Kesari 2 director calls Akshay Kumar-starrer ‘synthesis of history and fiction': ‘Films based on real-life events aren't supposed to be photographs'
There's an ongoing conversation around Akshay Kumar's latest film Kesari 2, with many questioning whether it's a fictional story that uses real-life characters. The film stars Akshay in the role of lawyer SC Sankaran Nair, who legally fought the British Empire in the aftermath of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919. In a recent interaction, the film's director Karan Singh Tyagi addressed the issue and called the film a 'synthesis of history and fiction.'
During an interaction with Bollywood Hungama, when Karan was asked if Kesari 2 is a 'synthesis of history and fiction,' he agreed and responded, 'You called it a 'synthesis of history and fiction' — and that's exactly what I wanted it to be. One of my screenwriting heroes, Aaron Sorkin, once said that films based on real-life events aren't supposed to be photographs. They can be paintings. In a painting, there's more room for interpretation, more latitude to dramatize and express an idea.'
Karan admitted that he took creative liberties so the film could reach a wider audience. He said, 'That's what I aimed to do. I wanted Sankaran Nair's story to reach as wide an audience as possible. With the support of his family, my co-writers and I set out to portray a man's journey from a British loyalist to one of India's fiercest patriots — someone who used the power of the courts to challenge an empire.'
Despite the criticism, Kesari 2 was hailed by several political dignitaries including Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj, Delhi Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa, and Minister Anurag Thakur during its screening in Delhi.
SCREEN review of the film by Shubhra Gupta read, 'While the film is clearly aligned with the Make India Great Again thinking, you can spot a couple of smartly subversive ideas nestling in there. A line about a joint 'Hindu-Muslim' celebration around Ram Navami which happened for the 'first time ' just before the massacre (apparently the dangerous thing that incensed the divide-and-rule British masters so much that it put the pre-planned executions at Jallianwala Bagh into motion, according to the film) tells us such a thing actually happened, something that seems like a receding hope these days. And both the British and Indian lawyers blow the bugle for 'freedom of speech': now where have we heard that phrase before? And can it gain currency again?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
17 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Sibal questions Dhankar's ‘inaction' on impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and alleged the government was trying to save the judge after he made "entirely communal" remarks last year. Speaking on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same. Mr. Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said the whole incident smacks of "discrimination" as on one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, while did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma. Mr. Sibal said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is sitting on the constitutional post, which is second in the hierarchy, does not fulfil constitutional obligations in six months. "On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken," Mr. Sibal said at a press conference here. "I want to ask those who are sitting on constitutional posts, their responsibility is to only verify whether signatures are there or not, should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," Mr. Sibal said. On the "instructions" of the VHP, Mr. Yadav had made a speech in High Court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court which took action, he said. Justice Yadav said in December: 'I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority,' he said. A video of the speech was shared on social media by some of the event's attendees. The judge said that being a Hindu, he respected his religion, but that did not mean he had any 'ill will' towards other religions or faith. 'We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married... we don't want you to take a dip in Ganga... but we expect you to not to disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country,' Justice Yadav said. Mr. Sibal added: 'Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.' The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking for no action and it was said the matter will be taken as there is an impeachment motion notice and the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Mr. Yadav, Mr. Sibal said. "I don't understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC's own, it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now impeachment motion has not even been admitted, it has been six months and only signatures are being verified," Mr.. Sibal said. So when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what relation does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it has with the inquiry, Mr. Sibal asked. 'Communal' statement "What Justice Yadav said is before everyone there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as according to us this is a totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement," Mr. Sibal said. "Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him," he said. So either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that "we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026", Mr. Sibal said. "So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal," he said. Members of several opposition parties on December 13 had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge Yadav over his controversial remarks at a VHP event. The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Mr. Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale. The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav. The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) prima facie showed that he "engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India". The notice also mentioned that the judge prima facie showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them. At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism. A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders.
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Australian PM Albanese calls Lauren Tomasi shooting incident ‘horrific'; 'very concerned' LAPD orders probe
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the footage of Nine News reporter Lauren Tomasi being shot by a rubber bullet while covering the riots in Los Angeles live on air 'horrific' and confirmed that Australia had already raised the matter with the Trump administration. The Los Angeles Police Department , too, stated that the incident was of concern and being looked into. Outlining the role of the media, Albanese said, 'We don't find it acceptable that it occurred. Clearly, as people can see in the footage, she was identified as media. The role of the media is particularly important.' Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade added: 'All journalists should be able to do their work safely.' Response from Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the department is ' very concerned ' and is investigating the ' target-specific munition ' incident. Live Events 'In a dynamic situation, it's not to say it always hits the intended target,' McDonnell said. Calls for safety from advocates and communities Press freedom groups and unions united in condemnation. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance in Australia called for better staff safety measures, trauma debriefing, and equipment. Digital Content Next's Jason Kint praised Tomasi's return to work, stating: 'Grateful for a free and plural press. And yes, it at least appeared to be an intentional shot. Chilling.' Freedom of the Press similarly urged swift action: 'This sure doesn't look like an accident.' Greens Senator Sarah Hanson‑Young demanded that Albanese 'stop shooting at our journalists' and prompt clarity from US counterparts. UK and Northern Irish journalists also spoke out. Leona O'Neill, head of journalism at Ulster University, warned rubber bullets could cause serious harm, calling the targeting of media 'abhorrent.' What happened with Lauren Tomasi? Nine News correspondent Lauren Tomasi was live on-air near the Metropolitan Detention Center, reporting on protests sparked by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. Moments after narrating that 'this situation has now rapidly deteriorated,' an LAPD officer raised a weapon and fired a projectile that struck Tomasi in her leg. In the chilling footage, Tomasi cries out, gripping her calf, while bystanders exclaim 'You just fucking shot the reporter!' She steadies herself immediately afterward, telling her cameraman: 'I'm good, I'm good.' Nine News confirmed that both Tomasi and her cameraman are safe and vowed to continue their reporting. British photographer also injured Meanwhile, British photographer Nick Stern was also injured by a sponge bullet in nearby Compton and underwent emergency surgery. The LAPD inquiry continues. Albanese's administration may raise the issue further when he meets President Trump at the upcoming G7 summit . Advocates worldwide are calling for legal scrutiny and firm assurances that journalists won't be collateral targets. Tomasi's resolve remains unshaken. After returning to work, she said: 'I'm a bit sore, but I'm okay. Important we keep on telling the stories that need to be told.' Protests and tensions The protests erupted after ICE detained dozens of people across LA starting June 6, culminating in blockades of freeways and clashes with police that included tear gas, flash-bangs, rubber bullets, and mounted units. The Trump administration had deployed some 2,000 National Guard troops and placed 500 Marines on standby.
New Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Trump has long speculated about using force against his own people. Now he has the pretext to do so
Emma Shortis, RMIT University 'You just [expletive] shot the reporter!' Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same 'non-lethal' ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as 'a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.' He then deployed the National Guard. 'Can't you just shoot them?' As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, 'Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?' Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as 'un-American' and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression.
