Mumbai: The recently released crime thriller drama television mini-series ‘IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack,’ directed by Anubhav Sinha, has sparked a considerable uproar online due to its narrative choices and perceived factual inaccuracies. The mini-series, which revisits the harrowing hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814, is drawing criticism for its alleged portrayal of the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, in a conspicuously sanitized manner, and for supposedly altering the hijackers’ religious identities.
‘IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack’ dramatizes the December 1999 hijacking by six militants of the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen terrorist outfit: Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayed, Sunny, Ahmad Qazi, Zahoor Mistry, and Shakir. The terrorists commandeered the flight to secure the release of three Pakistani prisoners held in India — Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, Masood Azhar, and Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar. Despite this intense backdrop, the series is facing heavy criticism for allegedly humanising the terrorists and using misleading content.
The primary source of the outrage appears to be the way the series depicts the terrorists’ identities. Social media platforms, particularly X (formerly known as Twitter), are abuzz with scathing remarks from viewers who feel the series distorts historical facts. One user pointed out, “Kandahar flight hijackers’ original names: Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar, Sunny Ahmed, Zahoor Mistry and Shakir. Anubhav Sinha hijacker web series ‘IC 814′ depicted as Bhola, Shankar. This is how whitewashing is done cinematically.” Another echoed, “The hijackers of IC814 were lethal, cruel — to even attempt to show some of them as human in the Netflix series is unfair.”
Adding to the controversy, numerous viewers are disgruntled by what they perceive as a deliberate change of the hijackers’ religious identities within the narrative. One particularly perturbed viewer expressed their surprise on X, “I noticed that too and was extremely surprised. Not a cool thing to do. I wonder how the @NetflixIndia team can be so reckless to let this happen.”
Despite the furor, according to a report from the Ministry of External Affairs dated January 2000, the hijackers did indeed use pseudonyms — Chief, Doctor, Burger, Bhola, and Shankar — to address one another during the event.
. This rapport, built on assumed identities, has further fueled debate among viewers about the necessity and impact of such portrayals. Journalist Neelesh Misra, who authored the book ‘173 Hours in Captivity: The Hijacking of IC814,’ weighed in on the subject, saying, “Shankar, Bhola, Burger, Doctor and the Chief, the brother of then-jailed Masood Azhar himself. All the hijackers assumed false names. That is how they referred to each other and how the passengers referred to them throughout the hijacking. Regards, the author of the first book on the IC-814 hijacking.”
The real-life hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814 was a week-long crisis that ended after the Indian government agreed to release the three aforementioned terrorists to secure the hostages’ freedom. The incident left an indelible mark on India’s collective memory and has been an emotionally charged event ever since. Given these sensitivities, it’s understandable why a dramatization that veers too far from the perceived truth would provoke strong reactions.
Nevertheless, the allegations against the series — that it whitewashes the involvement of the ISI and presents a more human angle to the terrorists — are serious and have resonated widely. Critics argue this could distort public understanding of the event, reducing the gravity of the terrorism and sufferings endured by passengers and their families. This has perpetuated calls for more accountability in how significant historical events are depicted in the media.
As the debate continues to simmer online, ‘IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack’ finds itself at the center of a broader discourse on the portrayal of terrorism and historical accuracy in media. The show’s creators have yet to respond to the allegations directly, but the contentious nature of historical dramatizations ensures this won’t be the last time such issues arise. For now, the conversation underscores the delicate balance creators must achieve when immortalizing historic traumas, where factual responsibility is as crucial as the compelling narrative.
In conclusion, the furor surrounding ‘IC 814’ highlights the challenges and responsibilities faced by filmmakers. As audiences become increasingly discerning and vocal about narrative authenticity, filmmakers must navigate ethical considerations delicately, ensuring that creative freedoms do not come at the cost of historical integrity.
