Girish Karnad went to continue his education, he pursued his love for the theatre and
followed the new trends that were adopted. In Bombay, he was impressed by the use of lights in
modern plays to depict the psyche of the protagonists. While in London he experienced some of
the best plays by Shakespeare, Shaw, Osborne and Brecht being performed. As a lover of theatre
he continued to follow it wherever he went and it helped him develop a critical faculty which
later strengthened his writing.
Karnad wrote his first play Yayati, while preparing to go to Oxford University on Rhodes
scholarship. But like most creative writers, Karnad was not sure of it and did not get very
encouraging response from the editors also. However, he modified it later and Yayati initially
written in Kannada was later published in various other languages. His other plays
Hayavandana, Tale- danda, Nagamandala followed and helped Karnad create a niche for
himself in the list of Indian playwrights.
Tughlaq, his second play was first written in Kannada in the year 1964 when a critic,
Kirthinath Kurtkoti remarked that there were only costume plays and no historical plays in
Kannada which appeal to modern sensibilities. Karnad took it as a challenge and decided to write
on Muhammad Bin Tughlaq and his controversial regime. According to him it seemed to fit into
the mood of the sixties which was dominated by disillusionment that followed Nehru era. Karnad
himself had commented on this:
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 one of the greatest failures also. And within a span of
twenty years this tremendously capable man had gone to
pieces…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.(Enact 1971)
Taking Action: Contemporary Indian Drama. Sarup Book Publishers, New Delhi. 2013.
In 1965, Tughlaq, which was originally written in Kannada was performed for the first
time and it was a grand success on the Kannada stage. Later it was translated in Hindi, Marathi
and on seeing the popularity of the play in Indian languages, Alyque Padamsee a noted theatre
artist, persuaded Girish Karnad to translate it into English. When its English version was staged
in 1970, the play was applauded by the audience and the critics.
Tughlaq is a historical play depicting the tumultuous reign of Muhammad Bin Tughlaq of
the slave dynasty. The action of the play takes place in Delhi in the year 1327, then on the road
from Delhi to Daulatabad and finally in the fort of Daulatabad. The story revolves around the
central character Muhammad bin Tughlaq as it begins from the time Muhammad accedes to the
throne of Delhi after his father and brother’s accidental deaths. One by one the play unfolds
Muhammad’s ambitious plans to transform his empire into an ideal state. He is introduced as a
great visionary with a vision to create a Utopian world. His scholarly background makes him an
idealist dreamer who wanted to bridge the gap between him and his subjects. As he tells his step
–mother “…Then again I want to climb up, up to the top of the tallest tree in the world and call
out to my people: ‘Come, my people, I am waiting for you. Confide in me your worries. Let me
share your joys. Let’s laugh and cry together and then, let’s pray. Let’s pray till our bodies melt
and flow and our blood turns into air. History is ours to play with- ours now!’ ”(Karnad :10)
Muhammad is portrayed as a young enthusiastic ruler who prays to god for no sleep so
that he has more time to put his plans into action. However, in spite of his enthusiasm his ideas
do not yield the expected results due to his lack of practicality. When he faces failures and is
deceived by his trusted followers, he becomes a bitter and insecured man. Thus the play depicts
the journey of Muhammad from an idealistic and religious person to a cruel and suspicious
tyrant. The play has been studied and critically analysed from various perspectives like political
allegory, historical play, existential concerns or symbols but the present paper aims to study the
use of paradoxes in the play to either bring out the different personae of Muhammad or to show
the varying situations that confronted his regime.
Paradox according to Oxford Reference Dictionary, is “a statement that sounds absurd or seems
to contradict itself, but may in fact be true; a person or thing that combines contradictory
qualities.” (607)
Joseph T. Shipley’s Dictionary of literary terms describes it as “a statement seemingly self-
contradictory or adsurd that on examination proves to be well-founded.”( Shilpey: 230)
The biggest paradox used in the play by Girish Karnad is the character of Muhammad.
Muhammad was the only ruler who had acquired a wide range of knowledge before coming to
the throne. He was a scholar and a learned man who knew logic, philosophy, mathematics,
astronomy and physical sciences. Yet history refers to him as the ‘wisest fool’, even Karnad’s
decision to write on none other than Tughlaq was based on this juxtaposed paradoxes in
Tughlaq’s life. The play highlights the contradictions in the personality of Muhammad . While in
one scene he is shown as a far- sighted and just ruler who wanted to share the joys and sorrows
of his subjects in the other he stabs his governor to death and orders Najib to behead those who
conspired against him and asks him to, “Stuff their bodies with straw and hang them up in the
palace-yard. Let them hang there for a week. No, send them round my kingdom. Let everyone of
my subjects see them.” (Karnad: 43) His acts of cruelty cannot be treated as an impulsive action
Taking Action: Contemporary Indian Drama. Sarup Book Publishers, New Delhi. 2013.
as he later he even justifies his killing as “No, they were not futile. They gave me what I wanted-
power, strength to shape my thoughts, strength to act, strength to recognize myself.”(Karnad: 66)
Secondly, the first scene shows the Sultan as a religious man who prays five times a day
and also makes it compulsory for his people to offer prayers regularly. But in reality the religious
ruler who considered prayers as sacred and holy uses this very occasion to get his father and
brother killed. Even the way he stabs Shihab-ud-din to death during the prayers points out the
two opposite personae of Muhammad, one that is pious and other who is vindictive to the point
of being blasphemous.
Muhammad was a clever man, we see this in the way he handles his staunch critic,
Sheikh Imam-ud-din. He employs a clever trick and gets Sheikh Imam-ud-din killed by his
rebellious Governor, Ain-ul Mulk. But in the very next scene Karnad brings out the impractical
side of Muhammad by showing his decision of introducing copper coins as the new currency and
later replacing every copper coin in his kingdom with silver dinar. His lack of foresight makes
him a bankrupt as every home in his kingdom becomes a mint that easily manufactured copper
coins.
When Muhammad succeeded to the throne of Delhi he was a dreamer and an idealist. He
dreamt of transforming his kingdom into a place of justice, equality, progress, peace and a more
purposeful life. With this thought in mind he introduces a new law which gave his subjects some
right, introduced copper coins, shifted his capital to Daulatabad. All these decisions he takes with
the aim of attaining peace and prosperity for his kingdom but he easily forgets everything and
becomes a cruel tyrant who felt that he only had the correct answers. Even when his idea of
introducing copper coins failed and he had to withdraw his copper coins by going bankrupt he
refuses to accept his mistake. When his historian friend Barani, points out,
“Barani: Your majesty, there was a time when you believed in love, in peace, in God.
What has happened to your ideals? You won’t let your subjects pray. You torture
them for smallest offence. Hang them on suspicion. Why this bloodshed? Please stop
it, and I promise your majesty something better will emerge out of it.
Muhammad: But for that I’ll have to admit I have been wrong all these years. And I
know I haven’t. I have something to give, something to teach, which may open the
eyes of history, but I have to do it within this life. I‘ve got to make them listen to me
before I lose even that!” (Karnad :56)
Moreover the creation of the character of Aziz who is brought in every alternate scene as
a parallel of Muhammad’s character is a paradox. Aziz is juxtaposed to show the negative side of
Muhammad. Hence this character placed as a parallel is a counterpart who matches Muhammad
step by step. While Muhammad uses his knowledge to plan and implement new ideas for the
good of his people, Aziz uses his intellect to find loop holes in these ideas in order to exploit the
situation. Even Muhammad understands that Aziz was a clever man who outwitted him in his
own game, therefore in the end he forgives Aziz. According to Muhammad all his life he waited
for someone to understand him and realizes Aziz understood him too well, therefore he cannot
punish someone, “ who spent five years of his life fitting every act, deed and thought” to his
words. (Karnad :82)
Taking Action: Contemporary Indian Drama. Sarup Book Publishers, New Delhi. 2013.
As a technique Karnad has employed paradox in the clear division of the scenes. While
the first five scenes show hope that Muhammad’s knowledge and ambitious ideas create in the
people, the last eight scenes are contradictory to it as they bring out the sense of dismay and
hopelessness that rules over his empire. The first five scenes of the play tell us about Muhammad
an idealistic ruler, a learned man with great ambition, a religious man who himself prays five
times a day and makes it mandatory for his subjects to also take time out for God. Hence the first
five scenes depict Muhammad, young and ambitious looking forward in anticipation. Whereas
the latter half of the play, mainly eighth to thirteenth scenes are full of cruelty and mindless
killing, they depict Muhammad in a sad light where he becomes suspicious of his closest people,
suffers from insomnia and becomes an egoistic tyrant who bans prayer and religion from his
kingdom.
The play begins with Muhammad‘s new rule to create equality in his kingdom. He sends
a messenger to announce that any injustice done by his government or his officials can be
challenged in the court. While his subjects are amazed by the announcement, Aziz wastes no
time and impersonates as a Brahmin who files a suit and is rewarded with five hundred silver
dinars and a job. To Muhammad it was a way to win the hearts of his subjects as he says, “My
beloved people, you have heard the judgment of the Kazi and seen for yourselves how justice
works in my kingdom- without any consideration of might or weakness, religion or creed. May
this moment burn bright and light up our path towards greater justice, equality, progress and
peace- not just peace but a more purposeful life.”
Thus Muhammad implemented this law with the aim of empowering his subjects and
when a Brahmin with the name Vishnu Prasad filed a complaint that his land had been usurped
by the government, Muhammad saw it as an opportunity to make the Hindus in his kingdom feel
equal. Therefore while Muhammad thought he was being magnanimous as a ruler by paying
compensation to his Hindu subject, he actually was deceived by a Muslim thug.
Karnad deftly creates another paradoxical situation, when Sheikh Imam-ud-Din the
staunchest critic of Muhammad is killed in the battle field, because he was dressed like
Muhammad and resembled him. In a clever trick to kill two birds with one stone, Muhammad
convinces his biggest enemy Sheikh Imam- ud-din to become his messenger of peace and meet
his rebellious Governor. Sheikh Imam-ud-Din, a cleric who had publically criticised him and
developed a consensus against him becomes a victim as he had a striking resemblance to the
Sultan. Dressed like the Sultan when he reaches the battlefield he is mistaken as the Sultan and
brutally killed. Hence a cleric who hated Muhammad is killed in a battle field where he went
with a message of peace, only because he resembled Muhammad.
Yet another paradox can be seen in the last two scenes, when Aziz a shrewd crook and a
murderer disguises himself as Ghiyas- ud-din Abbasid, the descendant of Khalif whom
Muhammad had invited to start prayers in his kingdom after a break of five years. Aziz posed as
a holy figure is at once ironical as he is the murderer of the Holy man he impersonates. The
situation is paradoxical as a corrupt and wily man who had not missed a chance to exploit
anyone masquerades as a saviour and comes to save Muhammad’s kingdom.
Thus with the help of all these paradoxes Karnad highlights the character and reign of
Muhammad, a learned person with the ability of a genius who becomes the biggest failure. His
impractical idealism clashes with rude reality and leaves him to be remembered as the “wisest
Taking Action: Contemporary Indian Drama. Sarup Book Publishers, New Delhi. 2013.
fool” in Indian history. In the words of U. R. Anantha Murthy “Thus, the external action
throughout enacts the inner drama of Tughlaq. Both Tughlaq and his enemies initially appear to
be idealists; yet in the pursuit of the ideal, they perpetrate its opposite. The whole play is
structured on these opposites: the ideal and the real; the divine aspiration and the deft intrigue.”
(ix) Hence, it will not be preposterous to say that paradox forms the leitmotiv in the play
Tughlaq, which not just helps us understand the character better but also gives a methodical
structure to the play.
Compact Oxford Reference Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press. 2001
Karnad, Girish. Tughlaq. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Karnad, Girish. 1971. “Tughlaq.” Enact. June.
Mukherjee, Tutun. Ed. 2008. “In His Own Voice: A Conversation with Girish Karnad” in
Girish Karnad’s play: Performance and Critical Perspectives. Delhi: Pencraft
International.
Murthy, U.R. Anantha. “Introduction” in Tughlaq. New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
1975.(vii-x)
Shipley, Joseph T. Ed. Dictionary of World Literary Terms. New Delhi: Doaba House,
1993.
Related Documents
