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.
Freedom
At
Midnight
Review
Rediff
Rating:
