/socialketchup/media/agency_attachments/2025/01/15/2025-01-15t065936648z-magazine-logo-black.png){kind=logo}
/socialketchup/media/media_files/2025/04/16/kpYUlTOGQgq1vRvrLqye.png)
Follow Us/socialketchup/media/media_files/2025/03/13/I9Dbo94xihg67FWAXRNp.png)
In this interview feature, we sat with director and showrunner Ram Madhavi and the two writers, Shantanu and Shatrujeet, to discuss their new show, Waking of a Nation, in detail!
“Waking of a Nation,” a new series centered on the Jallianwala Bagh conspiracy, goes beyond mere entertainment—it serves as an educational experience, prompting viewers to see beyond surface-level events. For me, it felt like a masterclass in understanding history's deeper, often hidden layers. The show is not just about a singular massacre; it’s a metaphor for the importance of questioning, analyzing, and looking beyond isolated incidents. It challenges viewers to examine the before and after of significant events, offering insight into how violent mobs are often manufactured and how those in power exploit the collective anger of the masses to maintain control and quell the fear of losing authority.
Colonization didn’t happen overnight; its traumatic effects—still felt today in the way we use the English language, embrace Western customs, and perceive skin color—were the result of a calculated, insidious strategy that preyed on our innocence and ignorance. The series makes this clear, showing how we, as a society, were unprepared for the manipulation that led to colonization. Moreover, the show aims to give a voice to the ordinary citizens of Amritsar, who are often reduced to mere statistics in historical accounts.
To gain a deeper understanding of the motivations behind this series, I sat down with Ram Madhvani, the visionary director behind the project, and the writers, Shantanu Srivastava and Shatrujeet Nath, who helped craft this compelling narrative. We discussed the years of research it took to bring this story to life, why they presented it as a courtroom investigative thriller, and how the show balances factual truth and creative fiction. The distinction between being “inspired by a true story” rather than “based on one” is key here, and we delved into why that difference matters.
Additionally, we touched on Madhvani’s legacy as a filmmaker, the growing trend of second-screen viewing, and how Waking of a Nation defies it by being a show that encourages audiences to engage actively. It even prompts viewers to use their phones to research historical events while watching, making it a “Google-able” experience that enhances, rather than detracts from, the narrative on screen.
Here's how the conversation went!
I might be the only one, but this is a chapter of history I didn't know enough about, at least not in this much detail. Maybe these stories exist in the margins, something we tend to overlook. But what about this motivated you to go behind it with such a rigorous force that you crafted an entire show around it?
Ram Madhvani: Well, about five years ago, when we started this project, I was trying to figure out how to speak about the color of our skin and the question of superiority—'why does the white man think he's superior, Why were we colonized? Why did they teach us to eat with a fork and knife? Why did they feel that one of the world’s oldest civilizations needed to be “civilized”?' This has pained me for many years. And when I started speaking to the writers Shatrujeet and Shantanu, we all shared a collective wound about being colonized to the point where they’d forgotten some of our roots. This story came from those conversations. When we began researching in public archives, we realized there was a conspiracy. Even a character like Kanti (shown in the series) exists but even if you Google him, you won't find much information out there. There was this whiff of conspiracy, and we decided to use the Jallianwala Bagh massacre as a starting point, but to focus more on the conspiracy behind it—how colonizers asserted their superiority, which eventually turned into a fictional story about four friends.
The show juggles with a lot of facts, especially using a lot of archival documents to state its arguments, but it does so alongside a fictional story. Now, when a fictional story comes with so much factual information it’s often hard to balance it all. Moreover, people take everything at face value. So, how does one balance that line between fact and fiction, especially when telling a compelling story that connects with viewers?
Shatrujeet (a journalist turned writer): The narrative surrounding the Jallianwala Bagh massacre is not just about the historical facts and documented events before and after the tragedy. What truly brings the story to life are the human experiences woven into it, particularly those of Amritsar's four friends and residents. Their personal stories make the narrative resonate deeper, as we imagine ourselves in their shoes, trying to grasp the fear and anguish they endured during that fateful period. In many ways, these fictional elements enhance the storytelling because while history gives us cold facts—150 people dead, 350 people dead—those numbers remain abstract until we attach names, faces, and emotions to them. It’s only when we humanize the victims that the tragedy hits us more profoundly. For me, the fictionalized aspects help bring the historical event into sharper focus, making the story more impactful and relatable.
Shantanu (writer of films like Badhaai Ho and Sam Bahadur): The goal was never to view the Jallianwala Bagh incident merely as a statistic. The idea was to uncover the human stories within that history and bring them to the forefront. That was the intention, and that guided our entire process.
Madhvani: With Neerja, since it was based on a real person’s life, there was a different level of responsibility. I had to get the family’s permission and handle it with a lot of care. But with this project, apart from figures like Dyer and O’Dwyer, the characters are fictional, and we’ve made that clear from the start. It’s inspired by true events, but we’re not presenting it as a documentary or a strict historical account. Look at it this way—if you walk into a bookstore today, there’s an entire section dedicated to historical fiction, which is absurd but we accept it as a genre. Back in the 1970s, they coined the term “New Journalism,” with writers like Thomas Wolfe and Hunter S. Thompson blending fact and fiction. They called it “faction,” where the lines between the two meet to tell a more compelling story.
I appreciate how the show immerses us in the lives of people we've never heard of, and we weren’t even sure if they existed. It sparked my curiosity enough to Google them, to see if they were real and who all was involved. But the decision not to depict the Jallianwala Bagh massacre itself was bold. Was this a deliberate choice, given how much has already been shown and said about the incident over the years?
Madhvani: When we were writing, it was something we were very intentional about. It took us three years to complete the script, and now, five years later, we’re still committed to that choice. Many other filmmakers have depicted the massacre, and we wanted to approach it with respect, honoring those who lost their lives. But we also wanted to focus on the survivors—those who lived through it. The truth is, no one knows exactly what happened that day. We can only imagine, and we felt that the most powerful way to convey that was to leave it open for you, the viewer, to imagine as well.
Since the archival facts used here are so detailed, even Meghna's set design adds depth. How long did the research take and where did all of you gather your sources from?
Madhvani: It took a considerable amount of time, involving a lot of reading and exploring public domain resources. We accessed a variety of archives, including those available on Google, as well as physical archives. Meghna Talwar, who was part of our research team, worked extensively in Delhi. Our research extended to Amritsar, Ludhiana, Delhi, the British archives, and Bombay. So there was a lot of groundwork. But ultimately, while the research is rooted in facts, much of it comes from the heart, regarding the emotional connection we felt with the subject.
I noticed strong influences throughout the show. At times, I got a JFK vibe, and it also reminded me of The Trial of the Chicago 7, especially when the names of the victims were listed. What were the fictional influences and your key fictional references?
Madhvani: Yes, JFK was one of the most significant influences. During one of our writing sessions, we went to Goa for five days and watched JFK by Oliver Stone—an incredible film. Another major reference for us was The Battle of Algiers, an absolute must-see. They had to include a disclaimer before the film, saying, "This is not a documentary; this is a fictional account,” because people thought it was real. We also watched Detroit, directed by Kathryn Bigelow. But no, The Trial of the Chicago 7 wasn’t one of our direct references. Our key touchpoints were JFK, The Battle of Algiers, and Detroit.
Why did you choose to structure the show this way as a courtroom drama or investigative thriller that is heavily dependent on bein talkative, and is dialogues-driven with reiteration of facts at every turn reminding the audience what happened?
Shantanu: It was done intentionally. We wanted to avoid the straightforward, chronological approach of showing what happened before, during, and after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. By structuring it this way, we created a more complex character arc for Kanti, our lead character, while keeping the viewers engaged with a back-and-forth narrative. The use of testimonies and courtroom unraveling allowed us to show some of the events in flashbacks, making the storytelling richer. This approach also makes it tougher to write because what I am trying to tell is already being shown, so the question remains is how do I make this more emotional and impactful while exploring the past but in a completely different courtroom setup.
Madhvani: Non-linear storytelling keeps the audience on their toes, making it more thrilling. Kanti’s drive is trying to prove a conspiracy, but the question is how will he do it, which is why Poonam also questions, “How will you prove it?” reflecting the core tension of the show. Since we reveal the conspiracy within the first 10 minutes of the show, the focus shifts to unraveling who did it, who committed the crime. This changes the nature of the show—it’s not a typical crime story but a thriller. In a thriller, the key is to keep the audience constantly wondering what will happen next. Structuring it nonlinearly allowed us to maintain that suspense and keep viewers engaged throughout.
Shatrujeet: What also happens is that in a story like this, the protagonist is always ahead of the audience. He already knows everything. If we had used a linear approach, we would be watching him slowly uncover the layers, peeling back the onion, so to speak. But here, he’s already gone through it—he’s processed it, shed his tears—and now we’re left to piece together how he got to this point. By taking this approach, we’ve created a sense of mystery. We know our protagonist is onto something, and the tension comes from wanting to find out what he knows and how he will reveal it.
Each episode begins with a historical quote, and the show starts with the sentence that independence from Britain is celebrated worldwide every seven days. It closes on that same note, showing the flags of countries celebrating their independence. Was this a deliberate choice to emphasize how much of the world was colonized by Britain, with each nation celebrating freedom from them without outright villainising them?
Madhvani: On the one hand, you have this tiny island, Great Britain—which even called itself “Great”—They could have just called themselves Britain, but they called themselves Great Britain. And they colonised so much because they were trying to escape their food and weather. Jokes apart, the staggering fact that every week some country somewhere is celebrating its independence from them is almost shocking when you see those flags at the end, one after another, and you think, “How did they manage to colonize so much?” In a way, it’s impressive. But simultaneously, they accomplished this under a facade of gentlemanly conduct, when in reality, it was achieved through sheer brutality.
That’s precisely my point! Are you trying to make a political commentary by telling us how the British managed this under the guise of gentlemanly conduct and how we often miss reading between the lines?
Shantanu: Not at all. If the French had colonized us, we would’ve still made the show, and it would have included countries celebrating their independence from the French. The idea isn’t about how Great Britain colonized us—it’s about how anyone can colonize another country. That’s the larger message.
Madhvani: In the end, it’s about humanity. It’s questioning why this kind of domination and oppression happens in the first place. So, it wasn’t about vilifying the British. In fact, there are characters we’ve portrayed in a fair light, showing some who are just doing their duty.
Moving away from the show, I asked Ram Madhvani about his legacy as a filmmaker - Do you agree that your voice is growing as someone who is evolving toward telling stories that investigate truth, deconstruct moments, and engage with political commentary?
Madhvani: I wouldn’t specifically put it like that. This particular project is focused on that time period, and there’s no additional commentary beyond what’s presented in the show, which looks closely at the British Raj through a particular lens. It’s about colonization, race, prejudice, and our freedom struggle. In the past, I made a short film on Sir Cyril Radcliffe, which was about the partition. So, my interest lies in exploring what happened to us, how we became who we are, and even why we speak English today. That’s the essence of this show. In terms of my voice as a filmmaker, it’s more philosophical and spiritual in nature. In Aarya, I drew from the Bhagavad Gita, and in Neerja, I used the Mahamrityunjaya mantra, especially in the song Jeete Hai Chal. In Waking of a Nation, we incorporated Kabir’s philosophy. I believe this approach resonates with people because speaking to them on a spiritual and philosophical level allows the story to connect more deeply.
As writers working in the industry, I asked Shantanu and Shatrujeet about their views on the growing trend of second-screen viewing and what changes they hope to see in the industry. Here's what they said!
(Madhvani humorously shifted the question back to me, asking if I was guilty of using my phone while watching his series. To which I did acknowledge that despite me not doing this, it is a shift caused and accelerated by the audience.)
Shantanu: I admit that the truth is you can’t stop the times from changing, right? You can’t tell people, ‘If you’re traveling on a packed train from Churchgate to Virar, that’s the only time you can watch something on your phone.’ It’s the reality of life now. And if someone is so attached to their phone that even when a huge TV is in front of them, they’re still constantly checking it, there’s no cure for that. So when networks start talking about second-screen engagement, it reflects what’s happening. We can’t fight the future. All I can do is make sure the stories I tell are so engaging that people forget about their phones. I can only focus on improving my craft, nothing else.
Madhvani: They even call it ‘laundry TV’ because you can do your laundry while watching. I have recently made a 5-minute virtual reality short film, and it made me realize how I can make sure that content is fully immersive. I think that’s where we’re headed—finding ways to immerse audiences fully. It’s not just about storytelling; it’s also about skill and technology. Like in the early days of cinema, when theaters were spaces for focused attention. Nowadays, theaters have become more of a social, community experience, which is wonderful in its own right. But we still need to find ways to ensure that we create content so captivating through skill and storytelling that it becomes a first-screen experience.
Shatrujeet: Second-screening is definitely a challenge, but I also sees it as an opportunity. If someone is watching a show I have written and they switch to their phone for a few minutes but come back, it means I have won them back. Whatever they saw on the second screen wasn’t as interesting, so they returned to back to my show. In that sense, it’s a win. If they don’t return, that’s a loss, but at least I can look it as both a challenge and an opportunity.
While wrapping up the interview I recommended that the Waking of a Nation can also be viewed as a show that knows how you can make people engage as they might be Googling something after the first episode and coming back to watch the next one. To which Shatrujeet agreed and added on that he do this himself—as he watches a show, take a break to research something, and then return. As long as ones come back, it’s like reading a book. You close it for the night and come back the next day. If they don’t return, well, maybe that’s just not a great show and Madhvani chimed telling that in advertising, it's called a CTA—a call to action!
Have you watched Waking of a Nation yet? What did you think about the show? Tell us in the comments below.
Waking of a Nation is currently streaming on SonyLIV!
For more such conversations, follow us on @socialketchupbinge