#TheAfterHour: "With Freedom At Midnight, our intent was to make the viewer a witness." - Nikkhil Advani

We spoke to Nikkhil Advani, the creative mind behind Freedom At Midnight, to understand how, at a time of deep polarisation, he managed to craft a series steeped in ideological conflict without taking sides!

I remember an interview where Ram Madhvanionce told me how strange it is that an entire aisle in bookstores is dedicated to historical fiction. After all, how can history, events rooted in facts, be fictional in nature? No matter how diabolical it may seem, it does exist. I found myself thinking about this in a very different way while watching Freedom At Midnight, a series that explores the fragile, turbulent chapters leading up to independence, partition, and their far-reaching consequences. Here, history walking hand in hand with fiction becomes a means of understanding what unfolded behind closed bureaucratic doors - why Gandhistood so firmly against partition, why Patel’s practical approach was as necessary as Nehru’s idealistic vision. But most importantly, why revisiting this moment and going back to the start matters, because it shaped our identity as a nation, something that feels lost. Left with a million thoughts after the show, I couldn’t help but wonder where the makers themselves stood ideologically. To understand how they navigated neutrality in a narrative dominated by powerful beliefs, we spoke to the creator, writer, and director Nikkhil Advani, who goes into depth about how he approached it, and re-created these chapters of our nation's history, that feels like something we needed to know!

Also Read: Freedom at Midnight 2 review: A compelling historical drama that becomes a much-needed lesson!

Here’s what he had to say!

Freedom at Midnight is a monumental text and a British lens. Once you decided to adapt it and go deep into that rabbit hole, how did you find your way back to objectivity? How did you separate personal politics from the fabric of the show, especially when adaptation involves selective choices without it becoming propaganda?

Nikkhil Advani:The answer really lies within the question itself, because Freedom at Midnight is such a monumental book. It was first published in 1975, and between then and now, almost fifty years later, our understanding of history has evolved significantly. What may have been considered valid or complete information in 1975 has since been revisited, revised, and expanded. The book itself has gone through multiple editions, each carrying corrections and changes, which already tells you that history isn’t static. There’s also the matter of perspective. The book was written by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins - two white men writing about one of the most defining moments in Indian history. In many ways, the project was closely aligned with Lord Mountbatten, almost functioning as a record of how the transition of power was orchestrated from his point of view. Naturally, though, the story couldn’t remain limited to Mountbatten alone - figures like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, and Jinnah are far more complex and compelling, and the writers leaned into that.

Very early on, we realised that for every fact or historical beat we encountered, there were multiple perspectives and interpretations attached to it. So instead of trying to assert a singular truth or impose our own judgement, we made a conscious decision - we would take the key events from Direct Action Day, Jinnah’s speech, Gandhi offering the prime ministership to Nehru, and many others across the fourteen episodes in two seasons and place the audience inside the rooms where these decisions were being made. Our intent was to make the viewer a witness. To let them sit in those studies, gadda filled halls, and corridors where conversations unfolded, and to experience the same incomplete, fragmented information these leaders were dealing with. They were being bombarded with half-truths, conflicting reports, and constant crises - Noakhali erupting, Punjab burning, Calcutta exploding while trying to prevent one catastrophe only to be confronted by another.

So we chose not to judge them. Our job became to observe. To eventually take the audience from those rooms into the trains, the riots, the protests, and the battlefield conversations between Nehru and Patel, Nehru and Jinnah, and the soldiers in Kashmir. We approached the series almost voyeuristically, allowing viewers to look in, absorb the chaos and form their own conclusions. We weren’t interested in declaring what was true or false. We wanted to recreate the uncertainty of the moment and let history speak through that lived experience.

So it took two white men to offer us neutrality about this history in a way we Browns couldn’t do for ourselves?

NA: That’s a very good question. And yes, while Freedom at Midnight is our primary source, it was always just the starting point. The book gave us the foundation, but the show was built through a much wider and more rigorous process. We had six writers - Abhinandan Gupta, Gundeep Kaur, Adwitiya Kareng Das, Revanta Sarabhai, Divy Nidhi Sharma, and Ethan Taylor, supported by an extensive research team. Any information we encountered that felt one-dimensional or potentially biased was cross-verified through multiple sources. We read annotations, counter-narratives and other historical texts to ensure that no single perspective dominated the storytelling. So while a significant portion of the narrative, roughly 60 to 70 percent does originate from the book, much of it is re-examined and validated through other historical accounts. The intent was never to blindly adapt the text, but to interrogate it, contextualise it and expand it through multiple lenses.

Would it be fair to say that at its core, the show is about an ideological war and the consequences of decision-making? Nehru, in that sense, feels like a young, aspirational India caught between Gandhi’s idealism and Patel’s pragmatism.

NA: Absolutely. That’s exactly it. I wish I had spoken to you before Season One, I would’ve quoted you!

View this post on Instagram

Beyond being a political thriller, I also felt the show worked as a dysfunctional family drama. Did you see it that way?

NA: I don’t know if it comes across that way on screen, but off screen it definitely felt like a dysfunctional family drama at times. (Laughs.) Jokes apart, the emotional dynamics were very real. The nation and its leaders were constantly being pulled in different directions, especially by Gandhi’s moral authority and emotional pressure. His ideals repeatedly put everyone to the test, forcing decisions that were as emotionally charged as they were political. From a storytelling perspective, we were very clear about one central logline that guided the entire show: the sacrifice of many for the ambition of one. Every scene, every beat, every subplot had to align with this idea. If a moment didn’t serve that core theme, it was removed - no matter how interesting it might have been. That clarity helped us shape the narrative. It kept the focus on the “humans” at a moment that changed the course of history forever.

At its core, the approach was always to treat this not just as the country’s history, but as a story about four or five principal characters and the decisions they made at a critical moment in time. That human lens was the starting point. We were also incredibly spoiled for choice, especially in the edit. When you see the camera lingering on an expression or Shweta choosing to hold a moment, it’s because the performances fully allow for it. In most projects, editors are often trying to save a scene or a performance - to make something work because the intent hasn’t fully translated on screen. But here, that wasn’t the case. When you’re working with actors like Rajendra Chawla as Patel, Chirag Vohra as Gandhi,Sidhant Gupta as Nehru,Arif Zakaria as Jinnah, and even Luke as Mountbatten, you can cut wherever you want, and the scene still holds. They never drop a moment, an expression, or an emotional beat.

The same philosophy extended to cinematography. Malay and I spoke far more about performances than about grading or lighting. From Mumbai Diaries to Vedaa and now this, our discussions have always centred on what the actor is doing in the frame. Yes, I can be restless on set, always pushing for the next shot but there are moments where you know you need to step back. For instance, the single shot of Lahore burning - I knew exactly what Malay was attempting, so I simply let him do his work for an hour or so while my direction team handled the logistics. Meanwhile I was watching reels (laughs).

We love single shots, and Malay’s Steadicam operator, Deepak, is indispensable to us. On days when he wasn’t available, it genuinely felt like something was missing. That trust allows you not to overthink coverage. Take the scene where Gandhi is with the pencil, it’s a single take. I remember feeling frustrated because there was no scope to cut, and even in the edit Shweta would ask, “Where do I cut? There is no other shot.” At the same time, you have sequences like the Radcliffe line being drawn - hugely complex, packed with information, and constructed from almost 500 shots that need to be distilled into five or six minutes without overwhelming the viewer. So every scene demanded a different approach. That balance - between long, immersive shots and tightly edited, information-heavy sequences came from a marriage of multiple creative instincts. And I think that’s something audiences have picked up on and responded to.

View this post on Instagram

There were rumours that episodes were initially 90 minutes long and later cut down to around 45 minutes. Is this true? 

NA:No, no the episodes were always meant to be around 45 minutes. There was never a plan to make them 90 minutes. Beyond that, the process was deeply collaborative. I’m very clear about one thing: I’m not a better cinematographer than Malay, and I’m not a better editor than Shweta. My job is to direct the material and then trust them to interpret it in the way they feel is right. Once I hand it over, I genuinely want them to bring their instincts into it.

That trust also means allowing room for debate. The only time we really pulled a leg on was during the Kashmir episode, where Shweta created a stunning sequence of dead bodies accompanied by a Shaheer Ludhianvi poem about the futility of war. It was beautifully done, she even went out of her way to find the poem but during the screening it stood out so strongly that it sparked a discussion. Not because it wasn’t good, but because it was very meta and powerful. Apart from that, we didn’t really cut out major ideas or sequences. Even something as demanding as the exodus was shot under extreme conditions with just a handful of guys with Malay filming while the rest of the crew was busy managing logistics for the junior artists. It was exhausting, but incredibly fulfilling. Though one scene that stays with me is the one after Gandhi’s assassination. The space itself was flat and difficult to light, and there were doubts about how effective it could be, especially in Malay’s mind. But he and his team shot extensive coverage - every reaction, every emotion so that Shweta had the freedom to shape it in the edit. What together they created out of that material was extraordinary. 

I honestly didn't gave Shweta or Malay more than ten suggestions throughout. One that stands out is the opening of Season 2 - the scene where they discuss the flag. She chose to place that conversation right at the very beginning of the season. I was initially worried and even questioned it, thinking people might ask how you can start a season with what seems like a very talk-heavy dialogue scene. But Shweta was very clear in her reasoning. She said that this single conversation essentially contains the entire season, that everything the show is about is embedded right there. And she was absolutely right. Interestingly, Malay and I had originally shot that scene as part of a very different stretch in the episode, placed after the Radcliffe sequence, where the camera moves around the table in that circular motion. Seeing how she recontextualised it in the edit completely changed its impact. That’s really how the show came together.

Given the timing of the show’s release, it feels especially resonant more so something we need today. Was there pressure to make the past speak to the present?

NA: We started writing the show nearly four years ago. Shooting began about two years back, and editing happened alongside that. By the time we were finally ready to release Season 2, it genuinely felt like we had lived with the show for four years straight. None of us could have predicted, back then, what the world would look like when the show eventually came out. So much changed in that time - politically, socially, emotionally and that inevitably shaped how the show landed. Season 1 released in November 2024, and because both seasons were shot together, we were eager to bring out Season 2 as soon as possible. Timing worked out itself!

Freedom At Midnight both season 1 and 2is currently streaming on SonyLIV!

For more interviews, follow us on @socialketchupbinge