Tughlaq by Girish Karnad, deals with one such mass displacement: the exodus of the wretched subjects of Tughlaq from Delhi to Daulatabad and back again, five years later, from Daulatabad to Delhi – a movement that is as futile as it is ridiculous. History makes Tughlaq out to be a much misunderstood ruler, whose far-sighted measures or reforms boomeranged because his people were not ready for them. Karnad’s Tughlaq seemingly conforms to this idea, but interpreting it unidimensionaly would detract from the timeless appeal of the play. Tughlaq’s dream is to found an everlasting empire fashioned after his vision in order to transform humanity which, to him, is like « cattle », although he hopes to « make men out of some of them » and create from them a superior race. Blinded by this vision, Tughlaq isolates himself from his people, even as he securely wraps himself up in his cocoon. His intolerance and rigidity, coupled with his maniacal desire to transform the world without first understanding it, lead to a self-imposed solitary confinement. This only reinforces the vertical and unilateral relationship between him and his people. The real tragedy of Tughlaq, and thereby of his subjects, is that he believes he is the sole arbiter of truth. Tughlaq orders a complete evacuation of Delhi: «…I want Delhi vacated immediately. Every living soul in Delhi will leave for Daulatabad..¦ Everyone must leave. Not a light should be seen in the windows of Delhi. Not a wisp of smoke should rise from its chimneys. Nothing but an empty graveyard of Delhi will satisfy me now..». Does Tughlaq even understand the sentiments of his subjects upon leaving their city? « But do you know, you can love a city like a woman ? » says the Old Man (Scene 8). By uprooting the population from Delhi, Tughlaq unwittingly forces his subjects to be detached from his kingdom. Soon, the first cracks that appear on his throne will forever undermine his authority. The separation from his people causes irreparable damage. People ? Like phantoms, those unfortunate moving bodies are living witness to the progressive erosion of the kingdom. Even though they are silent in the play, they are often visully aggressive. Sometimes they dissolve into the shadows of the dead bodies that they help to move. In their suffering, misfortune or anger, they support the crowd throughout the play. Whatever Tughlaq may do to shut himself off, he cannot be deaf to the plaintive wails of his people. The common people, for all that befalls them, have their moments in the play. There are riots everywhere, and discontent, long brewing, spills over and permeates every part of the Sultanate. The play demonstrates the chilling fact that in all of us there is a streak of Tughlaq, as much as of those mute masses whom he so ruthlessly manipulates. Every one of us has, at some time or the other, felt an overpowering desire to shape the world around us according to our ideas. More often than not, however, we end up among those nameless faceless people, trudging eternally from Delhi to Daulatabad. THE EXODUS : What the historians say In 1327 to be safe from the incursions of the Mongols, Tughlaq decided to transfer his capital from Delhi to Devagiri which he re-christened Daulatabad. When the citizans of Delhi demurred the Sultan had them moved by force from their dwellings. According to Barani, “There was not a even a cat or a dog in the deserted streets of the old capital”. Many of the exiles died in the course of a journey that covered more than a thousand kilometers. A few years later, the Sultan accepted his mistake, and transferred his capital back to Delhi. Few of his subjects, however, survived this second exodus, and Delhi became a half-deserted city. Alain Danielou, Histoire de I’Inde Muhammad bin Tughlaq described by the Moorish traveller Ibn Batuta as a “man who above all others is fond of making presents and shedding blood”, had acceded by one of the more singular devices of an age rich in assassinations. To welcome his father, Ghyas-ud-din, returning from a victorious campaign, he had erected a splendid pavilion, secretary and successfully designed by his engineer to collapse fatally upon the Sultan at the first tread of his elephant. Bizarre stories are also related of Muhammad’s transference, not only of his court and government but of the entire population of Delhi to Deogiri, renamed Daulatabad, seven hundred miles to the south and thus convenient for his Deccan conquests. But if the Deccan could not be governed from Delhi, neither could Hindustan from Daultabad, and the whole operation had eventually to be reversed. Francis Watson, A Concise History of India Barani tells us that the other Project of Sultan Muhammad, the carrying out of which brought destruction to the capital city and misfortune to the upper classes, as well as decline of the select and distinguished people. Was that the Sultan took it into his head to rename Deogir, Daulatabad. He desired to make it his capital. All the dwellers, with their families and dependants, wives and children, male and female servants, were forced to leave. Many people who had been living in their homes for years and had been attached to the forefathers houses for generations, perished on the long journey. All around Deogir, the infidel land of old, there sprang up on all sides the graveyards of the Musalmans. Although the Sultan made liberal gifts, both at the time of their setting out for Deogir and on their arrival the people were unable to endure the hardships of the journey and perished in “this land of infidels.” Out of so many emigrants only a few ever returned. From that day the city of Delhi, which had hitherto been “the envy of the cities of the world,” was destroyed. By these enormous changes and alterations great injury was done to the empire Agha Mahdi Husain ” The Rise and Fall of Muhammad Bin Tughlaq“ Having decided the measure, Muhammad ordered to transfer of the capital and also the people of Delhi, men, women and children to Daulatabad with all their belongings. The people would not like to leave Delhi which had been endeared to them by long association, but Muhammad was bent upon taking all the inhabitants with him. Ibn Battuta tells us that he caused a search to be made and a blind man and a cripple were found in the city, unwilling to leave. It is said that the cripple was put to death, while the blind man was bordered to be dragged to Daulatabad with the result that only one of his legs reached the new capital. These stories are nothing more than bazaar gossip¦ The Sultan made commendable arrangements for the comfort of the people during their journey from Delhi to Daulatabad. “It is said temporary huts were setup along the seven hundred mile road and free food and drink were supplied. Shady trees were also said to have been planted, but these could have hardly afforded any shelter to the travelers, for they could not have grown up in such a short time. The people suffered tremendously from fatigue, privation and mental agony. Many of them died on the way and many after reaching their destination. The scheme was a complete failure. L. Srivastava, The Sultanate of Delhi Interpretation: AAZAM: The character who is overlooked In the course of our quest to crystallise our interpretation, we came to discover a character of seemingly secondary importance : Aazam. Who is he ? How old is he ? From where does he come ? Is he merely a literary device of Karnad’s, designed to help us understand Aziz better, just as in Molire’s plays, where a valet invariably is the foil of the master ? Is his death really necessary ? Could not Karnad have found some other way to highlight the inevitable confrontation between Tughlaq and Aziz ? Is Aazam’s death of any symbolic value ? It is interesting to note that Aazam, despite his admiration for Aziz, does not entirely agree with the latter’s ideas and methods. Simple-minded, lively and full of zest, and always ready for a laugh, he is a thief more by disposition than by profession. However, Aazam is large-hearted and he is genuinely touched by the growing articulate and even aggressive misery of the people. Would it not be too simple to say that it was fear which forced him to leave the palace and which finally led him to death ? Why did he leave the palace on two separate occasions ? Was it to seek that misery in which the people « like mad dogs are screaming, burning houses and killing ». He returns to the palace, shaken, and with a gut perception of an imminent disaster. Aazam’s strength lies in his innocence and spontaneity. In the last two scenes his disillusionment is no less intense than that of Barani. The protagonist of the two major forces in the play are finally brought face to face : Aziz and Tughlaq and Barani and Aazam on the other. If we see in this juxtaposition the two shades of these characters, their nuances emerge and help to explain the play better. « If Daulatabad fort ever fails, it will crumble from the inside », says the old soldier. It crumbles, as far as we are concerned within ourselves, like the hallowed ideals of a youth of nineteen. For the few who are cynical and pragmatic throughout their lives, Daulatabad is the concrete symbol of what they are living for. To some, it is the shattering of a dream, to others disillusionment, and, for the vast majority, death.