Freedom at Midnight - A complex historical period in motion (Part2)

As the drama moved, the characters started to liven up on screen. A few anecdotes and some nuances were never enough to capture the full plethora of emotions of Mountbatten, Nehru, Patel, Maulana, Jinnah or Gandhi. Someone rightly had once said, "a movie is an edited reality". Throughout the series, several portions could be pointed out, which reflected reality. However, not in its entirety. I am not being judgmental - but it is a fact that a part of the reality cannot tell us the entire story.

• At the time when Mountbatten was installed to take care of the transfer of power, the overall perception from the common people of the subcontinent towards any administrator appointed by the British Government was too meek. People were not able to put their trust. The Viceroy, as he was titled, lifted the morale somehow. Together with his wife, Lady Mountbatten, he came closer to the Indian society, and made some effort to understand the collective thought of India. Now, this journey of the pair was difficult to bring on screen within the scope of a web series. However, through some skilled screenplay and excellent acting and expressions, we got to understand that the Mountbattens were genuinely wanting to resolve the issue of India's independence. Also, they came with a broad-mind and open heart and could get to the bottom of India's problems, unlike most of their predecessors.

• Jawaharlal Nehru too had a journey. From the early days in Allahabad, where he was born to affluence and aristocracy, he went to almost an austere life of a freedom-fighter. A towering personality in World Politics, who until the last breath of his life stayed true to the spirit of democracy, was portrayed rather nicely in the series. There were moments where a bit more emotional appeal would have helped, but we must not forget, even in the face of adversity, the man was sophisticated. He handled crisis, dissent, disagreements with objectivity and tool of democracy. Not by rhetoric or false emotional theatrics. 

• Sardar Patel was forthright, visionary and full of common-sense. Here was a man who knew the pulse of India, of its people and of its needs. The series did not tell the entire story of the man, but some glimpses, which came through, were enough. The actor who played the part did an amazing job; one should recommend his name for an award. Several amazing moments were created, one being the conversation with Mahatmaji where he pleaded Gandhi not to let Jinnah take the position of Prime Minister. His grit and determination to unite the divergent princely states were etched in history as superlative acts - the series brought glimpses of that through dialogues, robust facial expressions from the actor and some nice emotional-counter-emotional sequences. But still one got a feeling that Patel was not fully explored or showcased. Such was the man, he was an epitome of hard-work, relentless pragmatism and unending zeal to succeed in the mission of building an idea of India (important, not "the idea" or "a certain idea" of India, but "an idea" built on the grounds of sovereignty, federalism and secularism)!

• 
  
• Jinnah was shown in a way we had known him. Very much the cliché. He had a mission too, right or wrong, that was not for me to judge. The best part of the series was - the judgment was left to the audience. We saw him at odds with the other leaders, but we did not quite get to the bottom of the reason of his opposition. History is such a complex faculty! A day or two in the passage of time could determine the course of human history. What was the gap that led him chose the path of another independent country? Why was it not possible for him to work out a plan with the others? After all, they were all together in the fight to free the country! Why was he feeling lonely and helpless during and just after the two nations were born? Who was his principle advisor? Did the advisor not tell him the cost of carving out a new nation with a landmass separating it between its east and west? Those questions remain unanswered. However, when the scene came that he had to leave his home (most likely the Jinnah house in erstwhile Bombay, now Mumbai), the pathos shown was unforgettable.

• Finally, for Mahatma, I believe theses after theses, book after book, novel after novel would be insufficient. Then why to criticize a series? Why to even be critical? Any amount of documentation and visual storyline would not manage to bring the full circumference of a personality like Gandhi to the fore. As a matter of fact, we would need lifetime and even lifetimes to find out the man. First, he was one who kept on developing as an individual, as a leader, as a politician and as a social reformer. He was untrained, insecure, insufficient and doubtful at the beginning, struggled to get validation, then rose to the stature of a leader, gradually to becoming the "father of nation", to finally remaining the Mahatma (great soul) until he passed away. That meant, after a point, he could do no wrong. Today the internet is filled with devastating accounts of the later part of his life. Some texts float around today on social media, painting him as a man of lost morale and sense towards the end of his life. Let me not go into those, but let us just keep it simple - he was a normal man, a leader and was fallible. He made some good decisions politically, but also failed in certain places. His personal life? Why should we bother? Do we put the personal life of other known great leaders under the microscope? Again there is a parallel to Rabindranath Tagore here. Tagore was born in 1861, and received his Nobel Prize in 1913. He was 52 then! Thereafter, Tagore could do no wrong! Why? Just because he had received the highest accolade? I argue here - no, he could also go wrong, and he perhaps did. He was a human after all! His personal life was not so happy, he married his daughters off and those marriages ended in disaster. But no, the society would want him to be Thakur (or God) all his life! Second, Gandhi showed a way to counter oppression in a "different way". Without Gandhi, this human world would not have heard of "Satyagraha", "passive resistance" or "nonviolent means to express dissent". Imagine a man traveling all the way to England wearing the cloth most of India was wearing those days and then sharing a round table with suit-boot wearing and well-dressed men, who were deciding the fate of India! What an impact he had! The show showed parts of these elements. The scene where he confronted the rioters, or when he talked to Pandit Nehru and Patel on the issue of releasing money to form the neighbouring Pakistan - these ones comforted me as an audience. 

[last part soon!]