Rakesh Sharma is a face of many frames cinema has seen over the years. Over four decades, he has seen the evolution of Indian documentary from academic works to those that capture real life in all its emotional hues.
Recipient of this year’s IDSFFK Lifetime Achievement Award, his concern for upheavals that disrupt human lives and the social fabric is evident in his documentaries, many of which reveal harsh truths and their aftermath.
From being part of Shyam Benegal’s iconic ‘Bharat Ek Khoj’ — a forerunner of the docu-drama genre in India — to creating award-winning and sensational works like ‘Final Solution’ on 2002, Rakesh has chronicled not just filmmaking evolution but also the nation’s shifting realities, with sensitivity and sobriety.
On the sidelines of IDSFFK 2025, where he is presenting four of his works as part of the lifetime honour, TNIE catches up with him for a free-wheeling chat.
Your journey into filmmaking is as gripping as your storytelling. Take us through it.
I studied economics at SRCC, Delhi. I was on my own, paying for my education, so FTII was out of reach. Instead, I joined Jamia [Millia Islamia] for a two-year course in filmmaking and video editing. That was when I realised reality fascinated me more than fiction. Those years also gave me an understanding of life and a first-hand experience of being underprivileged.
How did that phase shape your outlook on filmmaking?
Survival skills helped me treat people in my films as humans, not mere subjects. While filming in Gulbarg Society [for ‘Final Solution’], I asked residents why they chose to speak to me. They said, “Others interview us; you listen to us.” Many of them are family to me now. This is what I tell young filmmakers in workshops — listen and feel.
How was the experience of working with Shyam Benegal on the legendary ‘Bharat Ek Khoj’?
Quite a story. Four decades ago, I received an inland letter asking me to join Shyam babu’s new project as an assistant. He later told me I was referred to by friends. Our relationship was deep and honest, based on trust. It was the first time a docu-drama was being explored in Indian cinema, so the process required immense research, detailing, and a fine mix of fact and drama. Shyam babu gave me freedom to make judgments. People said our bond was like father and son. He was upset when I chose documentaries over mainstream cinema, but later, when ‘Final Solution’ won the Berlin Award, no one was prouder than him.
The docu-drama genre has evolved over the years. What are your observations?
Not just technically, even narratively, there’s new energy. I always believed there was interest in India for documentaries, but some people arbitrarily decided what would work. Multiplexes opened gates for diverse expressions, and OTT took it further. With every era, storytelling forms and structures evolve.
Globally, we see a surge in documentaries, especially on OTT…
Genres are collapsing into one another. In the 1980s, documentaries were neutral observations. Today, filmmakers experiment with form — whether it works or not is secondary. It’s a healthy sign for cinema.
How conducive is today’s political climate for documentary filmmaking?
The space for expression is shrinking across all media. Political documentaries have declined in the past 11 years. But intimidation works only if you let it. When I made ‘Final Solution’, the BJP, [Narendra] Modi, and [Amit] Shah were upset. Yet, I filmed in Gujarat. When people asked if it was safe, I said, “If I can do it, anyone can.”
How worrying is self-censorship among young filmmakers?
It’s linked to capital. Bigger the budget, bigger the dependence and fear. Even with my film ‘Democracy in Crisis’, funding — however benign — came with strings attached. In the 1990s, I quit filmmaking for nine years and moved to broadcasting to earn money for my projects.
What’s better — being a documentary filmmaker now or then?
Earlier, funding was essential because equipment was expensive. Until the 1990s, we were prisoners of capital. What changed — and brought me back — was the DVCAM (digital) format in the 2000s. Genres began collapsing. I first felt it when ‘Final Solution’ won Best Feature Film at the Berlin Film Festival.
You have a unique knack of weaving in real-life emotions and micro-moments in storytelling… is it intentional or organic?
Every interview is a conversation because it involves people. In the case of ‘Final Solution’, for instance, the victims portrayed weren’t just those who suffered; perpetrators too were tools of someone’s machinations. This reality cuts across ideologies and happens everywhere, including Kerala.
During the process of recording, my personal views have often caused internal agitation. At one point, it led to PTSD, and I stepped away from filmmaking. But that’s the bottom line: everyone has a story. And we must record that honestly.
You have worked on election-related shows for television. What do you make of current allegations against the EC?
They aren’t allegations — they’re facts. Our Election Commission once had a global reputation for free and fair polls. That’s getting dented now.
You mentioned that independent filmmakers are often in a tricky space. How different is a ban now from earlier times?
It’s more severe today. But it’s about navigation. When ‘Final Solution’ was banned, I fought back by going public — distributing DVDs and urging like-minded people to pirate it. If you refuse to be intimidated, nothing can break you. I have faced threats. Free speech survives if we are strong. Even now, I don’t seek institutional funding. I ask my audience to help finance my films. That’s my appeal here too.