Netflix’s latest web series, “IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack,” encountered severe turbulence this week when several social media users expressed outrage over the portrayal of the hijackers in the critically-acclaimed series. The furor centers on the names attributed to the hijackers, which some claim misrepresent their religious identities.
In response to the public outcry, the Information & Broadcasting Ministry summoned Monika Shergill, the head of content for the streaming platform, to address the grievances. Compounding the controversy, a public interest litigation has been filed before the Delhi High Court by Vishnu Gupta, the president of the ‘Hindu Sena’ outfit. The plea asserts that the series distorts the religious identities of the hijackers by attributing Hindu names—Bhola and Shankar—to two of the five terrorists, thereby seeking the revocation of the series’ certification.
Directed by the acclaimed filmmaker Anubhav Sinha, the six-episode series dramatizes the harrowing hijacking of Indian Airlines flight IC-814 on December 24, 1999, shortly after it left Kathmandu for Delhi. As the real-life crisis unfolded, the hijacked Airbus 300 was redirected multiple times, making stops in Amritsar, Lahore, Dubai, and eventually landing in Kandahar, Afghanistan, which was then under Taliban control. After six exhaustive days of high-stakes negotiations, the Indian government, led by then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, agreed to release three notorious terrorists—Masood Azhar, Omar Saeed Sheikh, and Mushtaq Ahmad Zargar—in exchange for the safe return of the passengers and crew.
The series draws on “Flight To Fear,” a first-hand account written by the flight’s captain, Devi Sharan, in collaboration with journalist Srinjoy Chowdhury. Although a disclaimer at the beginning of the series identifies it as a work of fiction set against real-life events, the creators have faced backlash for their creative liberties, especially concerning the names of the hijackers.
This controversy partially stems from the creative decision not to explicitly clarify that the terrorists used codenames during the hijacking. Many are concerned that this omission could contribute to historical inaccuracies as public memory fades over time.
Several well-documented accounts from the period affirm that the hijackers used aliases. A press release from the Union Home Ministry dated January 6, 2000, revealed the identities of the hijackers—namely Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayeed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi, Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, and Shakir—and confirmed they operated under nicknames.
. “To the passengers of the hijacked plane, these hijackers came to be known respectively as Chief, Doctor, Burger, Bhola, and Shankar, the names by which the hijackers invariably addressed one another,” the press release stated.
Despite these historical records, many critics worry about the long-term implications of such portrayal. BJP leader Amit Malviya voiced his concerns on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter: “The hijackers of IC-814 were dreaded terrorists who acquired aliases to hide their Muslim identities. Filmmaker Anubhav Sinha legitimized their criminal intent by furthering their non-Muslim names. Result? Decades later, people will think Hindus hijacked IC-814.”
While the series does not explicitly highlight that Bhola and Shankar are code names, it does make an effort to unmask one of the main hijackers, Chief, when negotiations become particularly strained. This revelation is corroborated by journalist Neelesh Misra, who also authored a book on the subject. In a post shared on X, Misra clarified that Chief was the brother of Masood Azhar. In the six-episode narrative, Bhola and Shankar are relatively minor characters, and their code names are mentioned only once.
The broader discussion raises pertinent questions about the ethical responsibilities of filmmakers when dealing with historical events. While artistic license permits certain creative freedoms, the potential for misinforming audiences remains a concern. As the debate unfolds, the focus remains on the balance between storytelling and historical accuracy.
Indian cinema and television continue to grapple with such complex issues, which exemplifies the challenging landscape that content creators navigate in an era of heightened sensitivity and scrutiny. As the Delhi High Court prepares to hear the public interest litigation, the ultimate resolution of this controversy remains to be seen.
