I read his Thughlak drama as soon as it was published. The style isgood. The combination of humour and tragedy is effective. There is lotof scope for direction. It has similarities to the play Caligula, written by an influential author of his time Albert Camus and is alsoinfluence by the same. I felt that in the play, Mohammed Bin Tughlaq'scharacter is more idealized than the historical Tughlaq. At that time I had neither time nor interest to do research on this topic.
After about 40 years, I read his drama 'Tippusultan kanda kanasu.' Hehas completely changed Tippu's character by projecting him as amagnanimous tragic hero. I come from old Mysore region, naturally I knew more details about Tippu.
In the meantime, after observing his political statements, movements andprotests I understood that Karnad is a rigid leftist. Of course he hashis own thoughts and activities. I kept quiet with the idea that every person has his own beliefs. But when I read 'Tippusultan kanda kanasu',I felt like studying thoroughly about Tippu and Tughalaq to know to whatextent the dramatist is loyal to the historical truths. I started my study. History is always my favorite subject. I had already read IndianHistory to some extent.
Even though, it is mentioned in the epilogue that the story contentthough historical, the purpose of the play is not to portray history,wherever the drama was enacted and whosoever has watched the play wouldcarry the impression that he is the real sultan. 'A Brahmin sufferedinjustice because of my officers. You have observed that I was ready to tread the path of justice to set right the injustice. The disintegrationof our kingdom due to religious intolerance is an unforgettable momentin the history of my regime. I want equality, progress and logicaljustice. It is not enough if peace is achieved, I want vibrant life.''The most significant fact is Daulathabad is a Hindu dominant city. Iwant to take my capital there so that I can develop Hindu-Muslim amity.These words of Sultan and the words'Sultan would very happy if he sees aBrahmin with a Muslim friend'would depict a feeling in the minds thatSultan was more religious tolerant than Akbar, even before 230 years ofAkbar's period.
But (Ibn Battuta, The Rchla of Ibn Battuta, eng-translation by Dr. MahdiHussain 1953, page 95. Eshwar Prasad's Qaraunah Turks in India, Vol I,Allahabad 1936 P 65-66 Mahdi Hussain: Tugalaq Dynasty, Calcutta 1963 p207-208. Quoted in Muslim slave system in medieval India by K.S. Lal,Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 1994 p 56). The same Mohammed Bin Tugalaqbuilt mosques by destroying Hindu temples. There is a mosque by nameDeval masidi in Bodhan, Nizamabad Dist, Andhra Pradesh. The name itself denotes that it is a mosque built by destroying a temple. It is presumedthat two inscriptions available even now, were inscribed during theregime of Mohammed Bin Tugalaq. In Epigraphia Indo-Mosliemica 1919-20 p 16, G. Majdaniya says,'as the name itself denotes the Deval Masidi wasoriginally a Jain Temple, Mohammed converted this into a mosque when heconquered Deccan. This building was a star like structure. But Muslims (Tugalaq) built a platform for sermons in place of inner sanctum, exceptthis, no other changes were made. The original pillars are there withoutany modification, one can see the carvings of Thirthankars on thepillars even now.'( see Seetharama Goel: Hindu Temples: What happened tothem? Vol II p 67.)
According to Aboonasir Icy that Sultan carried the flags of Islam to theplaces where they were not seen earlier, Koran was heard in the placeswhere it was not read earlier. He stopped the recitation of Agnipoojaka mantras and Asr prayers reverberated everywhere. (S.A.A. Rizvi: TughlaqKaleena Bharatha, Aligarh, 1956 Vol. I p 325). Can there be any otherreason other than the agenda of Marxist propaganda to portray the Sultan as a religious tolerant?
Sultan Mohammed was notorious for his habit of hunting slaves in far offcountries. Shahabuddin Mohammed Abbas mentions about his enthusiasm,'Sultan was always eager to attack Kashmir. The number of prisoners captured by him would be so huge that thousands of slaves were solddaily at cheaper rates. (Masaliq-ul-Abiser Phi Mumaliq -ul-Amser.Tr.in.E.D. III p 580. The Hindi version of Rizvi's 'Tugalaq KaleenaBharatha'). He was not only capturing prisoners of war, but had a fancy for buying and keeping the foreign and Indian slaves. The number ofkafir (non Muslim) women captured in the wars or the invasions was sohuge that Ibn Battuta writes, 'once lot of women prisoners were gatheredin Delhi. Ten women out of this group were sent to me by the nazir. Ireturned one girl to the person who brought me them. But he was notsatisfied. My associate selected 3 young girls. I do not know whathappened to others.'(Ibn Battuta- from the book cited above). Shahabuddin Al Umri says about Sultan Mohammed,'when he was a prince,his hunting group consisted 1200 hakims, 10,000 expert cavalry men, 300drum beaters, 3000 traders who sell hunting equipment, 500 cooks, 1000 paid musicians other than slave musicians, 1000 poets. (Shahabuddin AlUmri: from the book cited above p 578-80).
How can we call such a Sultan an ideal king?
Girish Karnad's mind consciously worked on the same thoughts in the play 'Tippusultan kanda kanasu' also. During the days of Indian Freedom Movement, semi literate folk singers,with no knowledge of history were singing ballads to the drum beatsextolling the virtues of Tippu in the corners of the markets of the village fairs and shandies in the old Mysore area. Muslims, especiallyMuslim traders, were encouraging these singers with cash gifts.Similarly there were plays written glorifying him. Plays were writtendepicting him as a patriot of the nation for the simple reason that he fought against British during the days of the anti British movements.The audience believed that the plays depicted true history. Afterindependence, Marxists, Vote Bank generators, loyal Muslim artists,dramatists, film producers projected Tippu as a national hero. Truehistory died a natural death. The event, British seizing the children ofTippu as hostages, was used to describe how cruel they were. Girish Karnad committed to the tradition of projecting Tippu described above,as a national hero, uses the same event to write this piece of dialoguefor Tippu in a philosophical tone of a sociologist, 'we have a newlanguage in our country at present. A new culture has arrived. Angreji !a culture to use 7-8 year old children as hostages.'
But taking hostages in the war was a tradition of Muslim kings who ruledIndia. Karnad does not know that British followed the same here or he deliberately hides it. It is written in Aurangazeb's official history(Masic-e-Alanghir, Saki Mustad Khan, 5th year, 5th Jamad, Al Hijira1072, 5, 1663) that the commander of Aurangzeb Mir Jumla when hedefeated the king of Assam he plundered the gold, silver and the cash ofthe palace and forcibly had taken the daughter and the sons of the king,Burha Gohen, Bar Gohen, Gud Dyoyapu Khan and Bad Pathwapu Khan, the foursons of his chieftain as hostages till the king paid the indemnity amount. During the regime of Mughals Rajput kings should have left atlease one of their sons in the court of the Badshah. In fact this wassame as taking hostages in the wars. Even the tradition of marrying ofdefeated Rajput king's daughter to Badshah, that was started duringAkbar's regime and continued thereafter, was same as taking hostages inthe wars. Akbar asked Maharana Pratap to send his son to his court. ButPratap did not agree. Later Kurram who called himself Shahajahanrebelled against his father Jahangir and was defeated by his father.Jahangir had taken hostage of sons of Jahangir, Kurram Dara andAurangazeb, his own grandsons. Muslim kings had never looked after theirhostages with as much care as British governor general Cornwallis hadfor his hostages. If the prisoners of war were non-Muslims theirconversion would be certain.
What were the terms of the pact under which Tippu's sons were taken hostage? Tippu agreed to pay some amount to British on his defeat. Atthat time he had no money. He had nothing to pledge. Could British trusthis words? British had no intention to take children as hostages. Just because Tippu had nothing to pledge he agreed for this. British hadtaken care of the children quite well.
It is not something new that some politicians call Tippu a 'Kannadakuvara' in their lectures. But Tippu introduced Persian in place of Kananda that was the administrative language during the regime ofOdeyars. I know the system of maintenance of revenue accounts duringthat period as I am from the family of Shanbogues of old Mysore region.The Persian words were introduced in the administration during Tippu'speriod, for ex: khathe, kardi, pahani, kanisu, mari, gudsta, kakhte,khushki, bagaytu, banjaru, jamabandi, ahavalu, khavand, amaldar,shiresthedar etc.
Tippu changed the names of the places to Persian. Brahmapuri - Sultanpet. Kalikote of Kerala, the present Kallikote to Pharukabad,Chitradurga - Faruq Yab Hissar, Coorg - Zaffarabad, Devanahalli -Yousuphakhan, Dindigul - Khalilabad, Gutti - Phyz Hissar, Krishnagiri -Phulk Il Azam, Mysore - Nazarabad (now Nazarabad is one of the extensions of Mysore city), Penugonda - Phakarabad, Sankridurga -Muzafarabad, Sira - Rustumabad, Sakleshpur - Muzidabad. Do theseindicate Tippu's nationalism, loyalty to Kannada, tolerant of otherreligions?
The title of Girish Karnad's play 'Tippu Sultan kanda kanasu' is basedon the title of a booklet 'Tippu Sultan's Dreams' written by Tippuhimself in Persian and the said title was suggested by English editorMajor Beatson. I read the English version of this book. Tippu wasparticular that nobody should see him writing or revising this book.Tippu's most trusted servant informed that this book was found in a toilet in the palace of Srirangapatnam and also said that it was writtenby Tippu himself. Both the original and the English versions are inIndia Office at London. If one reads this book one will certainlyunderstand to what extent Tippu was a fanatic. In the book : he calls Hindus as Kashmiris, addresses English as Christians and writes that inhis dreams, frequently he saw the moulvies with long beards, he went toMecca on a pilgrimage, an Arab with a long beard told him 'ProphetMohammed had informed him that he would not step into heaven withoutTippu', he had changed all the non-Muslim kingdoms into Muslim kingdomsby converting all the non-Muslims to Muslims.
There is not even a single idea to modernize India in the entire book.He had the desire of overthrowing English (in the entire book he callsthem with their religious name, Christians).
Tippu did not dare to convert Hindus in the Mysore region though he attempted it in Malabar and Coorg. In 1791 he was defeated by theBritish in the 3rd Mysore war, he paid a huge amount, surrendered manyparts of his kingdom and his children were taken as hostages, after thisevent he attempted to satisfy Hindu feelings by contributing toShringeri Mutt. Even today secularists call him as religious tolerantfor this gesture. Tippu had written the letters to Zimalshah, the kingof Afghan and to the Khalifa of Turkey requesting them to invade India and to establish the kingdom of Islam in the entire country. He orderedto use the prized collection of books, palm leaf manuscripts and thefiles in the library of the palace, as fuel to cook the food for thehorses.
Even today Muslims of Malabar speak, read and write Malayalam at home,similarly Muslims of Tamilnadu use Tamil. But Muslims of Mysore speakUrdu, they do not know to read and write Kannada. The problem ofmainstreaming all into the state language in Karnataka lies with the Persian and Urdu educational system introduced by Tippu.
My basic question is to what extent an author can take liberty whileportraying the historical characters and dealing with the historicalcontent? An author always got the liberty to portray the imaginary characters as he likes as he only created all these characters. But whenhe is creating a historical character he should be loyal to thehistorical truths. There is nothing like consensus historical truths.People comment that whatever a historian interprets the same becomes the historical truth. If the author is committed to an ideology then it isinevitable for him to portray each and every historical character andthe event according to the dictates of the ideology or group of theideology. There may be Communism, JNU group or some other sub group, nodoubt that Girish Karnad is a leftist. This group believes that there is socialism in Islam but not in Hinduism. During the days of cold war,with a strategy to have an alliance with Arabs against America, Stalinonce again emphasized the social justice of Islam. They were unable toanalyze the Muslims in the Indian history. They have got one moremission to overwhelm BJP, the proponents of Hinduism, instigatingMuslims by lending their support to them. Therefore intellectuals likeKarnad always have political preparedness to protest against BJP. They will be waiting for an issue to be raised whether it is Datta Jayanthior Saraswathi Prarthana in the schools. The authors who are so muchcommitted to their ideology would use their creativity as a slave oftheir ideology. The art would be an instrument of their politicalideology. Author should be politically neutral. Even if he joins thepolitics he should be politically neutral in his writings but I believethis is difficult to follow. Leftists declare that there no art, moral, meaning, history and spirituality can exist without politicaldimensions.
The purpose of this article is not to support Shankar Murthy. Not evento derogate Muslim personalities. All the Muslims of India are our brothers. Our nationalism should be strengthened on the basis of thisbrotherhood. But projection of historical lies can never strengthennationalism. It is more than a century that we started discussing openlyabout the merits and demerits of Hindus. In fact these open discussionsand criticisms are strengthening the Hindu society. It will not amount to disparaging Muslims if we openly write the facts of Muslim regimes. We all should learn lessons from the history. If we create false history by hiding the truths, apprehending that the facts of history if written would hurt people then we can never build strong buildings on such fake foundations. Accusing the present generation for the mistakes of the past generations exhibits the immaturity of the mind. It is equally immature to flatter or to depress ourselves, by aligning us with our predecessors, imagining ourselves as their successors.
