Introduction:
Tughlaq by Girish Karnad is a remarkable historical play in which history is not merely reconstructed but critically reinterpreted to reflect deeper political and psychological realities. Although the play is set in the fourteenth century and is based on the reign of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq, Karnad does not present history as a simple record of past events. Instead, he uses historical facts as a framework to explore themes of idealism, power, disillusionment, and the tragic consequences of political ambition.
The historical events—such as the shifting of the capital and the introduction of copper currency—are artistically reshaped to highlight the inner conflict of the ruler and the gap between vision and practical governance. Thus, Tughlaq treats history not as a dead chronicle but as a living medium through which contemporary political concerns and universal human dilemmas are powerfully expressed.
Introduction to Tughlaq and Karnad’s Fascination:
Tughlaq was a ruler of India in the fourteenth century. Girish Karnad first learned about this renowned monarch of the Tughlaq dynasty through the writings of Ishwari Prasad, and the figure immediately captivated him. Reflecting on this experience, Karnad notes that his initial reaction was one of wonder and excitement, as he felt he had found exactly what he was looking for.
However, as he delved deeper into Tughlaq’s life and reign, he became increasingly aware of the extraordinary complexity of the character. Beginning with Ishwari Prasad’s work and then exploring other contemporary sources, Karnad felt almost overtaken by the personality of Tughlaq, sensing that the character was gradually taking shape and coming alive before him.
Tughlaq as an Extraordinary Historical Figure:
“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.”
Historical Sources Used by Karnad:
After reading Ishwari Prasad, Karnad turned to the major historians of the medieval period. He studied works such as Ziauddin Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi, Al-Marshi’s Maslik-al-Absar, Ibn Batuta’s Travels, and Badoni’s Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi. These conventional sources, however, offer a partial and prejudiced account of Tughlaq’s life and reign. Karnad adhered to historical records where possible, but departed from them whenever artistic and technical considerations demanded it.
In Tughlaq, he focuses on the final five years of the Sultan’s rule. He makes a conscious effort to recreate an atmosphere marked by mutual suspicion, shattered idealism, rigid and tradition-bound faith, communal hostility and religious fanaticism, betrayal and rebellion, widespread corruption, soaring prices, natural disasters such as plague and famine, the Sultan’s relentless bloodshed, and his ultimate sense of disillusionment.
Idealistic and Tolerant Image of Tughlaq:
Karnad’s portrayal of Tughlaq draws upon authentic historical records. He presents the Sultan as a figure marked by lofty idealism, intellectual brilliance, religious broad-mindedness, and a strong commitment to Hindu–Muslim harmony. In the opening scene of the play, Tughlaq appears as a benevolent and compassionate ruler. He humbly accepts the verdict of the Kazi, who finds him guilty of unlawfully seizing the land of Vishnu Prasad.
The Sultan not only restores the confiscated property but also awards Vishnu Prasad five hundred silver dinars as restitution. Moreover, the Brahmin is offered a position in the civil administration, ensuring him a stable and sufficient income.
Tughlaq as a Scholar and Visionary:
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.”
Religious Liberalism and Orthodox Opposition:
Muhammad Tughlaq held intellectual discussions not only with Muslims but also with scholars of other faiths. He freely exchanged ideas with Hindus, Jains, Buddhist monks, and various Hindu philosophers. In religious matters, he showed a broad and tolerant outlook. This rational and liberal attitude towards religion made orthodox theologians suspect that he lacked true faith in Islam.
Ziauddin Barani was among those who held such an opinion. However, Ibn-e-Battuta records that the Sultan was extremely regular in offering prayers and that, under his command, the five daily prayers were made compulsory for all Muslims. According to his strict orders, prayers had to be offered in congregation, and those who neglected this duty were severely punished. At the same time, he generously supported scholars and men known for their learning and piety.
Defence of Tughlaq’s Idealism in the Play:
Karnad’s depiction of Tughlaq’s idealism, liberal outlook, and sense of nationalism closely follows historical accounts. In the opening scene, an old man, symbolising the orthodox section of society, openly condemns the Sultan’s rational and progressive policies. To him, the fact that Tughlaq is criticised by a non-believer amounts to a direct affront to Islam. In contrast, a young man rises in defence of the Sultan’s liberal stance and praises his deep commitment to the faith.
He points out to the old man that regular prayer has now become compulsory under Tughlaq’s rule, with punishment prescribed for neglect. He also remarks that the old man cannot name any earlier Sultan during whose reign people publicly recited the Quran in the streets as they do at present.
Tughlaq’s idealism and humanistic vision find powerful expression in the speech he delivers in the presence of his mother in the second scene, where he urges collective joy and sorrow before surrendering themselves completely to prayer, declaring with confidence that history itself now lies in their hands.
Influence of Greek Philosophy on Tughlaq:
Girish Karnad presents Tughlaq as an intellectual of the same stature that historians attribute to him. In conversation with Sheikh Imamuddin, his most severe opponent, Tughlaq admits that he cannot easily escape the influence of Greek thought. He recalls the time when he immersed himself in Greek philosophy—Socrates, who accepted death by poison so that humanity might receive a higher wisdom, and Plato, who banished poets in theory yet produced poetry of remarkable beauty himself.
Alongside this, verses of Rumi come readily to his mind. However, such rational and philosophical leanings were deeply disliked by the orthodox sections of society.
Patricide and Fratricide: History versus Drama:
Like several historians, Karnad too considers Tughlaq responsible for both patricide and fratricide. Even Tughlaq’s own mother is convinced that he was involved in the murder of his father and brother. In Karnad’s portrayal, Tughlaq is not shown as feeling any remorse for these heinous acts; instead, the playwright emphasizes his callousness and unchecked cruelty. However, historical evidence suggests otherwise. Records indicate that Tughlaq was deeply remorseful about his father’s death and, as an act of repentance, had his father’s name engraved on the coins soon after ascending the throne.
Decision to Shift the Capital:
Every student of history knows about Tughlaq’s controversial decision to shift his capital from Delhi to Daulatabad, a move that is generally regarded as hasty and ill-judged. This decision marks a crucial turning point in his reign and, as Karnad portrays, results in immense hardship for the common people. However, several reasons can be identified behind this step.
To begin with, Tughlaq ruled over a vast empire extending deep into the southern regions, and he therefore desired a capital located at the centre of his dominion. Daulatabad fulfilled this requirement. Secondly, Delhi lay close to the frontier and was frequently exposed to attacks by invaders, making it perpetually insecure.
Thirdly, Tughlaq strongly advocated Hindu–Muslim unity. Since Daulatabad was predominantly a Hindu city, declaring it the capital would symbolise the harmony and mutual trust he hoped to foster between the two communities. Historical records also suggest that this drastic shift was intended to ensure more effective administrative control over the southern territories of his empire.
Opposition and Political Strategy behind Capital Shift:
Moreover, the people of Delhi do not show proper respect to the Sultan and openly criticize him. The Amirs, Sayyids, and Sheikhs secretly plot against him and even plan to assassinate him during prayer. To break their influence, the Sultan decides to transfer the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad. This move also helps him suppress revolts in the southern regions. He ensures that all necessary arrangements are made for the convenience of the citizens during the long journey so that they do not suffer hardship.
The Sultan displays generosity toward everyone without discrimination. Both the rich and the poor are allotted houses, and generous gifts are distributed at the time of departure from Delhi as well as upon arrival in Daulatabad. However, Karnad does not highlight this benevolence and instead presents the shifting of the capital as the arbitrary decision of a despotic ruler.
Mass Exodus: Karnad’s Deviation from History:
Karnad departs from historical facts when he presents the event as a mass migration. In the play, the Sultan is shown forcibly driving the people of Delhi to Daulatabad, a view largely shaped by contemporary historians who harshly criticised him. However, this interpretation is not entirely accurate. In reality, no such coercion was exercised. The relocation mainly involved members of the upper strata of society such as nobles, courtiers, Sheikhs, the Ulema, and other elites. The portrayal of Hindu women and common migrants is largely a product of Karnad’s imagination, as he tends to emphasise the Sultan’s flaws and moral failings. Undoubtedly, the transfer of the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad earned the Sultan widespread criticism and damaged his popularity, leading to a loss of public trust. Yet, the move also contributed to a sense of national integration, a positive outcome that Karnad chooses to overlook. Clearly, Karnad focuses more on Muhammad Tughlaq’s errors and limitations while neglecting his accomplishments.
Revolt of Ain-ul-Mulk and Dramatic Distortion:
Karnad’s portrayal of Ain-ul-Mulk’s revolt does not strictly adhere to historical records and represents a clear departure from accepted history. As indicated earlier, Karnad appears intent on presenting Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq in a negative light, almost as a devilish figure. To support this interpretation, he significantly reshapes the historical details surrounding Ain-ul-Mulk’s rebellion. In Karnad’s version, Tughlaq is shown as weak and calculating. The Sultan sends Sheikh Imamuddin, who closely resembles him, as a peace envoy to Ain-ul-Mulk. When the Sheikh rises to deliver the message, the Sultan’s soldiers suddenly sound the charge. Mistaking the Sheikh for the Sultan, Ain-ul-Mulk’s troops kill him. Thus, Imamuddin, who incites rebellion against the Sultan in Kanpur, is eliminated. Subsequently, Ain-ul-Mulk is pardoned and reinstated as the governor of Avadh. Such an account, however, finds no support in historical sources.
Other Rebellions during Tughlaq’s Reign:
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.
Atmosphere of Distrust and Cruelty:
The facts mentioned above clearly indicate that the reign of Muhammad Tughlaq was far from tranquil. A climate of constant rebellion and deep mistrust prevailed throughout his rule. This disturbed environment had a damaging impact on the Sultan’s temperament, making him increasingly distrustful and revengeful. He lost faith in those around him and imposed harsh punishments even for trivial mistakes. Many innocent people suffered and lost their lives as a result.
Tughlaq was a ruler of boundless imagination and visionary ideas. He expected his subjects to implement his ambitious and often impractical schemes, and any failure to do so invited severe penalties. Non-compliance with royal commands was interpreted as defiance, enmity, or moral corruption, leading to widespread suffering among the populace. Thousands were persecuted on these grounds.
Such interpretations are largely drawn from the account of the historian Barani, whose perspective strongly influences Girish Karnad’s portrayal of Tughlaq. Karnad presents the Sultan as a figure inclined towards cruelty. In the play Tughlaq, Barani openly confronts the ruler, accusing him of denying his subjects the freedom to pray, tormenting them for the slightest fault, executing them on mere suspicion, and questioning the endless bloodshed inflicted upon the people.
Ibn-e-Battuta’s View and Karnad’s Bias:
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 significant administrative step, often seen as the outcome of the Sultan’s capricious nature and therefore linked with his failure, was the issue of copper currency. During Tughlaq’s reign, silver dinars had traditionally served as the chief medium of exchange, but he substituted them with copper coins. Barani’s claim that this measure resulted solely from the Sultan’s excessive generosity, which drained the treasury and forced him to adopt this policy to avert bankruptcy, is only partly valid.
In fact, the scarcity of silver was not confined to India alone but was a worldwide problem. This shortage became more acute in Tughlaq’s time because of the vast extent of his empire. To meet the demands of such an expensive administration, new mints were set up, while heavy expenditure was also incurred on military campaigns and the Deccan venture.
In view of these circumstances, the Sultan introduced copper currency, a system already prevalent in thirteenth-century China and Iran. However, in India the experiment failed due to the dishonesty, lack of imagination, and non-cooperation of officials and subjects alike. The widespread circulation of forged coins followed, ultimately leading to the disruption of the national economy.
Karnad’s Emphasis on Failure of Currency Reform:
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.
Taxation Policy and Orthodox Criticism:
In his eagerness to appear liberal and benevolent towards the Hindus, the Sultan strayed from the traditional principles of Islamic law. He chose not to impose the Jiziya tax and reorganised the taxation system, a move that provoked strong opposition from orthodox Muslims. Girish Karnad, as reflected in his play Tughlaq, does not seem to endorse the Sultan’s taxation policy. Instead, he aligns himself with Barani and other contemporaries who disapproved of what they considered the Sultan’s excessively progressive reforms.
In Scene I, the Third Man openly condemns the Sultan’s decision to exempt Hindus from Jiziya, remarking that such a practice goes against the teachings of the Koran. Similarly, in Scene V, Amir II mocks the Sultan’s taxation measures, complaining that every action is burdened with some form of tax—even gambling—and sarcastically lamenting that survival itself has become difficult, as even dishonesty is taxed.
Famine, Plague and Fictional Characters:
Karnad presents an imaginative and intensified account of the famine and plague that devastated India during Sultan Tughlaq’s reign, yet he does not offer a single argument in the Sultan’s defence, despite the fact that Tughlaq was confronted with numerous disasters, both natural and human-made. In Tughlaq, Najib emerges as a significant and influential figure, one who even appears to exercise considerable sway over the Sultan.
Eventually, the Sultan’s stepmother arranges Najib’s murder to protect the ruler from his corrupting influence. Historically, however, Najib holds little importance. Karnad deliberately reshapes him as the Sultan’s sinister mastermind to support his larger purpose of drawing parallels between Tughlaq’s governance and the political realities of India in the 1960s.
The characters of Aziz and Aazam are entirely fictional creations of Karnad. They are introduced not only to add comic relief but also to highlight the inefficiency and collapse of Tughlaq’s administration. The dramatic framework of Tughlaq is largely constructed upon the selective and prejudiced accounts of Barani and other conservative historians. As a result, Karnad’s treatment of history in Tughlaq falls short of being balanced and objective.
Critical Conclusion on Karnad’s Tughlaq:
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.”