Netflix’s latest web series, “IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack,” has found itself amidst a storm of controversy this week as social media users expressed strong outrage over the names assigned to the hijackers in the critically-acclaimed series. This uproar has prompted the Information & Broadcasting Ministry to summon Monika Shergill, the content chief of the OTT platform. Additionally, a public interest litigation has been filed before the Delhi High Court by the president of the organization, ‘Hindu Sena.’ The plea accuses the series of distorting the religious identities of the hijackers by naming two of them as Bhola and Shankar, and it calls for the revocation of the series’ certification.
Directed by Anubhav Sinha, the six-episode series recounts the dramatic hijacking of the IC-814 flight on December 24, 1999, shortly after it departed from Kathmandu en route to Delhi. The Airbus 300 was subsequently diverted to multiple locations including Amritsar, Lahore, Dubai, and ultimately Kandahar in Afghanistan, which was under Taliban control at the time. After enduring six days of intense negotiations, the hijacking finally concluded with the then Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government agreeing to release three notorious terrorists, Masood Azhar, Omar Saeed Sheikh, and Mushtaq Ahmad Zargar, in exchange for the safe return of the hostages aboard the plane.
The series is partly inspired by “Flight To Fear,” a firsthand account of the chaotic events written by Captain Devi Sharan, the plane’s pilot, in collaboration with journalist Srinjoy Chowdhury. Although the show includes a disclaimer describing it as a work of fiction set against the backdrop of real-life events, it hasn’t quelled the controversy surrounding it.
The core of the contention lies in the creative liberties taken by the series’ creators, who chose not to make it explicitly clear that the terrorists used codenames during the hijacking, assuming that the audience would naturally understand this fact. However, some viewers interpreted this ambiguity as misleading, believing it could potentially misinform future generations about the true identities and motivations of the actual hijackers.
Journalistic records from the period clarify that the hijackers indeed used aliases during their operation.
. They often cite a press release from the Union Home Ministry issued on January 6, 2000, which revealed the real names of the hijackers: Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayeed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi, Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, and Shakir. The release also confirmed their use of aliases, stating, “To the passengers of the hijacked plane, these hijackers came to be known respectively as (1) Chief, (2) Doctor, (3) Burger, (4) Bhola, and (5) Shankar, the names by which the hijackers invariably addressed one another.”
Despite these clarifications, many remain discontented. Their concern seems to focus on future generations possibly being misled once the details of the hijacking fade from living memory. BJP leader Amit Malviya voiced this concern on social media platform X, asserting, “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.”
Although the series does not explicitly indicate that Bhola and Shankar were codenames, it does unmask Chief during a critical moment when negotiations seemed to be failing. Journalist Neelesh Misra, who also authored a book on the hijacking, supported this in a post on X, affirming that Chief was indeed the brother of Masood Azhar. Within the show’s narrative, Bhola and Shankar remain minor players who are referred to by their codenames only once across the six episodes.
In the broader context of Indian cinema and television, this controversy touches upon the persistent challenges of balancing creative expression with historical accuracy and political sensitivities. As debates continue to swirl, the reception of “IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack” serves as a poignant reminder of the powerful impact media can have on public perception and collective memory.
