Tughlaq

 This play is written by Salman Girish Karnad. He was a kannad  writer. His other famous for like Nag-mandala, hayavadan and first work is  Yayati. Here is his famous work by Tughaqu. It is political sartire. How power did you foolishness which is we can connect in present time.

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 theneven i remember few things like Tughlaq changed capital from Delhi to Daultabad, 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.