A tale of desire for power and greed, which always ends with blood on the hands of the innocent, came to life with an invigorating theatrical adapation encompassing facts and fiction. By Team Viva
Inspired by strong and powerful women, Anasuya Vaidya feels that history is unidimensional. The ruler’s point of view is assumed to be the whole truth and the views of individuals living in poverty and misery are pushed into the background.
The play Bloodlust: Padmini, Alauddin and the Broken Heroes of the Delhi Sultanate revolved around a group of Gujarati slaves who rose to very high positions in the court of Alauddin Khilji — namely Malik Kafur, Kamala Devi, her daughter Deval Devi and eunuchs Hasan and Husamuddin and the audacious rebellion planned by them against the Delhi Sultanate.
India in the 14th century was the scene of bloody conquest, fierce battles, heinous mass rape, blood, loot, expanding empire, strategy, valour and violence. It was also a period when the seeds of harmony were sown through the mystic Sufi poetry of Amir Khusrau. The fascinating and provocative historical incidents on which this play is based takes place towards the end of the Khilji dynasty, after Rani Padmini, Ratan Singh and Alauddin Khilji have played their roles.
Director Anasuya Vaidya began researching the story of Padmawati during all the protests against the film. While reading books and surfing through digital media, she came across the tale of Malik Kafur, Kamala Devi and her daughter Deval Devi which wasn’t very well known among Indians. Said she, “History is a set of dots that can be weaved together. I felt that these characters were quite heroic to take on the mighty Delhi Sultanate.”
The play focuses on facts. The fiction component is the relationship between Malik Kafur and Kamala Devi “I had a strong feeling that since the two knew each other and were in constant contact, there might be something more between them. It was an artistic decision I made.”
The various scenes include historians giving an actual and factual record of what happened during the years the play is set in, the occurence of events in the inner courts of the Sultanate and individuals in contemporary times talking about their knowledge of the Sultanate.
In the play, court historians Amir Khusrau and Zia ud din Barani are sitting together, drinking wine and recording the events that have transpired in a chronological order. While debating about how to write the instances that have shaped our history, they were seen to be in heated arguments. Dressed in a flowing turquoise gown with a turban, Zorian Cross portrayed the character of Amir Khusrau filled with hatred towards Malik Kafur. A resentment reflected in the pitch of his voice, expressions of bias and gestures of raw anger.Ziad ud din Barani essayed by Vikalp Mudgal showed an elegance and a non- judgemental character who was devastated by the actions of the rulers but kept his opinions to himself. He kept stressing over the fact that their writings are the only legacy that would be left behind and hence, it is of utmost importance that none of the facts are twisted by their personal perspectives. The director feels that the hatred towards Malik Kafur is because of his sexual orientation. “They also despised the fact that despite all these shortcomings, Kafur did rise and became the second most important person in the Sultanate after Khilji. I believe he was unlike his depiction in the pages of history. He might have been slandered because of who he was. There are always two sides to a story.”
Kamala Devi was a character of strength performed by Nisa Shetty who spoke about the mutilation, rape and enslavement of women by men during the war. Though she was never in favour of getting her daughter married to the eldest son of Alauddin but she was forced into submission. A victim of brutality and abuse, she had to go through the worst and still she kept her dignity and her individuality intact. “She was somebody who actually had strong ideas and wanted revenge for what she had gone through. She could have been the mastermind behind the whole conspiracy which led to a rebellion along with Malik Kafur,” said the director.
Malik Kafur was played by Vidur Mohan. To make sure he remains soft enough for ‘love’, he was castrated so that he never becomes a man. The anguish, the sacrifices and the conditions that he lived in were atrocious. “Though he was known to be a great general and warrior, he was also denigrated for being Alauddin’s lover. I have depicted him ultimately as a fighter and an honourable person because in my mind, he is that person and I wanted to show him in that light.”
The eunuchs in court played by Rohan Bhatnagar and Ankur Anand as Hasan and Husamuddin respectively had the panache and an element of femininity in their body language and postures. When they recounted their tales in the harem as slaves who were groped and fondled by many, it had the intensity to bring down the bravest of men to tears. “They had to take rigorous dance lessons and learn the basic footwork of Kathak. The scenes enacted by them were important as they highlight the exploitation that took place in the court sexually and personally. Yet, they were able to rise above all these serious torments they had to go through as children.”
One of the lines that stuck the hearts of many in the audience was said by Kamala Devi. The essence of it lies in the title of the play. The Gujarati slaves were broken pieces, incomplete in many ways but all they needed to fill the puzzle was unconditional love to heal their deepest scars and protect them from the memories of their darkest demons. The love that was lost and the innocence that was robbed to build an empire had no meaning in the end. Each and every scene in the play had a profound intensity with a sense of the bloodshed with which our history is written.
The period of war and how the present generation views it is beautifully depicted in the play. The drama works on two timelines — the early 14th century and the present day. Said Anasuya , “Parts of history are hidden away because what we do know are handed down to us by our conquerors or colonisers. We do not view it from a non-colonial perspective.The reason I bought in individuals from the present era was to show how people generally look at history and accept what is written without digging into its depth.”
