Vikrant Massey on India’s Independence: Fact, Fiction, or Film Promotion?

Actor Vikrant Massey has stirred a fresh debate around India’s independence and Hindu identity through his statements in promotion of his new film, The Sabarmati Report, based on the 2002 Godhra incident. In interviews, Massey has raised questions that go beyond cinema.

In a recent podcast, Massey questioned whether India’s 1947 independence was truly freedom, calling it a “so-called” independence. He suggested that Hindus only recently found a space to assert their identity within the country. Comparing India’s history of colonization, he claimed that Hindu identity only emerged openly in the last decade, sparking outrage among some who argue that India's independence movement and Constitution have always ensured every citizen’s identity.

This viewpoint has brought Massey comparisons to BJP MP Kangana Ranaut, who previously made similar claims, suggesting that “real” independence came only in 2014. Such remarks invite scrutiny as they attempt to rewrite national history in favor of contemporary narratives. However, Massey’s statements also highlight a recurring theme in Indian cinema: using historical and religious narratives to appeal to specific audiences.

In interviews, Massey has claimed that discussions around Godhra have been stifled, that films on the topic are rare, and that “truth” about the 2002 riots was often hidden.

Interestingly, Massey’s comments resonate with broader concerns. He has argued that lives should not be categorized by religion, stating, “Every life has value.” By highlighting the need to value lives universally, he urges people to look beyond religious labels. This principle—valuing all lives equally—aligns with the ideals that India’s Constitution upholds, yet his words are cast in a way that seems to divide audiences.

At a time when hate crimes have risen, Massey’s claim that “everything is fine” in India is also being questioned. Reports of hate crimes and religious discrimination regularly surface, reflecting challenges that persist in the social fabric of India. These incidents contradict Massey’s optimistic view, suggesting that the reality may be more complex than he presents.

Ultimately, Vikrant Massey’s statements bring up important questions about how historical narratives are told and who gets to define identity. His remarks may provoke thought, but as his stance shifts, audiences are left wondering if this is a sincere call for unity or a calculated appeal to a specific demographic. As India moves forward, valuing every life without religious prejudice remains a goal, but questioning long-standing realities for film promotion is a tactic that audiences may not easily embrace.