TUGHLAQ as an Political Allegory

Tughlaq is the best historical play of Girish Karnad. It is described as a historical play because the principal character is taken from history and the events that constitute frame work for the plot of the play are documented as historical events.

                     A political allegory is a story, fiction, drama or a painting, that on the surface tells one tale, but has a hidden political meaning underneath. An allegory becomes political if it covers a political event or situation by producing a subtle commentary using other symbol.  

                        Here, the dramatist has taken up the last five years of sultan Muhammad Tughlaq who ascended the throne of Delhi in 1325 AD and ruled India till his death in 1351. Other historical events of the time of the sultan have been reported through the conversations of various characters. Hence the play offers a comprehensive study of the period under review.

                         Karnad tries to maintain fidelity to history and presents the historical events and complexities of the time in an objective manner. The dramatist introduces a few changes in the historical lines because he intends to make the play relevant to contemporary situations of the sixties when the country was passing through a phase of disillusionment after the death of Pt. Nehru. He found that there was the most idealistic, the most intelligent king whoever came to the throne of Delhi. The king had met the greatest failure in the annals of Indian history. Karnad writes:

                           “And within a span of twenty years this tremendously capable man had gone to pieces. This seemed to be both due to his impatience, his cruelty, his feeling that he had the only correct answer. And i felt in early sixties, that India had also come very far in the same direction the twenty years period seemed to me very much striking parallel”.

                              Karnad has presented Tughlaq as a bundle of contradictions and a queer mixture of the opposites. Most of his plans ended in fiasco and brought about untold human suffering on a largest scale. His reign is considered to be one of the most spectacular failures in the Indian history but it is also admired by a few eminent historians that the sultan was unquestionably the ablest man among the Indian rulers of the middle age

                               Karnad sticks to history in presenting Tughlaq as a just and generous king. In the opening scene, the sultan appears as a deeply religious person. He has no partiality for any particular community and makes an attempt for Hindu-Muslim unity. Hence he announces that the property of Vishnu Prasad must be restored. The sultan further sanctions him a grant of five hundred silver dinars and a post in civil service. The incident refers to his sense of justice, generosity and fair play in his kingdom.

                             In the opening scene, Tughlaq also declares his intension of shifting his capital from Delhi to Daulatabad. The dramatist points to its disastrous consequence on the common people and they are corroborated by history as well. Girish Karnad presents the act of shifting of the capital as only the product of the whim of the sultan. He brings into light the failures and the weaknesses of the king. His views are based mostly on the opinions of Barani and not on other historians. According to Barani, Tughlaq played with the lives of the people in his kingdom. He was whimsical and despotic ruler. He made plans out of his whims and forced his people to follow them. If they failed to do so they were severely punished.

                                   Historical Thughlaq is said to be guilty of patricide and fratricide. The sultan is guilty of killing his father and brother. History also tells about the feeling of remorse and repentance which Tughlaq observed over the murder of his father but Karnad does not mention any such feeling in the heart of Tughlaq.

                    The dramatist seems to point out that sheer idealism of the in the spirit of realism is bound to meet crisis and failure in the end whether in the fourteenth or in the twentieth century. The introduction of token currency was the most significant innovation of Tughlaq in the history of India in the sixth scene of the play the sultan informs that from next year his people shall have copper currency empire along with silver dinars and a copper coin will have the same value as a silver coin. In the eighth scene the sultan cannot sleep because his people make counterfeit copper coins. They even call him “mad Muhammad” and sultan wants to become vice again. Girish Karnad portrays this scene only to show the utter failure of Tughlaq.

                              The comic episode occurs in scene nine in which Aziz speaks to Azam : If you remain virtuous throughout your life no one will say a good thing about you because they won’t need to. But start steeling and they will say: “what a nice boy he was but he is ruined now”

                                This comic remark is allegorical and makes an indirect comment on the fall of the sultan. Tughlaq is not an ordinary chronicle but it is an imaginative reconstruction of history in the modern context.

                                 In the play history is mixed with politics and the dramatist seems to show that politics is used to promote the self-interest of the leaders and not the welfare of the people.

                                  However, the note of symbolism and allegory seems to be employed to make his historical play relevant to the modern conditions of India.

          

                                                                                                           Submitted by,

                                                                                                               Githika. T.

                                                                                                      IMA EnglishLiterature.