Ghashiram Kotwal,Vijay Tendulkar

 Introduction :-

Ghashiram Kotwal is a Marathi play written by playwright Vijay Tendulkar in 1972 as a response to the rise of a local political party in Maharashtra.The play is a political satire, written as historical drama. It is based on the life of Nana Phadnavis (1741–1800), one of the prominent ministers in the court of the Peshwa of Pune and Ghashiram Kotwal, the police chief of the city. Its theme is how men in power give rise to ideologies to serve their purposes, and later destroy them when they become useless. It was first performed on 16 December 1972, by the Progressive Dramatic Association in Pune. Jabbar Patel's production of the play in 1973 is considered a classic in Modern Indian Theatre.

About the Playwright :-

Vijay Dhondopant Tendulkar (6 January 1928 – 19 May 2008) was a leading Indian playwright, movie and television writer, literary essayist, political journalist, and social commentator primarily in Marāthi. His Marathi plays established him as a writer of plays with contemporary, unconventional themes.[1] He is best known for his plays Shantata! Court Chalu Aahe (1967), Ghāshirām Kotwāl (1972), and Sakhārām Binder (1972). Many of Tendulkar's plays derived inspiration from real-life incidents or social upheavals, which provide clear light on harsh realities. He has provided guidance to students studying "play writing" in US universities. Tendulkar was a dramatist and theatre personality in Mahārāshtra for over five decades.

Awards :-

• Padma Bhushan: 1984

• Sangeet Nātak Akademi Fellowship: 1998

• National Film Award for Best Screenplay: Manthan, 1977

Summary of the Play :-

Ghashiram Kotwal Summary by Vijay Tendulkar, The play begins with the death of Nana Phadnavis, the powerful minister of the Peshwa empire. The Peshwa then appoints Ghashiram, a low-caste man, as the Kotwal of Pune. Ghashiram quickly rises to power, using his position to manipulate and extort money from the citizens of Pune. He becomes involved in a power struggle with Nana's nephew, who is vying for the position of minister.

Ghashiram's corruption and brutality become apparent as the play progresses. He orders the killing of innocent people, including women and children, to maintain his position of power. The citizens of Pune begin to revolt against him, and the play ends with Ghashiram being killed by the people he oppressed.

Themes :-

The play explores several themes, including:

• Power

Ghashiram's rise to power and his ruthless efforts to maintain it highlight the corrupting nature of power. The play shows how power can be abused, and how it can lead to violence and oppression.

• Caste

The play highlights the caste-based discrimination that was prevalent during the Peshwa rule. Ghashiram's low-caste status makes him an unlikely candidate for the position of Kotwal, and his rise to power is seen as a threat by the upper-caste Brahmins.

The play "Ghashiram Kotwal" by Vijay Tendulkar explores the theme of caste in Indian society and its impact individuals and communities. The on protagonist, Ghashiram, is a low-caste man who rises to power as the Kotwal of Pune, a position that is traditionally reserved for members of higher castes.

Throughout the play, Ghashiram's low-caste status is both a source of advantage and disadvantage for him. On the one hand, his low-caste background allows him to manipulate and exploit the system to his advantage, as he is not bound by the same social norms and expectations as members of higher castes. He is able to rise to power through a combination of cunning, bribery, and intimidation..

On the other hand, Ghashiram's low-caste status also makes him vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment by those in positions of power. He is constantly at risk of being marginalized and excluded from the dominant power structures in society, and his actions are often viewed with suspicion and distrust by members of higher castes.

The play also explores the complex interactions: between different castes in Indian society, as well as the ways in which caste can be used as a tool for political and social control. Through its portrayal of the character of Ghashiram and the events that unfold in the play, "Ghashiram Kotwal" offers a powerful critique of the caste system and its impact on individuals and communities in Indian society.Ghashiram Kotwal Summary by Vijay Tendulkar.

• Corruption

Corruption is a pervasive theme in the play. Ghashiram's manipulation and extortion of the citizens of Pune highlights the corruption that was prevalent during the Peshwa rule.

Corruption is a central theme in "Ghashiram Kotwal" by Vijay Tendulkar. The play depicts a society where corruption is rampant and those in positions of power use it to maintain their status and control over others.

The character of Ghashiram himself is a prime example of this corruption. He uses bribery, intimidation, and other unethical tactics to rise to power as the Kotwal of Pune. He is willing to betray those around him, including his own family members, in order to maintain his hold on power and control over the city.

Ghashiram Kotwal Summary by Vijay Tendulkar The play also highlights the corrupt practices of the higher castes in Indian society. They use their position and influence to maintain their power, often at the expense of those in lower castes. The play portrays the corrupt practices of the Brahmins, who manipulate the system to their advantage and use their status as priests and scholars to maintain their control over society.

The corrupt practices of the ruling class in the play are contrasted with the moral integrity of the lower castes, who are often depicted as victims of the corrupt system. For example, Ghashiram's father is a victim of the corrupt practices of the Brahmins and their manipulation of the legal system. The play also shows the struggle of the oppressed to challenge the corrupt practices of those in power.

Through its portrayal of corruption, "Ghashiram Kotwal" offers a powerful critique of the ways in which power and privilege can be abused in society, and the ways in which corruption can have devastating consequences for individuals and communities.

The play questions the morality of those in power. Ghashiram's actions are shown to be immoral, and the citizens of Pune are forced to grapple with their own moral principles in the face of his oppression. Ghashiram Kotwal Summary by Vijay Tendulkar

The theme of morality is a central one in "Ghashiram Kotwal" by Vijay Tendulkar. The play explores the moral dilemmas faced by the characters and the impact of their decisions on themselves and others.

The character of Ghashiram is a prime example of the moral ambiguity in the play. He rises to power through unethical means and uses his position to exploit and oppress others. However, he is also shown to have moments of doubt and self-reflection, particularly towards the end of the play. He is forced to confront the consequences of his actions and the harm he has caused to others.

The play also explores the morality of the higher castes in Indian society, particularly the Brahmins. They are shown to use their position and influence to maintain their power, often at the expense of those in lower castes. The play portrays the struggle of the lower castes to challenge the morality of the ruling class and the ways in which their actions have a profound impact on the lives of others.

Through its portrayal of morality, "Ghashiram Kotwal" offers a powerful critique of the ways in which power and privilege can corrupt individuals and the systems in which they operate. The play highlights the importance of moral integrity and the consequences that result when it is compromised. Ultimately, the play leaves the audience with a sense of the complexity of moral decision-making and the ways in which it can impact the lives of individuals and communities.

Analysis

Ghashiram Kotwal is a powerful play that offers a scathing critique of the Peshwa rule and the corruption and violence that characterised it. Tendulkar uses the character of Ghashiram to explore the themes of power, caste, corruption, and morality, and his play remains a powerful commentary on these issues today.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Ghashiram Kotwal is a must-read for anyone interested in Indian literature and history. Tendulkar's exploration of power, caste, corruption, and morality remains as relevant today as it was when the play was first written. The play offers a powerful critique of the Peshwa rule and the violence and oppression that characterised it, and it remains a testament to the power of literature to speak truth to power.

"Ghashiram Kotwal" by Vijay Tendulkar is a play that explores a number of critical ideas related to power, politics, caste, and identity. One of the most prominent themes in the play is the idea of power and its corrupting influence. The play shows how Ghashiram, a low-caste man, rises to power as the Kotwal or chief police officer of Pune, but is corrupted by his position and becomes increasingly oppressive towards the citizens of the city.

Another important theme in the play is the idea of caste and its impact on society. The play highlights the caste-based discrimination that was prevalent during the Peshwa rule, and shows how Ghashiram's low-caste status is seen as a threat by the upper-caste Brahmins. This theme is explored in depth throughout the play, and is an important commentary on the societal issues that continue to plague India today.

The play also touches on the theme of identity, and how it is shaped by societal norms and expectations. Ghashiram's character is a complex one, and his actions are often driven by a desire to prove his worth and gain acceptance from the upper-caste Brahmins. This theme is explored in depth in the play, and is an important commentary on the ways in which societal expectations can limit an individual's ability to express themselves fully.

Ghashiram Kotwal Summary by Vijay Tendulkar Overall, "Ghashiram Kotwal" is a play that is rich in critical ideas and explores a number of important themes that are still relevant today. Tendulkar's bold and thought- provoking writing continues to inspire and challenge audiences, and his legacy as one of India's greatest playwrights remains secure.

The Boy Comes Home: A. A. Milne

 About the Writer :-

Alan Alexander Milne (18 January 1882 – 31 January 1956) was an English writer best known for his books about the teddy bear Winnie-the-Pooh, as well as for children's poetry. Milne was primarily a playwright before the huge success of Winnie-the-Pooh overshadowed all his previous work. Milne served in both World Wars, as a lieutenant in the Royal Warwickshire Regiment in the First World War and as a captain in the Home Guard in the Second World War.

Milne was the father of bookseller Christopher Robin Milne, upon whom the character Christopher Robin is based. It was during a visit to London Zoo, where Christopher became enamoured with the tame and amiable bear Winnipeg, that Milne was inspired to write the story of Winnie-the-Pooh for his son.

Summary of the Play :-

Summary | The Boy Comes Home

The Boy Comes Home is a light comedy. The title of the play shows that a boy, Philip returns from France, at the end of the Second World War after fighting against Germany. Philip is about 23 years old when comes home to his guardian, uncle James’ house in England.

 

He is a mature boy and very much depressed after the second world war ended. He hates tough army life and now he wants to enjoy his life freely. He had served the army for four years. When he went to fight against Germany, he was an immature boy of nineteen.

He lacked confidence and courage. At that time he was unaware of the problems of practical life. His late father left for his large property but he could not acquire it until he reached the age of 25. After fighting against Germany, he had become a mature boy.

 

Moreover, he was free to do any work. So it was because of the effect of war that Philip had become a changed person. The generation gap is the major theme of the play. Uncle James is the representative of the old generation and Philip is the representative of the young generation.

 

Philip wants to think, work, and act according to his own will, while Uncle James has set some rules in his house. He does not like his rude and bad attitude Philip. Philip demands the money that his father has left for him but his uncle does not give him until the age of 25 years.

 

Uncle James desires that Philip should join his business of join while Philip wants to be an architect. After the dream scene, Uncle James becomes a changed person. But, Uncle James and Philip develop a healthy relationship.

 

The greatest value of the new generation is freedom and independence. To maintain and guard freedom, the new generation has fought four years-long war. Hence they prefer freedom to all other values. The greatest value of the old generation is obedience and respect for elders.

 

Mr. James is a symbolic character who is upholding the old values and social traditions. The point emphasized by the author is that even good social values and traditions become taboos and a burden on society when blindly followed when a sense is taken out of them. It is in fact a conflict between tradition and modernity that goes on side by side in all ages.

 

Characters of the Play :-

• Philip

Philip is a 23 years old young man. His father has died and he comes to his guardian uncle James’ home from the war front after four years. He was an immature person before going to war. 

 

But now he is an experienced man the master of his own will. He gets up late at his uncle’s house and violates all his uncle’s rules and discipline. He thinks of himself as a mature person who learned a lot in the army.

 

• Uncle James

Uncle James is an aged man. He is a strict person by nature. He specified a time schedule for dining and for every type of work. Everything is done on time. He considers Philip as an inexperienced person. That’s why he decided to engage Philip in his business but Philip does not agree with him.

 

• Aunt Emily

Emily is Philip’s aunt. She is of a pleasant nature. She takes very good care of his house and puts the things in a proper arrangement. 

 

• Mrs. Higgins

Mrs. Higgins is an old woman. She is appointed as a cook in uncle James’s house. Apparently, she is a strict woman but understands everyone and obeys orders. 

 

Title of the Play :-

The title The Boy comes Home is a story of a boy, Philip who returns from France, at the end of the Second World War after fighting against Germany. Philip is about 23 years old when comes back to his guardian.

 

He has his uncle James’ house in England. He is a mature boy. He is very much depressed after the Second World War II ended. He hates hectic, monotonous, and tough army life and now he wants to enjoy his life freely.

Themes of the Play :-

• Generation Gap – a major theme of the play

The generation gap is an important theme of the play. Uncle James represents the old generation and Philip represents the young generation. Philip intends to think, work and act independently, while Uncle James has given rules in his house. 

He does not like his rude and bad attitude Philip. Philip demands the money which his father has left for him but his uncle does not give him until the age of 25 years. Uncle James wishes that Philip should join his business of join while his nephew Philip wants to be an architect. After the dream scene, Uncle James is a changed man now. Both Uncle James and Philip develop a healthy relationship.

• The conflict between young and old generation 

 

The greatest value with the new generation presents freedom and independence. The new generation has fought four years-long war to maintain and guard freedom,  Hence they prefer freedom to all other values. 

The greatest value of the old generation is obedience and respect for elders. Mr. James is a symbolic character who is upholding the old values and social traditions. The point emphasised by the author is that even good social values and traditions become taboos and burdens on society when blindly followed when the sense is taken out of them. It is in fact a conflict between tradition and modernity that goes on side by side in all ages.

The Proposal: Anton Chekhov

 Introduction :-

A Marriage Proposal (sometimes translated as simply The Proposal, is a one-act farce by Anton Chekhov, written in 1888–1889 and first performed in 1890. It is a fast-paced play of dialogue-based action and situational humour. A young man Lomov comes to propose to his neighbour Natalya but they keep on fighting over various topics. Through this play, Chekhov exposes the "fakeness" of the world and tries to show how superficial modern people are. Rather than emotionally bonding in relationships, people instead connect with wealth and money.

About the Author :-

Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) was an acclaimed Russian playwright and short story writer  whose works were translated into several languages.His characters include a cross-section of people across gentry and middle class reflecting their attitude, behaviour and social etiquette.He was a literary realist of precision who presented the secret motives of his characters. It is characteristic of Chekov to weave a simple plot with freedom to the readers to draw their own conclusions.  He depicts the trivialities of Russian life of his time devoid of obtrusive literary devices.

The Proposal Summary :-

'The Proposal" is a one-act play written in 1880 by the acclaimed Russian playwright and short story writer Anton Chekhov. The play is a typical example of what is know as "Farce - A Comic play involving ridiculously improbable situations and events which seem to be absurd tothe audience

The play is set in the country house of a wealthy landlord. Stephen Stepanovitch Chubukov. It involves the humourous and absurd argument between Chubukov, his daughter Natalya and their long time neighbour

Ivan Vassilevitch Lomov. The play is an adaptation by Brian Molloy based on the translation by Julius West (1889).

The play is set in the rural countryside of Russia during the late 1800s. When Ivan arrives at the home of the Chubukov family, the elderly Stepan assumes that the well-dressed young man has come to borrow money.

Instead, Stepan is pleased when Ivan asks for his daughter's hand in marriage. Stepan whole-heartedly bestows his blessing, declaring that he already loves him like a son. The old man then leaves to fetch his daughter, assuring the younger man that Natalya will graciously accept the proposal.

While alone, Ivan delivers a soliloquy, explaining his high level of nervousness, as well as a number of physical ailments that have recently plagued his daily life. This monologue sets up everything that unfolds next.

Everything is going well when Natalya first enters the room. They chat pleasantly about the weather and agriculture. Ivan attempts to bring up the subject of marriage by first stating how he has known her family since childhood.

As he touches upon his past, he mentions his family's ownership of the Oxen Meadows. Natalya stops the conversation to clarify. She believes that her family has always owned the meadows, and this disagreement ignites a caustic debate, one that sends tempers flaring and Ivan's heart palpitating.

After they yell at each other, Ivan feels dizzy and tries to calm himself down and change the subject back to matrimony, only to get immersed in the argument yet again. Natalya's father joins the battle, siding with his daughter, and angrily demanding that Ivan leave at once.

As soon as Ivan is gone, Stepan reveals that the young man has planned to propose to Natalya. Shocked and apparently desperate to be married, Natalya insists that her father bring him back.

Once Ivan has returned, she tries to bend the subject toward romance. However, instead of discussing marriage, they begin to argue over which of their dogs is the better hound. This seemingly innocuous topic launches into yet another heated argument.

Finally, Ivan's heart cannot take it anymore and he flops down dead. At least that's what Stepan and Natalya believe for a moment. Fortunately, Ivan breaks out of his fainting spell and regains his senses enough for him to propose to Natalya. She accepts, but before the curtain falls, they return to their old argument regarding who owns the better dog.

In short, "The Marriage Proposal" is a delightful gem of a comedy. It makes one wonder why so much of Chekhov's full-length plays (even the ones labelled as comedies) seem so thematically heavy.

Characters in the Play :-

• Stepan Stepanovitch Chubukov- a wealthy land owner

• Natalya Stepanovna (Chubukor Daughter) - twenty five years old

• Ivan Vassilevitch Lomov a young man and neighbour of Chubukov.

Setting of the Play :-

 A drawing room in Chubukov's house.

Themes of the Play :-

• Landowning Class

A major theme in The Proposal is Chekhov's satire of the landowning class in 19th-century Russia. As mentioned in the Context section, the landowners were a small, privileged class who were notoriously conservative in clinging to old values that defined them. They knew their advantage in society was based mainly on owning land, as opposed to having a title of nobility. As a result, they opposed any reforms that would allow their peasants to own a piece of land. Chekhov makes fun of the landowners by depicting Lomov, Natalya, and Chubukov as obsessed about ownership of a worthless tract called Oxen Meadows. Their pride and greed are so extreme that they override a marriage proposal. Lomov calls Chubukov a land grabber, but, in truth, they all are.

Additionally, Chekhov depicts the three characters as being so stubborn that they can't admit being wrong. Natalya tells Lomov she was mistaken about owning Oxen Meadows, but she really doesn't believe it. She just says this to get Lomov to propose to her. Chekhov satirizes the characters' stubbornness over Oxen Meadows because landowners believed in their right to own huge amounts of land—and would never consider budging on this position.

Finally, Chekhov shows the characters as valuing superficial appearance over substance. They give the appearance of being solid citizens who support traditional values, including marriage. However, through his depiction of Lomov, Natalya, and Chubukov, Chekhov shows that for some landowners this appearance is false. What they really care about is owning land and appearing virtuous and right, while in reality they care little about Christian values. For example, instead of being kind to each other, they are mean and childish.

• Romance and Marriage

Chekhov's theme of romance and marriage runs throughout each section of the comedy. The narrative satirises marriage mainly through the use of situational irony. This type of irony involves a difference between what is expected to happen and what does happen. The audience expects Lomov's proposal to Natalya to be filled with romantic sentiments, loving caresses, and perhaps even tears of joy. However, what the audience gets is bickering between two petty people who each want to prove they are right above anything else. Romantic love has been thrown out the window.

Chubukov's attitude toward the prospective union of Natalya and Lomov also skewers the ideas of romance and marriage. This character is older than Lomov and has seen more of life. As a result, he believes, as a person grounded by his class, that most of life is a charade, in which people go through the motions while not really meaning what they say. Because of this, Chekhov constantly has Chubukov mouthing phrases such as "and so on and all that." This implies that Chubukov sees people performing rote behaviors that are expected in certain social situations. Thus, for Chubukov, a marriage proposal is a formality in which each participant expresses certain expected sentiments like love, loyalty, and so on. Whether they truly mean these sentiments is another matter.

Chubukov's attitude reaches a climax at the end of the play, when he orders a dazed Lomov to get married and sticks the suitor's hand in Natalya's hand. Then Chubukov says, "She's willing and all that and so on." Thus—with no romantic gestures—Lomov becomes engaged without really knowing what's happening. However, in a society in which appearance matters more than substance, this doesn't matter. The formalities have been observed and the charade has been acted out, much to the relief of Chubukov. The play's last line has Chubukov saying, "And they lived happily ever after!" This is the typical, expected ending of a fairy-tale romance. But the truth of this matter, as the bickering Lomov and Natalya show, is clearly going to be quite the opposite.

• Lack of Communication

Chekhov uses three methods to covey the lack of communication theme. The first is Lomov's style of speech. He has a roundabout way of talking that prevents him from getting to the point. For example, instead of directly proposing to Natalya, he talks about their families. Also, he often stops his train of thought to mention something else. Many times, this tendency is caused by his hypochondria. In the middle of his argument with Natalya and Chubukov about Oxen Meadows he cries, "You're a snake and a ... Oh, my heart ... And it's an open secret that before the last elections you bribed ... my eyes are gone blurry."

Secondly, when Lomov digresses from the main point, he and Natalya each value the digression more than the central topic of conversation. For instance, with Oxen Meadows, Lomov and Natalya view the issue of who owns this plot of land as more pressing than the primary purpose of their talk. This tendency of valuing a superficial digression is even more pronounced with Guesser and Messer. During this scene, both Lomov and Natalya know that a decision is about to be made that will change their lives, namely getting married. Yet, they find more meaning in a frivolous argument about who has the better dog.

Finally, Lomov, Natalya, and Chubukov are more concerned about proving they are right than understanding their opponent's viewpoint. This attitude blocks communication because they end up barraging one another with biased statements and insults instead of being empathetic. For example, in the Guesser and Messer argument, Lomov resorts to calling Chubukov a snake and a rat. In retaliation Chubukov calls Lomov a brat and a fool. Such name calling is hardly conducive to open communication and is used by Chekhov for his satiric purposes of their nature.

Conclusion :-

To sum up, We can say that The play is about the tendency of rich families to hunt ties with other wealthy families, to extend their estates by encouraging marriages that observe economic sense.

Tughlaq

 Introduction :-

Tughlaq is a 1964 Indian Kannada language play written by Girish Karnad. The thirteen-scene play is set during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq. It was first staged in Urdu in 1966, as a student production at National School of Drama. Most famously, it was staged at Purana Qila, Delhi in 1972. In 1970, it was enacted in English in Mumbai.Tughlaq, a 13-scene play by Girish Karnad, focuses on the 14th century Turko-Indian ruler. It is both a historical play as well as a commentary on the contemporary politics of the 1960s. The Times of India comments: "In the play, the protagonist, Tughlaq, is portrayed as having great ideas and a grand vision, but his reign was an abject failure. He started his rule with great ideals of a unified India, but his degenerated into anarchy and his kingdom."

About the Playwright :-

Girish Karnad (19 May 1938 – 10 June 2019) was an Indian actor, film director, Kannada writer,playwright and a Jnanpith awardee, who predominantly worked in South Indian cinema and Bollywood. His rise as a playwright in the 1960s marked the coming of age of modern Indian playwriting in Kannada, just as Badal Sarkar did in Bengali, Vijay Tendulkar in Marathi, and Mohan Rakesh in Hindi. He was a recipient of the 1998 Jnanpith Award, the highest literary honour conferred in India.

For four decades Karnad composed plays, often using history and mythology to tackle contemporary issues. He translated his plays into English and received acclaim. His plays have been translated into some Indian languages and directed by directors like Ebrahim Alkazi, B. V. Karanth, Alyque Padamsee, Prasanna, Arvind Gaur, Satyadev Dubey, Vijaya Mehta, Shyamanand Jalan, Amal Allanaa and Zafer Mohiuddin.[5]

He was active in the world of Indian cinema working as an actor, director and screenwriter, in Hindi and Kannada cinema, and has earned awards.

He was conferred Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan by the Government of India and won four Filmfare Awards, of which three are Filmfare Award for Best Director – Kannada and the fourth a Filmfare Best Screenplay Award. He was a presenter for a weekly science magazine programme called "Turning Point" that aired on Doordarshan in 1991.

 Plot Summary :-

‘Tughlaq’ is Karnad’s second play written in 1964; the play was originally written in Kannada and then translated in Kannada by Karnad himself. It is all about the life of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq who has ruled in India in 14th century. There is a lot of controversy among the historians about the character of Tughlaq but Karnad has presented this man as a man of opposites. The central theme of the play is the complexity in the character of Sultan Tughlaq, who has both the elements good as well as evil. He is a visionary man as well as man of action. Other characters also present Tughlaq’s dual personality; his close associates Barani and the scholarly historian Najib are practical politician like him.

       

        From the very first scene we come to know about the complex personality of Tughlaq, he can be considered as a learnt and an intelligent man. He has abilities to learn and curiosity to know and he is master in playing chess, he has the knowledge of ‘Quran’more than any sheikh, and also a good reader who has read Greek, farcical and Arabic literature. Tughlaq wanted his life as a garden of roses, where even thrones also give delight; his imagination expresses his sense about literature.

      The character of sultan Tughlaq can be compared with Christopher Marlow’s “Dr. Faustus” who has same hunger of knowledge and he had a tragic end and same tragic end Tughlaq has also faced. He wanted to make a new India, and for him it was very difficult but he is ready to explain what people don’t understand,

“How he can explain tomorrow to those,

who have not even opened their eyes

to the light of today.”

But then even i remember few things like Tughlaq changed capital from Delhi to Daulatabad, and from there again to Delhi.

Tughlaq written by Girish Karnad in 1964, is his best loved play, about an idealist 14th-century Sultan of Delhi, Muhammad bin Tughluq, and allegory on the Nehruvian era which started with ambitious idealism and ended up in disillusionment.

Karnad shows the evolution of Tughlaq from an idealist to a tyrant lusty for power and fame, something anyone, any Indian for that matter can relate to easily especially people who are familiar with the Nehruvian Era of Indian politics.

Girish Karnad's play Tughlaq explores the character of one of the most fascinating kings to occupy the throne in Delhi, namely, Mohammed-bin-Tughlaq. He ruled for 26 years, a period of unparalleled cruelty and agonising existence for his subjects.

He's fascinating because though he was one of the most learned monarchs of Delhi, and had great ideas and a grand vision, his reign was also an abject failure. He started his rule with great ideals — of a unified India, of Hindus and Muslims being equal in the eyes of the state (he abolished the onerous tax Jaziya on the Hindus) and the Sultan being the first among equals.

He understood the value of money as not deriving from its intrinsic worth but from the promise behind it: and introduced copper coins. Yet in 20 years his reign had degenerated into an anarchy and his kingdom had become a "kitchen of death". Girish Karnad's play explores why this happened.

The play was immensely popular at the time it was produced (1964). India had, within the same span of nearly 20 years (a mere coincidence?), descended from a state of idealism to disillusionment and cynicism, and hence the play found a chord that resonated in the minds of many people at that time. The issues posed by the play remain relevant even today, not only in a political sense, but also for organisations. 

The play recaptures the significant events starting shortly after Tughlaq's ascension to the throne: his proclamations of idealism, his calling upon his people to be a part of the building of a new empire, of prosperity, peace and amity. But he ascended the throne by dubious means, killing his father and brother during prayer time, though no one was sure. This led to a lack of credibility among his followers from the time he ascended the throne — no one believed what he professed. The play outlines his clever plots to eliminate his opponents and his surviving an assassination attempt by his own courtiers. This was a turning point in his life: he decided to shift his capital from Delhi to Daulatabad, ordered every single subject to move from Delhi, banned prayer altogether, and imposed unspeakable cruelties on his subjects. The miseries of the people during the journey, the corruption that was huge and endemic, and Tughlaq's progressive alienation and isolation from his people are dramatically portrayed. The play ends with scenes of utter chaos and misery in the kingdom, and Tughlaq being left alone, having been abandoned by those who survived him, that is.

Major Characters in the Play :-

Tughlaq- In the play, Tughlaq emerges as a headstrong and idealistic ruler. He is vulnerable, and constantly admits his mistakes and allows himself to be punished publicly. He moves his capital to Daulatabad because it is a city dominated by the Hindus. This move will further the cause of togetherness and communal unity. Through this character, the idealism of the Nehruvian era is commented upon. Guilty of parricide, Tughlaq is often on the defensive when he is questioned of his crime. His uncompromising generosity and sense of social justice embraces all religions and treats them in an impartial fashion. This character is a device that represents a scathing critique of the nationalist notion of communal harmony and religious co-existence, the very ideals that were valorized before independence but later turned in to an anti-climax with the partition of India.

The opening scenes reflect the idiosyncrasies and eccentricities of this character. He contemplates to equate the value of copper coins with silver dinars. In order to establish himself as a worthy ruler, he exposes himself to public scorn and invites public condemnation. He hastens the process of his own nemesis through a series of badly contrived measures at projecting himself as a tolerant and efficient ruler. His irrational and erratic methods are severely criticized by his courtiers and citizens. He emerges as a shrewd contriver and a mercilessly ambitious ruler. He is responsible for the assassination of Sheikh Muhammad, his severest critic, who accuses him of parricide and of being un-Islamic. He stabs Shihab-ud-din when he tries to conspire against him. He is doomed because of his own follies and failures, and becomes an insensitive murderer. The height of his insanity is reflected in the later episodes of the play. He later becomes a divided self, and suffers from inner turmoil and contradictions. His ultimate isolation in a world turned alien gives a tragic dimension to the play. Tughlaq might be perceived as an over-ambitious alien emperor, who aims to rebuild new cities and empires, subjecting the culture of a people to colonial strain. Each scene represents the progressive degradation and dehumanisation of Tughlaq, leading to his tragic downfall.

Step-mother- The step-mother of Tughlaq constantly appears in the earlier scenes of the play. She is torn apart by conflicting emotions, her overriding concern for her son is in contradiction with her awareness of the fact that he is guilty of parricide. She appears troubled, and confides in Najib, the courtier and politician. She is consistently projected as an embodiment of rationality and concern. She later murders...in order to save her son from ultimate ruin. Tughlaq orders her to be stoned to death for the unwarranted act.

Aziz- Muhammad is very manipulative, witty, imaginative, secretive and ruthless, Aziz provides his ironic parallel .Like him, from the very beginning Aziz is clear about what he is to do in future (when he reaches his destination). In pursuit of realizing his dream to be rich by hook or crook, he manipulates the decision of the government giving compensation to those whose land has been confiscated by the state. He is a Muslim but in order to get the compensation he disguises himself as a Brahmin. Thus he punctures the balloon of the king‘s welfare policies .If Muhammad is confident that everything will be settled after he reaches Daultabad , Aziz is also confident of his plans. He tells Aazam, ―There is money here .We will make a pile by the time we reach Daultabad.If Muhammd has disguised his true self and poses to be a very religious and benevolent king, Azis is disguised as a Brahmin (though he is a Muslim washer man). Ironically, he appears as a Brahmin and ends up as a special messenger to the king. He becomes an instrument in exposing the cruelty and corruption prevalent in Muhammad‘s regime when he refuses to help a woman with a dying son in her lap and asking for help for his medical aid. Aziz expects money from her knowing full well that her husband is bed-ridden and she is helpless. Asked by Aaziz why he doesn‘t let her go to the doctor, very stoically he says,‖It is a waste of money. I am doing her a favour. For Muhammad and Aziz politics holds a common interest. Aziz‘s comments about politics are ironically true:Politics ! It is a beautiful world- wealth, success, position, power-yet it is full of brainless people, people not with an idea in their head. When I think of all the tricks in our village to pinch a few torn clothes from people if one uses half that intelligence here, one can bet robes of power. It is a fantastic world. Like Muhammad he also makes use of religion and caste for his personal gains. He knows that even if the Hindu woman is not allowed to leave the camp, she cann‘t complain against him as she takes him for a Brahmin. Complaining against a Brahmin to a Muslim, according to a Brahminical dogma, will send her to hell which she never desires. Furtermore, he is cruel like Muhammad in taking life of someone. He kills Ghiyas-ud-din and starts dancing after that which shows that he has no regrets of any sort after killing someone. His singing and dancing over a dead body reminds us of the neurotic self of the emperor. After killing Ghiyas-ud-din and putting on his robes he asks the horrified Aazam, ―How do I look, eh? The great grandson of the Khalif. Laugh, the fool you laugh. Celebrate! What are you crying for?. . Dance, dance. . (sings). When he is to present himself before the king, he aptly defines himself , I am your majesty‘s true disciple. Indeed, Aziz appears as his shadow‘ or the other Muhammad‘. It is perhaps because of this parallelism between them that Muhammad pardons him even for his grave misdeeds.

Aazam- He is a close friend of Aziz and his partner in the play. Both of them are vagabonds, and live mostly by robbery and deception. Aziz is undeniably the more cunning of the two. Aazam‘s actions are staged on a smaller scale, and Aziz‘s actions have larger ramifications. They constantly comment upon and analyse the policies of the Sultan and provide a variety of perspectives on the political climate of the play.

Najib- He is a politician and a shrewd contriver, a Hindu, who later embraced Islam. In most of the scenes, he is seen advising the Sultan on matters of political action and diplomacy. He is an advocate of ruthless political expansion and domination, and presents a perfect contrast to Barani, the historian. In the words of the Sultan ―he wants pawns of flesh and blood. He doesn‘t have the patience to breathe life in to these bones…‖ He represents the more rational aspects of Tughlaq‘s self and is a constant companion in terms of royal political affairs.

Sheikh-Imam-ud-Din- He is a maulvi and probably the harshest critic of Tughlaq. He openly proclaims Tughlaq to be un-Islamic and invites his hostility. He gives public lectures and condemns Tughlaq as guilty of parricide. He tries to influence the general public through his inflammatory speeches deriding the actions of the Sultan. He is later murdered in a cleverly crafted plot of the Sultan.

 

Conclusion :-

Tughlaq is well known for Secularism. Despite being a Muslim Sultan, Tughlaq shows a great heart towards Hindus. He desires to be seen as an idealist who wants a unity between Hindus and Muslims. In order to win hearts of Hindus, he favours Hindus more in his decisions and policies.