Shahid Nadeem’s Play Dara and the Distortion of the History

The present research paper explores the text of the play Dara written by Shahid Nadeem from the power-knowledge nexus perspective. The researcher finds that the play depicts that history represented by the ruling class is fabricated, which presents historical heroes as villains and villains as heroes. The researcher analyzes Shahid Nadeem’s play Dara to see how the historical character of Aurangzeb Alamgir is represented in the play. It is a commonplace to look at the emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir as a devoted Muslim who indulges his time to serve Islam. However, the researcher finds that the play questions this representation of Aurangzeb Alamgir in the history books and redefines him as a fanatic and extremist who use religion to take revenge on his brother and who shook the very spirit of Islam. The researcher uses Michael Foucault's concept of history, power, and knowledge. History is not linear, history is not what is told through textbooks and media; history is buried and there is a need to dig the buried truth. The findings of this research show that Shahid Nadeem presents two ideologies by his play, the Sufi image of Islam and the fundamentalist image of Islam. He brings the forgotten hero on the stage of the theatre. Nadeem questions and exposed the nexus of power and knowledge


Introduction
Background to the Study (Why) According to K.K. Aziz, Our history textbooks contain myths and distortion of reality (Murder of History). History is told by the ruling elite and a hired historian is linear. Power controls the production and presentation of history in schools and colleges of the country.
That distorted history presents great historical heroes as villains and villains as heroes. It is a common thought that Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir is a true Muslim who spent his time to spread Islam. Aurangzeb Alamgir is presented in history as a hero, as a moral man and a tough stone and Dara is presented in history as a villain and a man of disbelief. Foucault tells us about the nexus of power and knowledge. Knowledge is produced under the influence of power. Mughal Empire's history is presented in a distorted form. But in reality, history is not what is told through textbooks and media; history is buried and there is a need to dig opposite. Mughal history is needed to be redefined to understand its impact on the subcontinent in general and Pakistan in particular.

History
Reclaim is a verb which means retrieve or recovers something previously lost, given or paid. Reclamation of hero gives the idea of renewing a forgotten hero which disappears somewhere in history. Rectification is a process of correcting an error or something wrong. A distortion is an act of destroying or misrepresenting the truth. The present paper deals with distorted history. History is an aggregate of past events. It is a branch of knowledge that studies the past; the assessment of notable events. Michel Foucault's major works consist of Foucault's objective of The Birth of the Clinic was to find out the source of knowledge.
Clinical observation helped the doctors to get knowledge about the human body.

Power Knowledge Nexus
The researcher selects the theory of Michel Foucault. He claims that all history is subjective, written by people whose personal biases affect their interpretation of the past.
Foucault's work looks at the institutions which enable this power to be maintained, such as State punishment, prisons, the medical profession and legislation about sexuality. Researcher incorporates Foucault's theories of Power/Knowledge. Foucault observed that the discourse of an era brings into being concepts, oppositions, and hierarchies, which are products and propagators of power, and these, determine what are "knowledge", "truth" and "normal" at a given time. Drawing on Jeremy Bentham's notion of the panoptic surveillant State, that exerts its power through discursive practices, circulating ideology through the body-politic, Foucault highlighted the subtle, indirect oppression and the "capillary" modes of power that controls individuals and their knowledge. His primary concern has been with power's relationship to the discursive formations in society that make knowledge. were mostly histories of medical and social sciences; his passions were literary and political.
Foucault's major concern is knowledge, truth, and power. He contends that the problem in society becomes the construction of discourse. According to Peter Barry, "Foucault's work looks at the institutions which enable this power to be maintained, such as State punishment, prisons, the medical profession and legislation about sexuality" (Beginning Theory, p. 118).
He presents the problem to see how men are governed by themselves and others and by the production of truth. Such a society must be rejected as immutable truths with the idea of rationality as a natural human quality.  Mughal India is a place of opulence and excess; music, drugs, eunuchs, and harems. Two brothers, whose mother's death inspired the Taj Mahal, are heirs to this Muslim empire. Now they fight ferociously for succession. Dara, the crown prince, has the love of the people and his emperor father-but younger brother Aurangzeb holds a different vision for India's future.
Islam inspires poetry in Dara, puritanical rigor in Aurangzeb. Spanning the princes' lives from cradle to grave, DARA is an intense domestic drama of global consequence-for India then and for our world now.

Objectives of the Study (Distortion of our History)
The basic purpose of this paper is to expose the power knowledge nexus who distorted history to achieve their ends. The history that children read in textbooks and media is inaccurate. It is presented in a dissimilar way of reality. Authority had destructed the history of the Mughal Empire. They had presented villains as heroes and heroes as villains.
But no one tries to look at history in-depth and with a different perspective. This paper tends to reclaim a forgotten hero and ex; it poses the distorted history of the Mughal Empire. The present study should enable people to look at history through a new perspective.

Problem Statement
In our sociopolitical structure, power knowledge nexus presents Aurangzeb in history books as a hero, as a moral man and a tough stone, but Dara is presented in history books as a villain and a man of disbelief. Mughal Empire's history is presented in history books in a distorted form. Shahid Nadeem through his play "Dara" presented an alternative version of history. In his play, Dara is given the status of a hero. It is an effort to expose the power knowledge nexus and reclaim our forgotten hero. 3. This study gives people a way to understand history from a different perspective.
4. This paper also deals with the importance of Sufis' image of Islam for masses in society.

Theoretical Framework
The researcher selects the theory of Michel Foucault. Foucault declares that all history is subjective, written by people whose personal biases affect their interpretation of the past.
History, asserts Foucault, can never provide us with the "truth" or give us an accurate picture of past events or the world view of a group of people. He proclaims that it provides its adherent with a practice of literary analysis that highlights the interrelatedness of all human activates, admits its prejudices, and gives a more complete understanding of a text that does the Old Historicism and other interpretive approaches.
Foucault challenges the supposed objectivity of history, redefines the meaning of a text, and asserts that all critics must acknowledge and openly declare their own biases when interpreting a work. The objective of Foucault's work, he suggests, 'is to see how men govern (themselves and others) by the production of truth' (Foucault 1991: 79 According to Foucault, historians must expose each of the layers of discourse that come together to shape a people's episteme and piece together the various discourses and their interconnections among themselves and with no discursive practices. But power distorts our history. The purely negative role of power, however, which is reflected in the dichotomies legitimate-illegitimate, reasonable-unreasonable and true-false, makes the OD a transitional text in defining the complex relation of power and knowledge (Foucault 1978c;Lemke 1997).
According to Foucault, historians must realize that they are influenced and prejudiced by the episteme in which they live. Since their thoughts, customs, habits, and other actions are colored by their episteme, historians, Foucault argues, must realize that they can never be objective about their own or any other historical period. To be a historian, then, means one must be able to confront and articulate one's own set of biases before examining the various discourses that comprise the episteme of any given period. Michael Foucault has six key concepts: 1. The writing of history is a matter of interpretations, not facts. Thus, all historical accounts are narratives and can be analyzed using many of the tools used by literary critics to analyze narrative. 3. Power is never wholly confined to a single person or a single level of society. Rather, power circulates in culture through exchanges of material goods, exchange of human beings, and, most important for literary critics as we'll see below, exchanges of ideas through the various discourses a culture produces.
4. There is no monolithic (single, unified, universal) spirit of an age, and there is no adequate totalizing explanation of history (an explanation that provides a single key to all aspects of a given culture). There is only a dynamic, unstable interplay among discourses, the meanings of which the historian can try to analyze, though that analysis will always be incomplete, accounting for only a part of the historical picture.
5. Personal identity_ like historical events, texts, and artifacts--is shaped by and shapes the culture in which it emerges. Thus, cultural categories such as normal and abnormal, sane and insane, are matters of definition. Put another way, our identity consists of the narratives we tell ourselves about ourselves, and we draw the material for our narratives from the circulation of discourses that constitutes our culture.
6. All historical analysis is unavoidably subjective. Historians must, therefore, reveal how they know they have been positioned, by their own cultural experience, to Interpret history.

Data Analysis
Shahid Nadeem presents Dara Shekoh as a hero in his work "Dara". He presents an opposite picture of history in front of us. History which is presented in our textbooks and which is produced to us through other resources is distorted in a way it suits the authority. The elite class presents history in the way it suits them. Foucault declares that all history is subjective, written by people whose personal biases affect their interpretation of the past.
History can never provide us with the "truth" or give us an accurate picture of past events or the world view of a group of people. It provides its adherent with a practice of literary analysis that highlights the interrelatedness of all human activates, admits its prejudices.
Upper class and rulers make Aurangzeb Alamgir; who is corrupt; their hero and they hide the heroic deeds of Dara Shekoh. For example in the book of the history of Punjab Text Book writer asserts that: The third son of Shah Jahan was Aurangzeb. He was a very good person from the account of temper and aptitude. He had the qualities of consistency, statesmanship, and comprehension. (p.42).
Dara is presented on the other hand as an evil man.
During the infirmity of Shah Jahan; Dara Shekoh was present in Durbar In our history books, Aurangzeb is presented as a successful king.
Aurangzeb had paid much attention to his arrangement of the empire. He believed that monarchy is the fidelity of God and if the ruler did not fulfill his duty, then he will be questioned by God on the Day of Judgment. He took great care of fairness and justice.
Subjugates and complainants were free to visit Durbar without any hesitation. (50) But in reality, he is the cause of the downfall of the Mughal Empire. As in the start of the play, Shah Jahan predicts about the future condition of Hindustan when he was praying as: You are worried to save Dara, concern about yourself, care about your king, care about yourself, concern about your kingdom. Nothing will be left behind you fool. Nothing will be left. The consequences will be ghastly. was Dara, who criticize this decision in fraught durbar and the emperor was compelled to take the decision.
First-person: But now Shah Jahan is imprisoned in the castle of Agrah and Aurangzeb is going to hit the captivation on all non-Muslims.
Ramo: God takes care of us; we become strange on our land.
Tamancha: May Dara be protected, may his prosperity rise, God accepts our prayers rising from the core of our hearts. Dara! It is for you. (Samantha, Ramo, and others start singing and dance together). (pg#21 and 22) In the history presented by the state, Dara is considered as a dreadful Muslim as well as a human being. He is shown as a non-brave man as in the Punjab Textbook of history, three times, he is defeated by Aurangzeb and he runs from the battlefield. "Dara's army was defeated and he ran away from the battlefield. Aurangzeb's glory was set because of that war." (43) Dara got injured at the climax of the war. He runs away to Agrah to save his life in a state of extreme injury. His army supposes that he is dead that is why his army dispersed.
Dara Shekoh ran to Delhi when Aurangzeb astricts Agra. (43 and 44). There is only a dynamic, unstable interplay among discourses, the meanings of which the historian can try to analyze. That analysis will always be incomplete, accounting for only one part of the historical picture. These textbooks do not show us the tricks played by Aurangzeb.
If we argue that Dara is a hero of his time then there is another question that needs to be answered who is villain then. History also provides us with a fake hero. They do it intentionally. This is no doubt a wrong way of writing history. Foucault argues, historians must realize that they can never be objective about their own or any other historical period.
To be a historian, then, means one must be able to confront and articulate one's own set of biases before examining the various discourses that comprise the episteme of any given period. Our history tells us that Aurangzeb is a hero. They present him as a good man and a complete Muslim. Punjab textbook is 7 th class is full of this version of history. In this book, the great campaigns of Aurangzeb are told in a fabricated way. He fights three times with Dara and wins all the time. Shah Jahan dislikes Aurangzeb because of the thirst of the throne and his cruelty. But this book shows that Shah Jahan loves him "Shah Jahan, was found of Aurangzeb's erudition and knowledge. (pg 45). But as new Historicism asserts; history is not linear. It is also shown that great king Shah Jahan along with other people also cheated Aurangzeb and this is injustice with him but he successfully defeated them. For instance He is prestigious and of strong intention according to his personality. Because of that grace, he succeeded in the wars for the throne during the ailment of Shah Jahan. He obtained the throne of Hindustan. He recognized that the designation of kingship is the fidelity of God and he realized that he had to answer in front of God for all his responsibilities. He recognized that royal treasure is the fidelity of masses.
He was very hard-working and duteous in government affairs. (45) But in Shahid Nadeem's version of history, we can see that Aurangzeb has an opposite picture. The first rectification done by Nadeem is that Shah Jahan does not like Aurangzeb rather he is against him on his cruelty and injustice. As in the opening scene, we see that Shahid Nadeem says to him "Aurangzeb's lust of incumbency and vengeful temperament (Pg #3). This is also interpreted by Jahan Aara when she was reading his diary in front of Etbar. She also explores his cruelty.
Cruel, hard-hearted Aurangzeb, I hate you, your double-crossing, and your Jah prasti. After the death of Dara; Aurangzeb hangs his headless body on Lahori Door. When his head was sent to Shah Jahan he asserts the downfall of the Mughal Empire "Now the destruction of this empire will not be stopped. One brother will slaughter his other brother, the daughter will slaughter her mother and father will slaughter his son. Tabarak: patience Mullah Kavi. One by one" (pg#20) After the death of Dara when Aurangzeb goes to the mosque, he has a conversation with Sarmad. Here Sarmad very fearlessly tells Aurangzeb about his cruel and evil deeds. He recites metaphoric poetry.
Ankas ky tera taj.Jahani dad. Mara Hama asbab.e preshani dad The one who grants you this crown of kingship Is the one who gives me this stock of worries He dressed him whom he finds full of flaws He grants vulnerability to one who is flawless He replies to Aurangzeb that he is naked because he has covered Aurangzeb's brutality with his clothes. He has covered the heads of Dara, Murad, Shujah, Suleman, and Sultan Muhammad. Aurangzeb was depressed by it. He orders to make a plan for the death of Sarmad.

Conclusion
The study explored and analyzed the text of the play Dara by Shahid Nadeem from the angle of power-knowledge nexus relationship. The researcher has found that the text of Dara challenges the prevalent view of history regarding the Mughal Empire. It seems that history with whom people are acquainted is distorted. Whatever students are taught in the name of history in school and colleges is a fabrication. Aurangzeb is presented as a hero in history books written in Pakistan who was presenting as the villain by Shahid Nadeem. It shows that the author wanted to say that some ruling elites suppressed the Sufi version of Religion and promoted the fundamentalist version of Religion in the country. Here powerknowledge nexus is exposed. Elite class, state, and historians have composed history in the way it suits them. They endorsed the Aurangzeb instead of Dara Shiko's who was Darwish