Girish Karnad explores Tughlaq's character

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.

Building credibility and authenticity

The play dramatically highlights the importance of credibility and authenticity for a leader. Tughlaq’s vision, like that of Joan of Arc, was great — he thought a country based on religious division was unsustainable; he grasped the importance of token currency and introduced copper coins; his idea of a capital at the centre of India was sound.

But, unlike Joan, the problem with Tughlaq was that when he articulated this vision, no one believed him; everyone was sceptical of his true intentions. His cleverness in dealing with his opponents — he is often shown in the play as playing chess — only worsened his credibility. No one would trust him and he could never trust anyone. On the other hand, Joan was so transparent that what she said gained instant credibility.

There’s a difference between being clever and being credible, something many leaders fail to grasp. They forget that as with the ‘common man’ in Laxman’s cartoons, people aren’t so readily fooled as the clever ones think: though they may say nothing but they listen, watch and understand what’s going on.

The play highlights this point through two characters, Aziz and Azam, who represent a section of people who are even cleverer and who take advantage of every law to enrich themselves.

The irony comes when Aziz tells Tughlaq that among all his subjects, he was the one who fitted “every act, deed and thought to Your Majesty’s words”. When leaders lose credibility, and as a consequence lose touch with reality, these characters rule the roost. Readers will readily recognise the existence of Aziz-like characters in all organisations.

Leaders, in such situations, lose all control. Lacking a clear direction and an authentic message, organisations start drifting and eventually lose their path.

Legitimacy in leadership

The play also highlights the issue of means and ends. The legitimacy of the means influences the ends. Gandhi felt that there could be no such thing as right ends pursued through foul means.

Ends retain the foul odour of the means used to reach them. Tughlaq’s perceived role in the assassination of his father, and that too at prayer time, led to great doubts about his proclamation of ideals and the nobility of prayer. Leaders can come to power through foul means, and they can command positional power. But they can never command moral power.

Ultimately, inspiration comes through conviction, through superior moral power. This is true as much in organisations as in statesmanship, but is often forgotten.

Aren’t much of the problems of leadership today problems of credibility, authenticity and legitimacy? How many employees take the company credo, mission and code of ethics seriously? How many can trust their CEOs fully?

Often top positions in organisations are reached after a power struggle, in which dubious means are used to outwit the other contenders. So long as this struggle is within accepted norms, there’s no problem but often it violates even basic norms of decency. Leaders coming to power after such actions cannot escape the constant scrutiny of their followers and the question constantly whispered: “Does he mean it?” Soon the whispers become screams, and only the leaders don’t hear them. At this stage, the organisations become kitchens of death, and the leaders are all alone.