Tughlaq by Girish Karnad

Who was the author?

Girish Karnad was a young Rhodes Scholar when he wrote Tughlaq. He spent lot of years in
England for his studies. Though he was very proficient in English he chose to write most of
his works in his mother-tongue Kannada. Tughlaq was his second play after Yayati.
What was his motivation to write the play?
Girish Karnad was one among the disillusioned Indians at the end of the two decades of
Congress rule under Pandit. Nehrus leadership. When India changed to self-rule after
British- rule in 1947, Indians under Pandit Nehrus government were hopeful of the perfect
world. That they were going to build with secular, just and democratic society. However after
two decades after independence Indian economy was in dumps and defeat in Sino-Indian
war shattered Indians dreams of ideal society.
Girish Karnad at this moment of disillusionment searched for parallels for the state of Indian
society in the history and penned Tughlaq.
What was the significance of main characters he created & what these character are
trying convey?
Tughlaq: The central character of the play is direct parallel to the Ideals & Dreams of Indian
society just after the independence and its subsequent disillusionment two decades after
self-rule.
Aziz & Aazam: If Tughlaq is an idealist who wants to shift his capital and change his currency
for the welfare of his subjects, Aziz is a realist and is a practical man to the core. The courts
judgment in favour of the disguised Aziz makes a mockery of Muhammads slogans of
secularism and justice, the underground life of Aziz and his associate Aazam mocks Tughlaqs
ideals about the welfare state.
Step-Mother: Step- Mother Character represents some faction of the Indian society who
completely trusted the visions of the perfect world. But when they faced another completely
different reality altogether they tried to find the reasons for this sad fate. These people
blamed the sycophants who advised the government at various important policies to be the
culprits.
Najib: Vizier Muhammad Najib is one of the trusted advisors of Sultan. He was poisoned by
the step- mother because she was convinced that he was the root cause of sultans cruelty.
In the Indian society Najib represents the few opportunists & sycophants who always
surrounded central government and influenced its policies. Few people who enjoyed power
at the centre.

1|Page

Tughlaq by Girish Karnad

Barani: Barani was the historian who was loyal to Muhammad till the very end. This
character represents the faction of people who believed in the idealistic Nehru government
till the end. The irony is that these people does not really influence the policy making they
were just spectators.
Why did not his subjects follow him like they did Gandhi though his visions were so
great?
Because he could not gain the trust of his subjects. He abolished Jijiya tax for non-Muslims
because he felt that he can never create an equal society with a tax like Jijiya. In the first scene
itself he announces that laws in his kingdom are just and anybody can sue state if they felt
deceived (Sultan is not above law). But his subjects were sceptical about these laws, they
were always wondering about the sultans true intentions behind these radical laws.
This distrust in sultan was possibly because of his ascent to throne after deaths of his father
& brother. He had been supporting himself claiming it was just an elephant accident. He lost
his patience whenever somebody brings this topic, aiding to suspicion. May be this had been
the origin of distrust and sultan failed to convince his subjects otherwise.
He was very learned and intelligent man, why did he not succeed?
May he was too clever. He believed that he only has the right answers. He game approach to
the life is his biggest undoing as could not trust anybody. He always manipulated others for
his own advantage. This led to the biggest void of trust in his rule.
He did not have people who can take his vision to his subjects. This seems to be the main
reason for his failure. Lack of people who support leader and carry his message leads to
failure. For example in the recent times Douglas Ivester, who became youngest vice
president in Coca-Cola failed miserably. He is considered as the most unsuccessful of all in
the history of Coca-Cola. He failed because he was alone at the top, no one supported him or
his initiatives, which were in fact the most innovative.
We all have visions before a thing is made real. Is there something called realistic vision or
is the word an oxymoron?
1. There is difference between vision and dream. Dream is just a vague thinking which
is not backed by any plan to realize it. Whereas vision is something which is concrete
with possible steps to be taken with commitment.
2. Nobody really know when a vision is implementable or pipe dream until it is
executed. Most of the innovations we are seeing today were once ridiculed as the
unrealistic when they were first conceived. Similarly so many people imagined flying
using bigger and bigger wings strapped to their hands and failed miserably (lost lives
in some cases). So realistic vision is an oxymoron.
2|Page

Tughlaq by Girish Karnad

Girish Karnad himself compared the play with conditions of India after the Nehru era.
Do you find any similarities of Tughlaqs rule in present India?
The Aam Admi Party (AAP) dilemma can be attributed to this play. Let us start from the
beginning the anti-corruption movement by Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal found somany
followers. Why? Because people of India can identify them self with what the leaders of the
movement are fighting for. Corruption it was a common enemy to everyone. So they
empathize with the leader and follow him as he is fighting their cause. We understood from
Making of the Mahatma, that people can follow a leader if the leader is fighting against a
common enemy.
What happened after AAP came to power? Now the leader Arvind Kejriwal is not one among
the masses. He is above his followers now. He has the authority to end what everyone fought
for. He cannot make mistakes. If he commit mistakes people wont forgive him because he
will immediately become the common enemy (if he falters). People can no longer empathize
with him.
Are there any counter examples for Tughlaq?
1. Tughlaq is hated by his subjects because he is cruel and people did not believe that he
can be kind. Emperor Ashoka also killed somany to gain & retain his power. He was
considered as blood thirsty beast. However when he adopted Buddhist priniciples, he
could convince his subjects that he changed. He did it by sending messengers and
influencers all over his kingdom to spread his message. He established Shanti Stoopas
etc. to legitimize his claims.
2. All the mistakes emperor Tughlaq did were infact attempted by one of the most
successful emperor Akhbar. He too abolished Jijiya tax. He formed a new religion dinun-ilahi to establish religious harmony and failed. He too tried to shift his capital to
fateh-pur-sikri and failed. But one important difference between the two was Akhbar
admitted his mistakes and retracted things that were not working. Tughlaq did not
do that. He thought going back on his laws will make him untrusting. He supported
unjust laws by thinking he is just.
Akhbar also had people who could convey his messages to his subjects and gained
their trust. Tughlaq failed in convincing his subjects.

3|Page