Why You Must Watch Freedom at Midnight

Freedom At Midnight is a bold attempt to revisit the whole discourse about Partition, its causes, and the predicament under which the Congress leaders accepted it.
It perfectly captures the extremely confused and complicated situation to which it seemed the only viable solution, observes Utkarsh Mishra.

==

Reading the interviews that writer-director Nikkhil Advani gave to the media ahead of the release of his new Web series Freedom at Midnight, one can understand that he is concerned about 'stirring up a controversy' with his adaptation of the 1975 classic by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre.

Given the times, it is understandable.

It is the story of a period of Indian history that is still a major cause of dissension among people with divergent political views. A majority of such people are in such haste to issue their opinions that they do not have the time to understand the nuances of the momentous events under which Independent India was born.

While reading an enormous book like Freedom at Midnight to form opinions could seem a lot of work to them, a seven-episode Web series provides a quick fix solution.

And hence, the makers of such a series need to take utmost care.

To be honest, the trailers of the series fared poorly in giving the impression that the writers have stuck to the book to a fairly large extent.

However, at times, the makers have gone overboard with the dramatisation of events.

The awful overuse of a suspenseful background score is also a big put off.

It wouldn't have become a classic Doordarshanesque telefilm if it was a bit restrained in these two aspects.

It also promises to tell a 'history you may not know'.

But in six of the seven episodes that I saw, there was no major revelation that is not in the public domain.

It is very much the history most of us know. Although attempts have been made today to readjust this understanding of history.

Therefore, the series has done a good job in sticking to the discourse set in the book.

Where it falls short is in its casting.

Apart from Arif Zakaria portraying a mortally ill yet resolute Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the other characters playing prominent leaders don't quite leave an impact.

Rajesh Chawala's Vallabhbhai Patel makes an effort but unlike the Sardar, he isn't a man of few words or someone who saves his smile for rare moments.

A young Sidhant Gupta as Jawaharlal Nehru feels particularly out of place. He might have been a good choice for a young Nehru but he doesn't convincingly embody a 58-year-old Nehru in 1947. He always appears emotionally weak, temperamental, hassled and teary-eyed.

But the series is a bold attempt to revisit the whole discourse about Partition, its causes, and the predicament under which the Congress leaders accepted it. It perfectly captures the extremely confused and complicated situation to which it seemed the only viable solution.

Beginning with the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946, it goes on to show how the sinister designs of Jinnah's Muslim League nixed all efforts of reconciliation and brought the country on the brink of a civil war.

It also wisely incorporates snippets from past events to provide context for the period in which it is set.

However, the dynamics of the Nehru-Patel relationship could have been more thoughtfully explored.

While it's true they both agreed on Partition as a solution to the ongoing communal violence, they disagreed on almost everything else. It seems unlikely that Patel would have repeatedly told Nehru, 'You were right, Jawahar'. If anything, the opposite might be closer to the truth.

But that doesn't mean they didn't respect each other.

While 'observing the formality' to invite Patel to join his Cabinet on August 1, 1947, Nehru wrote: 'This writing is superfluous because you are the strongest pillar of the Cabinet.'

To which, Patel replied: 'Our attachment and affection for each other and our comradeship for an unbroken period of nearly 30 years admit of no formalities. My services will be at your disposal. I hope for the rest of my life, you will have unquestioned loyalty and devotion from me in the cause for which no man in India has sacrificed as much as you have. Our combination is unbreakable and therein lies our strength.'

Similarly, the portrayal of the 1946 presidential elections of the Indian National Congress could have been a bit more prudent.

Since it is presumably going to be the most circulated 'reel' on social media in the days to come, it is pertinent to devote a few lines to it.

Nehru's detractors today relish in branding him as a 'selected prime minister' because of the way he was chosen to preside over the Congress in 1946.

While there are several accounts of these elections, it finds no mention in the book the series is based on.

But since Nehru's post-election statements are blamed for the League's rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan, it was perhaps apposite to include in the very first episode of the series.

However, a few things must be kept in mind while dealing with the subject.

Firstly, it was not the election for the post of 'prime minister of Independent India' but of the president of the Indian National Congress. Although, upon accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan, it was all but certain that the Congress president would be called to form the interim government, the post was officially called 'Vice-President of Viceroy's Executive Council', and not prime minister.

Secondly, while the provincial Congress committees recommended Patel's name to succeed Maulana Azad as party president, it was the Congress Working Committee that had to elect the president. And it did choose Nehru unanimously when Patel withdrew at Gandhi's insistence.

Thirdly, it was not Nehru who threw in his hat but J B Kriplani forwarded his name as he knew Gandhi favoured him for the post over Patel. Although, when Gandhi offered Nehru to withdraw if he wishes, the latter responded in silence.

Fourthly, Patel was not as happy to back down as it is shown in the series. In words of Kriplani, Patel 'never forgave me for the mischief I played'. Patel's biographer, the illustrious grandson of the Mahatma, Rajmohan Gandhi also writes that the denial of presidentship in 1946 'rankled' the Sardar.

Lastly, the provincial Congress committees had recommended Patel's name not because they disliked Nehru, as is being portrayed today, but as a tribute to the former.

One of Patel's staunchest supporters Dwarka Prasad Mishra, who later became the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh (whose son Brajesh Mishra was India's national security advisor in the Vajpayee government and whose grandson is film-maker Sudhir Mishra), writes in his memoirs Living an Era that when they 'preferred; Patel to Nehru as Congress president, 'We had no intention of depriving Nehru of future premiership... we had always the vague idea that Nehru was bound to occupy that exalted office at the dawn of freedom'.

This is quite different from how the entire episode is often presented today: Nehru leading a coup d'état with Gandhi's support to usurp the prime minister's chair that was rightfully Patel's, while the disapproving Congress members stood by, unable to intervene.

While a series like Freedom at Midnight has the potential to spark debate on key historical events -- events open to multiple interpretations that can lead to varying opinions -- the risk of keyboard warriors selectively using parts of it to serve their own interests is always palpable.

Perhaps this is what Nikkhil Advani is wary of.

But we can't help it; they have become the curse of our times.