Tughlaq in History:
Tughlaq ruled India in the 14th century. Karnad came to know of this famous ruler of Tughlaq dynasty through Ishwari Prasad's book. He was fascinated by him. He himself writes, "And when I came to Tughlaq I said oh! Marvellous! That is what I wanted. But as I started reading about Tughlaq, I suddenly realised what a fantastic character I had hit upon. I started with Ishwari Prasad and then went onto all the contemporary material and suddenly felt possed, felt this character was growing in front of me."
"Certainly Tughlaq was the most extraordinary character to come on the throne of Delhi. In religion, in philosophy, even in calligraphy, in battle, war field, anything we talk about, he seems to have outshine anyone who came before him or after him. After that writing the play was not difficult at all. What was difficult was how to leave out what ore liked."
Tughlaq’s Regime as depicted by Historians:
After Ishwari Prasad, Karnad read the prominent historians of medieval period. He went through ‘Ziauddin' Barani's Tarikh-a-Firuz Shahi, Al Marshi's Maslik-al-Absar, Ibn Batuta's Travels, and Badoni's Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi. He followed the traditional sources which present prejudiced and biased view of the life and times of Tughlaq. But he deviated from history when it became necessary for him from artistic and technical point of views. In Tughlaq, Karnad delineates the last five years of the reign of Tughlaq. Karnad had made every possible effort to produce the atmosphere of mutual distrust, frustrated idealism, orthodox and convention ridden faith, communal intolerance religious bigotry, treachery and sedition, rampant corruption, swearing prices, natural calamities-plague and femine, the Sultan's unmitigated blood thirstiness and his final disillusionment.
Karnad's Delineation of Tughlaq:
Karnad's delineation of Tughlaq is based on historical sources. He sketches him as an embodiment of idealism, scholarship, religious tolerance and Hindu Muslim unity. In the first scene of the play Tughlaq is depicted as a generous and charitable Sultan. He accepts the judgement of Kazi graciously in which he is held guilty of confiscating the land of Vishnu Prasad. He not only returns his land but also gives him five hundred silver coins (dinars) as compensation. The Brahman is offered a post in the civil services so that he may earn a regular and adequate salary.
Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq was a great scholar, idealist and visionary. He was more learned and accomplished than any other ruler who had ever ruled India. He was a versatile genius. Most of the historians have appreciated him highly. The eminent historian Ishwari Prasad writes, "He was a lover of fine arts, a cultural scholar and an accomplished poet, he was equally at home in logic, astronomy, philosophy, mathematics and physical sciences...…He was well versed in Aristotelian logic and philosophy, so that divines and logicians feared to argue with him." The author of Maslik writes, "The Sultan is highly learned. He has mastered philosophy and logic and is fine calligraphist." Ibn-e-Battuta writes, "I have seen philosophical matters being discussed every day after the Morning Prayer."
Muhammad Tughlaq had discussion with non Muslim scholars too. He exchanged views with Muslims, Hindus, Jain scholars, Buddhist monks and Hindu thinkers. He was liberal in matters of religion. His liberal and rational religious views led the orthodox theologician to believe that he was a non-believer in Islam. Ziauddin Barani was one of such theologicians. But Ibn-e-Battuta tells us that the Sultan was very punctual in saying his prayer and by his order five times prayer has been made obligatory to every Muslim. "His standing orders were to the affect that prayers must be recited to congregation and severe punishment was meted out to defaulters. He extended his patronage to men of learning and piety."
Karnad's treatment of History:
As far Tughlaq's idealism, liberalism and nationalism are concerned Karnad's portrayal of Tughlaq is true to history. In the opening scene the old man who represents the orthodox class, bitterly criticises Tughlaq's liberal and rational policies. In his opinion the Sultan's being criticised by an infidel is an insult to Islam. The young man who defends the liberal attitude of the Sultan appreciates his devotion to Islam. The young man says to the old man that now the latter prays five times a day because it has been made obligatory by the Sultan. If he misses his prayer, he will be punished. He further says that he (the old man) cannot mention the name of any previous Sultan in whose time people read the Koran in the streets like now. Tughlaq's idealism and humanism are vividly expressed in his speech which he makes in his mother's presence in scene two : "Let us 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 now?
Karnad's Tughlaq is as distinguished a scholar as historians describe him. He tells Sheikh Imamuddin, his bitterest critic that it is difficult for him to get himself free from Greek influence: “I still remember the days when I read the Greeks—Sukrat who took poison so he could give the world the drink of gods. Aflatoon who condemned poets and wrote incomparable beautiful poetry himself. The poetry of Rumi was also on the tip of his tongue. The orthodox did not like his rational philosophy.
Like many other historians Karnad also holds Tughlaq guilty of patricide and fratricide. Tughlaq's real mother also believes that he killed his father and brother. Karnad does not sketch Tughlaq as repentant for his foul deed of killing his father and brother as he has to light his heartlessness and wanton acts of cruelty. Historical records prove that Tughlaq was filled with remorse over the murder of his father and in order to atone his crime he got his father's name inscribed on the coins immediately after his succession to the throne.
Change of the Capital:
Every student of History is well aware of Tughlaq's decision of changing his capital from Delhi to Daulatabad. Generally it is considered Tughlaq's rash decision. It is a turning point in his career and as Karnad delineates it causes great suffering to the common people, There are various reasons for his doing so. First, Tughlaq is a ruler of a vast empire which is extended up to the South so he wants his capital to be in the heart of his empire. Daulatabad serves this purpose. Second, Delhi is too near the border. It is generally plundered by invaders and so its peace is never free from the fear of invaders. Third, Tughlaq is in great favour of Hindu-Muslim unity. Daulatabad is a city of the Hindus and as the capital it will symbolize the bond between Muslims and Hindus which he wishes to develop and strengthen in his kingdom. Historical evidence also proves that Tughlaq took the drastic step to change the capital to keep the South under his effective administrative control.
Besides, the behaviour of the people of Delhi is not good towards the Sultan They speak ill of him. The Amirs, the Sayyids and the Sheikhs hatch conspiracy against him. They want to kill the Sultan at prayer time. So, he wants to weaken their power by shifting the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad. He can also curb the rebellions in the South. The Sultan makes all arrangement to ensure the comfort of citizen on the way from Delhi to Daulatabad so that the migrants may not face any difficulty. The Sultan is generous to all and sundry. Houses are provided to the rich and the poor. The Sultan makes liberal gifts to the people both at the time of their departure for and arrival at Daulatabad. Karnad does not bring into light the generosity of the Sultan and shows his act of shifting the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad as the whim of a tyrant.
Deviation from History:
Karnad makes deviation from History when he describes it as mass exodus. Karnad shows the Sultan using force to move people from Delhi to Daulatabad but this view is of the contemporary historians who condemned the Sultan indiscreetly. It is not correct. Actually no such force was applied. In fact the upper classes comprising nobles, courtiers, Sheikhs, Ulema and the elite were shifted to Daulatabad. The Hindu woman and other migrants are the imaginative creations of Karnad's mind for Karnad is inclined to highlight the vices of the Sultan. It is true that this move from Delhi to Daulatabad brought much infamy and unpopularity to the Sultan. The Sultan lost the confidence of the people. However, the change of the capital strengthened the feeling of national integration but Karnad does not mention anything about it. It is obvious that Karnad ignores the achievements of Muhammad Tughlaq and highlights only his mistakes and weaknesses.
Alteration of Historical Fact:
Karnad's depiction of Ain-ul-Mulk's revolt is not based on historical fact. In it he very much deviates from History. As it has been mentioned Karnad is inclined to prove that Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq was a devil. He has, therefore, greatly altered the historical facts of the revolt of Ain-ul-Mulk. Karnad makes Tughlaq weak. According to Karnad Tughlaq sends Sheikh Imamuddin who resembles him a great deal as his official envoy with the message of peace to Ain-ul-Mulk. As the Sheikh stands up to convey his message of peace, the Sultan's soldiers sound the charge. Ain-ul-Mulk's army take the Sheikh for the Sultan and kill him. So, Imamuddin who stirs rebellion against the Sultan in Kanpur is murdered. Ain-ul-Mulk is pardoned and he is again made the governor of Avadh. This description is not found in history.
Many other rebellions were also raised during Tughlaq's regime. These revolts maddened Tughlaq. Karnad also refers to the rebellion of Fakruddin in Bengal, we also come to know of an uprising in the Deccan, the declaration of independence by Ehsanshah and Bahaluddin Gashtap's preparation of war against the Sultan.
The Effect of These Rebellions:
The above stated facts prove that Muhammad Tughlaq's period was not peaceful. There was an atmosphere of distrust and perpetual rebellion. It left a bad effect on the Sultan. He became suspicious and vindictive. He could not trust anyone. He, therefore, gave severe punishment even for minor offence. He killed innocent citizens. He was a man of imaginative flights. He asked his subjects to carry out his fantastic schemes, and if they failed to do so, they got severe punishment. Failure to carry out the royal orders meant disobedience, hostility and wickedness and thousands of people were subjected to afflictions on this account. These views are based on historian Barani's description. Karnad also portrays Tughlaq in Barani's colour. He manifests that the Sultan was addicted to cruelty. In Karnad's 'Tughlaq' Barani says to the Sultan, "You won't let your subject pray. You torture them for the smallest offence. Hang them on suspicion. Why this bloodshed."
Ibn-e-Battuta also gives us a distorted picture of the Sultan. According to him Muhammad Tughlaq was despotic and derived pleasure in inflicting severe punishment on his subjects. The priests and clericals were deprived of their long enjoyed monopoly. The Sultan did not believe in the infallibility of priestly order. It is evident that Karnad is more influenced by Barani than by Ibn-e-Battuta and other historians who have endeavoured to present Tughlaq in balanced perspective.
Introduction of Copper Currency:
Another important administrative measure which is generally considered the result of the Sultan's whim and thus associated with his failure was the introduction of copper coins. In Tughlaq's time the silver dinars were the medium of exchange Tughlaq replaced them by copper coins. Barani's view that the Sultan's extreme generosity had depleted the treasury and it was a device to face the crisis of bankruptcy is only partially true. The reality is that there was a shortage of silver not only in India but all the world ever. The shortage of silver was further intensified in Tughlaq's time because his empire was vast. New mints were established to meet the needs of the expensive empire. Besides enormous expenditure was incurred on military expeditions and the Deccan experiment. Keeping these facts in view the Sultan introduced copper coins which had been in vogue in the thirteenth century in China and Iran. But in India the Sultan's experiment met with disaster because of dishonesty, unimaginativeness and non-cooperation of his officers and subjects. The minting of counterfeit coins became very common and consequently the national economy was shattered.
Girish Karnad highlights the failure of this experiment of the introduction of copper coins only to emphasis the Sultan's failure and he makes no comment on his farsightedness. In scene six Tughlaq makes known this people his intention of introducing copper currency along with silver dinars. He justifies his decision by citing the example of China where paper currency was successfully used as a medium of exchange. The Sultan is sore over the proliferation of counterfeit coins.
Policy of Taxation:
But in his zeal to be liberal and generous to Hindus, the Sultan deviated from the canon of law. He did not levy Jiziya. He rationalised the tax structure and thus incurred the wrath of the orthodox Muslims. Girish Karnad, as appears from his play "Tughlaq does not appreciate the Sultan's taxation policy. He seems to be in harmony with Barani and others who were critical of the Sultan's enlightened measure. The third man in scene I in Tughlaq criticises the Sultan for not levying Jiziya on Hindus. "All this about the Hindus not playing the Jiziya tax. That's against the Koran, you know." Amir II in scene V satirises the Sultan's taxation policy. "You can't take a step without paying some tax or another. There's even a tax on gambling. How are we to live ? You cannot even cheat without having to pay tax for it."
Natural Calamities:
Karnad gives us a concocted and exaggerated description of femine and plague that ravaged India during the Sultan's reign but he does not say a single word in favour of the Sultan who had to face a number of calamities both natural and manmade. In Karnad's "Tughlaq' Najib is an important and powerful character. Even the Sultan seems to be influenced by him. Later on the Sultan's step mother gets him killed in order to save the Sultan from his leading him astray. In history he is not a very important character. Girish Karnad portrays him as the evil genius of the Sultan in order to justify his aim which is to find a parallel in Tughlaq's administration of the India of 1960. The characters of Aziz and Aazam are the creation of Karnad's imagination. They have been introduced to provide us with humour and laughter as well as exhibit the failure of Tughlaq's administration. Karnad has erected the structure of Tughlaq's plot on the biased and partial views of Barani and other orthodox historians. Karnad in Tughlaq lacks in a just and impartial treatment of historical theme.
We may sum up this discussion with the views of M. K. Naik. "Tughlaq is a historical play on the life of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq of the fourteenth century India. Karnad himself has suggested that he found Tughlaq's history contemporary... However, Tughlaq fails to emerge as tragedy, chiefly because the dramatist seems to deny himself the artist's privilege to present an integrated vision of a character full of conflicting tendencies."
