The Politics of History in Girish Karnad's Tughlaq: A Play of Power and Paranoia

International Refereed, Blind Peer-Reviewed Multidisciplinary & Open Access Research Journal Issue: 03 | Vol.: 12 | Jul.-Aug.-Sep. - 2025 | Pages: 01–05 | RRSSH | ISSN: 2348 – 3318 | Periodicity : Quarterly, Language : English & Hindi https://ijorr.in [ 1 ] The Politics of History in Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq: A Play of Power and Paranoia Syed Farhan Ali DOI : ………, Plagiarism/Similarity: 01% The Politics of History in Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq: A Play of Power and Paranoia Syed Farhan Ali Research Scholar of English, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, U.P. Mobile: 9956573107 Email: syed.farhan19[email protected]om Received : 15/08/2025 1st BPR : 26/08/2025 2nd BPR : 07/09/2025 Accepted : 14/09/2025 Abstract Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq (1971) stands as a powerful political allegory that reinterprets history to reflect the complexities of postcolonial governance. Set in the 14th century but resonating deeply with modern India, the play presents Muhammad bin Tughlaq not merely as a historical figure, but as a symbol of the tragic collapse of visionary politics. This paper explores the politics of history in Tughlaq, focusing on the Sultan’s paradoxical blend of secular idealism, rational governance, and tyrannical control. Through the use of irony, symbolism, and episodic structure, Karnad critiques the dangers of utopian leadership untempered by pragmatism or empathy. Tughlaq’s policies—rational on the surface— reveal an underlying absurdity when divorced from the lived realities of his subjects, resulting in state violence, mass suffering, and the erosion of trust. Drawing from historical sources, postcolonial criticism, and dramatic theory, the study shows how Karnad uses the past to interrogate the present. The play thus becomes a mirror for India’s own post-independence disillusionment, revealing the psychological and political consequences of unchecked power. Ultimately, Tughlaq is not just a historical drama, but a timeless political tragedy—exposing the cyclical nature of tyranny masked as reform and the fragility of idealism in the corridors of power. Key words: Girish Karnad, Tughlaq, Historical Allegory, Political Drama, Paranoia and Power, Secular Idealism, Postcolonial Theatre. Introduction: History as Political Mirror: Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq is a seminal work in modern Indian drama that utilizes the past as a reflective surface to interrogate the political present. First staged in 1971, the play dramatizes the reign of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq (1325–1351), a historical figure known for his intellectual brilliance, bold reforms, and ultimately disastrous rule. Yet Tughlaq is not a conventional historical play; it is a layered political allegory where the events of the 14th century echo the disillusionment, failures, and anxieties of post-independence India. Karnad crafts a narrative in which history functions less as a record of events and more as a metaphorical landscape—a “political mirror”—that reflects the persistent dilemmas of governance, idealism, secularism, and tyranny. Set against the backdrop of rising discontent in Nehruvian India and just before the declaration of Emergency in 1975, Tughlaq captures the trajectory of a ruler who begins with utopian ideals but quickly descends into paranoia, cruelty, and political failure. The protagonist’s initial promise of religious tolerance, justice, and rational administration is undone by authoritarian impulses and impractical policies. His state becomes a theatre of absurdity and bloodshed where public executions, secret surveillance, and arbitrary decisions reign supreme. These elements evoke direct parallels with the postcolonial Indian state, where lofty democratic ideals often gave way to political centralization, disillusionment, and the suppression of dissent. International Refereed, Blind Peer-Reviewed Multidisciplinary & Open Access Research Journal Issue: 03 | Vol.: 12 | Jul.-Aug.-Sep. - 2025 | Pages: 01–05 | RRSSH | ISSN: 2348 – 3318 | Periodicity : Quarterly, Language : English & Hindi https://ijorr.in [ 2 ] The Politics of History in Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq: A Play of Power and Paranoia Syed Farhan Ali This paper argues that Karnad’s Tughlaq transcends its historical subject to pose universal questions about power, governance, and the ethical use of history. By reimagining a medieval monarch in the framework of modern anxieties, Karnad constructs a powerful critique of leadership that loses touch with its people and becomes consumed by its own rhetoric. Through this political mirror, Tughlaq forces its audience—then and now—to confront the disturbing proximity between vision and violence in the corridors of power. Historical Sources and Dramatic Reinterpretation: Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq derives its narrative framework from the tumultuous reign of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq, one of the most intriguing and controversial rulers in Indian history. Historical records—particularly Ziauddin Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi—offer a detailed but heavily moralized account of Tughlaq’s reign. He is portrayed as a paradoxical figure: a visionary dreamer and intellectual who implemented radical reforms, yet a monarch whose policies often resulted in chaos, rebellion, and mass suffering. Karnad draws upon this contradiction not to reconstruct history factually but to dramatize its moral and political ambiguities for a modern audience. The most notable decisions of Tughlaq’s reign—such as the transfer of the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad and the introduction of token currency—are central events in the play. Yet Karnad is not concerned with mere chronology. Instead, he reinvents these historical facts as dramatic moments that carry symbolic and allegorical weight. For instance, the capital shift is not only a geographic relocation but a metaphor for dislocation, rupture, and forced conformity. It reflects the absurdity of imposing abstract logic on a diverse and resistant populace. The failed experiment with token currency similarly serves as an allegory of top-down economic reform that disregards grassroots realities—an idea that continues to echo in contemporary India’s monetary policies. Karnad’s creative engagement with history is postmodern in its intent. He does not offer an authoritative “truth” about Tughlaq’s rule; rather, he uses the past to question the present. This interpretive strategy aligns with the broader postcolonial project of re-reading historical narratives not from colonial or court-centric perspectives, but from the vantage point of the people and the unintended consequences of power. By reimagining history through the lens of theatre, Karnad challenges the linear, triumphant narratives often found in official historiography and foregrounds the inherent contradictions in both medieval and modern rule. Utopia and the Failure of Secular Idealism: One of the central themes of Tughlaq is the collapse of utopian idealism in the face of political complexity and human frailty. At the heart of Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s character lies a passionate belief in secularism, reason, and justice. Early in the play, the Sultan declares: “From now on, let there be no discrimination between man and man. Let the law of the land be equal for the Hindu and the Muslim, for the rich and the poor, for the strong and the weak.” This proclamation situates Tughlaq as a ruler far ahead of his time—committed to religious tolerance and rational governance. His dream of a unified India, free from sectarian divisions, resonates deeply with the Nehruvian ideals that shaped modern India’s post-independence identity. However, as the play unfolds, it becomes increasingly evident that Tughlaq’s lofty vision is tragically out of step with the socio-political realities of his time. His secular policies, though noble in principle, fail to gain genuine acceptance either from orthodox Muslims or skeptical Hindus, leading to widespread unrest. The failure of Tughlaq’s secular idealism lies not in its moral foundation but in its authoritarian implementation. He demands obedience without participation, reforms without consensus. The shift of the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad, framed as a move toward geographic and communal unity, becomes a forced migration that causes immense suffering. The introduction of copper token currency, a radical attempt at economic innovation, results in widespread counterfeiting and economic collapse. Tughlaq’s reforms collapse because they are imposed from above, bypassing dialogue, consent, and practical readiness. Karnad’s critique is subtle but incisive: secularism and rationality cannot survive in a vacuum. They require democratic processes, empathy, and respect for lived experience. When these ideals are International Refereed, Blind Peer-Reviewed Multidisciplinary & Open Access Research Journal Issue: 03 | Vol.: 12 | Jul.-Aug.-Sep. - 2025 | Pages: 01–05 | RRSSH | ISSN: 2348 – 3318 | Periodicity : Quarterly, Language : English & Hindi https://ijorr.in [ 3 ] The Politics of History in Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq: A Play of Power and Paranoia Syed Farhan Ali transformed into instruments of control, they lose their moral authority. Tughlaq’s failure thus symbolizes the broader postcolonial disillusionment with state-led modernity in India. The play warns that ideals, however progressive, must be grounded in reality and implemented with humility, or they risk turning into their opposite—repression masquerading as reform. Power, Paranoia, and Psychological Breakdown: In Tughlaq, the personal and political are deeply intertwined, and nowhere is this more evident than in the Sultan’s gradual psychological deterioration. As the play progresses, Tughlaq’s reign becomes increasingly marked by suspicion, cruelty, and isolation. What begins as a rational and visionary rule quickly descends into authoritarianism fuelled by paranoia. The Sultan, once hailed as a philosopher-king, is transformed into a despot obsessed with control, haunted by betrayal, and incapable of trust—even in those closest to him. The psychological unraveling of Tughlaq is mirrored in his increasingly erratic policies and emotional instability. His execution of his stepmother—an act that combines personal vengeance with political strategy—is one of the play’s most chilling moments. Once a trusted confidante, she is accused of conspiracy and executed with little evidence. This act, rather than strengthening his position, deepens his alienation and signals his descent into moral and emotional chaos. Similarly, Tughlaq’s readiness to kill trusted advisers and childhood friends like Shihab-ud-din reveals the extent to which his paranoia has supplanted reason. Karnad uses this psychological collapse to interrogate the nature of absolute power. In a regime where dissent is viewed as treason and where the ruler is convinced of his own infallibility, paranoia becomes inevitable. The Sultan is constantly surrounded by spies, impostors, and informants—some real, many imagined. His nightmarish world is a surveillance state where fear replaces dialogue and loyalty is measured by silence. In one poignant moment, Tughlaq laments: “I pray to Allah not for light or guidance, but for darkness and sleep.” This single line encapsulates the existential void he inhabits—a ruler trapped within his own oppressive machinery, yearning not for enlightenment but for escape. The brilliance of Karnad’s portrayal lies in how power itself becomes a source of terror, not just for the ruled but also for the ruler. Tughlaq’s internal collapse mirrors the disintegration of his empire. The psychological dimension of Tughlaq thus adds depth to its political critique. Karnad suggests that the abuse of power corrodes not only institutions but also the individual psyche. The paranoid autocrat is not simply a political figure; he is a tragic symbol of visionary leadership consumed by its own contradictions. Symbolism, Structure, and Dramatic Devices: Karnad’s Tughlaq is not only a powerful political commentary but also a masterclass in dramatic construction and theatrical symbolism. The play’s structure and stylistic choices serve to reinforce its central themes of disillusionment, authoritarianism, and the tragic absurdity of power. Divided into thirteen scenes, the episodic form reflects the fragmentation and instability of Tughlaq’s rule. The shift in tone and setting across scenes—ranging from public squares to private chambers, from daylight to darkness—mirrors the psychological and political deterioration of the Sultan’s world. One of the most prominent symbols in the play is the chessboard, which Tughlaq uses repeatedly. Chess, a game of logic and calculated strategy, represents the Sultan’s obsession with control and his rationalist worldview. However, as the play progresses, this logic becomes perverted. Tughlaq continues to play alone, a sign of both intellectual arrogance and profound isolation. The board, once a metaphor for governance and foresight, becomes a stage for his internal disintegration, symbolizing a kingdom ruled not by consensus but by solitary decrees. Darkness and light are employed symbolically throughout the play. The earlier scenes are set in public spaces filled with light—suggesting optimism and transparency. As the Sultan's rule becomes more oppressive, scenes move into enclosed, darker spaces, representing the loss of moral clarity and the growing atmosphere of fear. This gradual shift enhances the mood of political claustrophobia and psychological entrapment. International Refereed, Blind Peer-Reviewed Multidisciplinary & Open Access Research Journal Issue: 03 | Vol.: 12 | Jul.-Aug.-Sep. - 2025 | Pages: 01–05 | RRSSH | ISSN: 2348 – 3318 | Periodicity : Quarterly, Language : English & Hindi https://ijorr.in [ 4 ] The Politics of History in Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq: A Play of Power and Paranoia Syed Farhan Ali Karnad also employs disguise and role reversal as recurring dramatic devices. Characters like Aziz and Aazra, who assume false identities to manipulate the system, highlight the fragility of law and order in Tughlaq’s empire. Ironically, Aziz, the common man disguised as a Brahmin or a saint, manages to outwit the system designed to uphold rational governance. His survival exposes the farcical nature of the Sultan’s justice and underscores the failure of institutional integrity. The play also uses choric commentary—through commoners and passers-by—to reflect the public’s changing perception of the Sultan. These voices serve as a barometer of Tughlaq’s legitimacy, moving from reverence to mockery and fear. Through such devices, Karnad creates a rich theatrical language where symbolism and structure are not decorative, but essential to the narrative’s political and philosophical impact. Allegory and Political Parallels: From Nehru to Now: While Tughlaq is set in 14th-century Delhi, its true power lies in its allegorical resonance with postindependence Indian politics. Karnad wrote the play in 1964, and it was first performed in 1971—a time when the nation was beginning to grapple with the limitations of Nehruvian idealism and the growing authoritarianism under Indira Gandhi’s leadership. Although Karnad himself denied a direct allegorical intention, the political parallels are unmistakable, and many critics have interpreted Tughlaq as a veiled critique of contemporary Indian rulers who, like the Sultan, began with noble dreams but succumbed to tyranny and isolation. Tughlaq’s early vision of a secular and just state closely mirrors Jawaharlal Nehru’s dream of a modern, rational India. His commitment to Hindu-Muslim unity and progressive reform aligns with the foundational goals of the Indian republic. Yet, just as Nehru’s successors struggled to maintain this inclusive vision amid rising communal tensions and political instability, Tughlaq too finds his ideals eroded by mistrust, rebellion, and the failure of governance. His descent into paranoia and repression parallels the trajectory of many postcolonial leaders who initially inspired hope but later alienated the very masses they sought to uplift. The play’s relevance deepened during the Emergency (1975–77), when Indira Gandhi’s government suspended civil liberties, censored the press, and imprisoned dissenters. Tughlaq’s regime of surveillance, arrests without trial, and suppression of opposition became eerily familiar to Indian audiences. Even beyond the Emergency, the play has continued to resonate. Critics like Siddhartha Saxena have drawn parallels between the Sultan’s failed monetary reforms and India’s 2016 demonetisation, highlighting how ambitious top-down decisions can backfire when disconnected from reality. Karnad’s portrayal of Tughlaq transcends specific historical events and leaders, capturing instead the recurring patterns of political life—how power, once idealised, can mutate into obsession; how governance, when stripped of empathy, becomes coercion; and how the public, in the absence of accountability, becomes alienated and cynical. In this sense, Tughlaq is not just an allegory of Nehru or Indira Gandhi, but a timeless reflection on leadership itself. Its enduring relevance lies in its capacity to provoke uncomfortable questions about the moral responsibility of rulers and the cyclical nature of history, where dreams of justice often collapse under the weight of unchecked authority. Conclusion: Tragedy Without Redemption: Tughlaq ends in ambiguity. The Sultan remains in power, but he is utterly alone, distrusted, and broken. His dreams lie in ruins. His court is empty, his kingdom unstable. Unlike classical tragedy, where the hero achieves recognition (anagnorisis), Tughlaq remains suspended in delusion. Karnad resists any neat moral resolution. The play does not offer a redemptive arc or political solution. It ends instead with a haunting question: can power ever align with idealism without descending into coercion? In refusing easy answers, Tughlaq affirms its power as political theatre. It warns that governance must be ethical, participatory, and grounded in human empathy—or else history will repeat itself. In an age of rising authoritarianism and declining democratic norms, Tughlaq speaks louder than ever. It is a play not just about a Sultan in the 14th century, but about every leader who confuses silence International Refereed, Blind Peer-Reviewed Multidisciplinary & Open Access Research Journal Issue: 03 | Vol.: 12 | Jul.-Aug.-Sep. - 2025 | Pages: 01–05 | RRSSH | ISSN: 2348 – 3318 | Periodicity : Quarterly, Language : English & Hindi https://ijorr.in [ 5 ] The Politics of History in Girish Karnad’s Tughlaq: A Play of Power and Paranoia Syed Farhan Ali with loyalty, and vision with infallibility. The politics of history, Karnad tells us, is ultimately the politics of memory—and forgetting its lessons can prove fatal. References:  Chandra, Satish. Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals. Har-Anand, 2007.  Dharwadker, Aparna. “History and the Contemporary in Indian Theatre.” Modern Asian Studies, vol. 39, no. 1, 2005, pp. 199–226.  Karnad, Girish. Tughlaq. Oxford University Press, 1972.  Saxena, Siddhartha. “Currency, Crisis and Carnivalesque: Reading Tughlaq after Demonetisation.” Journal of South Asian Literature, vol. 56, no. 3, 2021, pp. 85–104.  Satchidanandan, K. “History as Myth, Myth as History.” Indian Literature, vol. 44, no. 5, 2000, pp. 145–153.  Sharma, R. S. Indian Feudalism. Macmillan, 2008. *** ***