In The Waking Of A Nation, the political climate of the country is best summed up in two important scenes from the point of view of the British. Clearly, they still hold the aces but the grip has significantly loosened over a period of time. In a scene, you see a bunch of British characters interacting with each other while referring to the region of Amritsar following the tropes of the 1857 mutiny (which we also refer to as the first war of Independence). Their fear is real while wanting to continue to rule the foreign land without any roadblocks, while the obstacles for them are in the form of Mahatma Gandhi and a couple of local leaders who pose as significant threats. In another scene, a character of British origin equates an elephant tied up in chains with the state of the country – he cites how a young elephant in shackles was easier to control, as opposed to a full grown elephant that would stop at nothing. And these little anecdotes find their way in the narrative while acting as a foundation for the drama.

The drama is essentially non-linear with its narrative style, almost having multiple timelines across which it is spread. The focal point (and quite honestly the talking point) of the drama remains the infamous Jallianwala Bagh massacre with the writing focused on deconstructing the events leading upto the event, and later the aftermath of the event leading to a necessary fightback in the court of law. Yet, the writing does ponder on the recurring themes of friendship in Amritsar that thrives despite ideological differences between characters. So along with Kantilal Sahni, you are also introduced to his friends Allahbaksh (Sahil Mehta) and Hari (Bhawsheel Sahni), wherein you see their friendship coming through in a night of laughter. But in the very same scene, you see seeds of ideological differences between the three. Allahbaksh remains the most vocal agaimat the British empire given his tabloid roots (those were the days when media was fearless), while often highlighting the underlying levels of politics including the participation of Indian soldiers in world war 1, citing it as a conspiracy. Hari, having fought the war is more giving and understated while wishing for peace. Kantilal, on the other hand remains mute although wishing to be on the side of the British, to which Allahbaksh replies that he prays that Kantilal would soon get his voice on the occasion of Ramnavmi. Hence in many ways, the drama here doubles up as a coming of age story of Kantilal who finds himself pitted againat the British empire in the court of law.

The seeds of violence are used as byproducts for the divide and rule policy that was implemented by the Briitish at the time of Independence. In a small but specific setup, the focus initially lies on the events leading up to the massacre, while emphasizing on the politics of the land that resulted in a riot-like situation days before the concerned incident. Parallelly, the documentary style of filmmaking alternates between the testimonies of characters in the court of law that was designed to be a mere formality, until the tide began to turn. The major massacre that transpires at the halfway mark was designed to be dark and disturbing, almost allowing you to picture the victims being shot while focusing on the bullets being pumped. That definitely does create a stir whose repercussions I am told, is even felt today in the vicinity of the area where the event unfolded. The writing here remains understated but powerful enough to create a range of emotions that allows you to invest in the characters and their journeys even who continue to be subjected to the atrocities of the British.

The journey for Kantilal remains internal as much as external here. In a painful scene wherein you see him imagining his friends whom he has lost along the way, you see him stating on how he has been left behind while having the lives of many families at his mercy. In the same scene, there is also a startling revelation that acts as a layer of guilt for Kantilal while being a major trigger point for the case that he is fighting. Interestingly, given his previous ambition of settling in London, you see an unofficial offer being made to him too, something that he refuses. And these events also resonate with the growth of the character who is now able to differentiate between right and wrong. So in a scene wherein he reads out the names of the people who had lost their lives in the massacre, you feel the pain in his eyes that reflects on the pain in the room.

The one little aspect that I did find against the tonal grain of the drama was the final act that seemed slightly dramatized to the point of disbelief. It tonally deviated from the understated tone that dominated the proceedings up until then. The final act itself was well-intended almost playing out like the finale of the film Shaurya (2008), with a character blurting out details of how he was duty bound himself while having to ‘manipulate’ the people around him to spew hate, all with the intention of protecting the crown and infusing discipline, which was quite infuriating. But the events leading up to that incident just fell a notch shorter than the sweet spot. Nevertheless, the finale itself was moving with certains facts that played out with the end credits. Yet, the takeaway for me remained the underlying message of unity irrespective of the caste, religion or creed that holds even more importance in today’s times. The screenplay is leisurely paced but definitely makes an impact with the emotions that it has to offer.