History
lesson 101: Studying history is akin to a blind man’s understanding of an
elephant. There is always an element/fact which is yet to be uncovered. A
different understanding is always lurking around the corner. History can be
interpreted in a myriad ways. Nobody can ever claim that his/her perspective is
“the right” perspective. It is with the appreciation of this subtle
truth that any historian or a student of history must proceed while reading or
reinterpreting the past.
This sense becomes crucial when one
reads Dr. Girish Karnad’s latest play ‘Rakshasa Tangadi’. The playwright has
chosen an event and a character that is reduced to a footnote in history
textbooks: the Battle of Talikota/ Battle of Rakkasagi-Tangadagi (1565 CE),
fought between the regent of Vijayanagara empire, Ramaraya, against the combined
forces of the sultanates of Bijapur, Golconda and Ahmadnagar. With the Maratha Empire and the
Vijayanagara Empire often portrayed in history as beacons of Hindu religion which
fought the onslaught of Muslim rule,
Perhaps. However, Dr. Karnad offers
a refreshing perspective. In the play, Ramaraya is a master-manipulator who safeguards his empire by following the principle of divide-and-rule (much
before the imperial British deployed it!). A very powerful Ramaraya has been
a valuable ally to different sultans at various times. In fact, he even goes on
accept the Sultan of Bijapur as his adopted son. What forces the coming
together of the sultans is the heavy-handedness of Ramaraya. It is the question
of their survival which unites them – Sultan of Bijapur joins them too, though
reluctantly – and not religion.
The play delves into the psyche of
Ramaraya, who is frustrated of playing second fiddle to the authority on the
throne. His search for glory forces him to claim to belong to the lineage of
the Chalukyas of Kalyan, a dynasty which has been dead for nearly two
centuries. He sees the battle with the combined forces of the sultans as a
prospect for his vindication; an opportunity to seal his place in history as an
emperor over vast regions of the Deccan; a shot at establishing the Aravidu
dynasty. Note the shift from the claims of being a Chalukya to establishing a
new dynasty. This transforms ‘Rakshasa Tangadi’ into as much a battle within
Ramaraya as it is between the armies.
The other character which stands
out in the entire play is that of Humayun Begum, wife of the Sultan of
Ahmadnagar, Hussein Nizam Shah. Her cold-blooded realism of using her daughters
as pawns to secure an alliance between the sultans directs the course of events
in history. Though her role is restricted to a mere scene, her presence looms
large over the play. In fact, it is she who is the counterweight to Ramaraya’s
tact, not the other sultans.
Reading it, one cannot help but feel the contemporary
undercurrent lurking underneath the entire play. A writer always feels the urge
to respond to realities around him. How this urge manifests itself, only time
will tell. Several critics have attributed Nehruvian politics as a strong influence on Karnad’s
‘Tughlaq’. Seen in this light, one is tempted to ask if ‘Rakshasa Tangadi’ is a
depiction of a heavy-handed Hindu(tva) ‘ruler’ on one side, which forces his
opponents – some of them, his former allies – to rally together.
Having read the play – it released this August – naturally, I made it a point
to keep an eye out for its production. This Saturday, I had a chance to watch
the first ever production of this play by a Bengaluru-based troupe, “Sidewing”.
Watching
the production, I, personally, felt that the team should have invested more time
in a thorough character analysis (as our teacher in college used to say). It is
here that the director/mentor being well-read matters, which helps add layers
to the character. It is appreciable that most of the cast comprised of
youngsters. However, playing characters which are much older than the actors –
for example, Ramaraya’s mother is around 90 years old and frail – needs
significant modifications in body language and voice, where the team left much
to be desired.
Attention to dialogue
delivery was found wanting – importantly, whether the lines are to be delivered in a bookish,
formal way entirely or in informal conversations throughout. The
sultans were reduced to caricatures. The Sultan of Bijapur – a loaded character
faced with moral dilemmas over his actions – especially, appeared like a
college kid. The character of Humayun Begum was almost sidelined in the antics
of Nizam Shah. While it is true that a director’s vision needs to be respected,
that vision could have been better defined and refined.
Where this play did excel was in the background
score. Depicting soldiers by using female actors, though historically inconsistent,
was innovative. So was the gentle swaying of the soldiers in the sequence while
guarding Ramaraya’s tent. The improvised dance sequence to depict the final
battle is indicative of the potential the team holds. The stand-out performer
was Ramaraya, very much so in the scenes where he is receiving the key to the
Kalyan Fort from Nizam Shah and while delivering his monologue (it is in these
monologues that Dr. Karnad fleshes out his characters).
There’s a
line in the movie ‘3 Idiots’: “…Nobody remembers who came second…” True. And
very often, it is this urge to be the first, to be remembered in the pages of
history that drives human endeavors. What we fail to realize, however, is that
it is equally important to be among the best, for, if otherwise, the firsts are
cruelly reduced to footnotes in the very same pages of history.
