Netflix’s latest series ‘IC 814: The Kandhar Hijack’ has encountered significant turbulence this week after social media users erupted in outrage over the names of the hijackers depicted in the critically acclaimed show. In response to the uproar, the Information & Broadcasting Ministry has summoned Monika Shergill, the content head of the OTT platform, for a discussion. The controversy has also sparked legal action, as a public interest litigation has been filed in the Delhi High Court by Vishnu Gupta, the president of the organization ‘Hindu Sena’. The plea asserts that the series distorts the religious identities of the hijackers by naming two of them Bhola and Shankar, and it calls for the revocation of the series’ certification.
Directed by Anubhav Sinha, the six-episode series re-enacts the gripping hijacking of the IC-814 flight, which occurred on December 24, 1999, shortly after takeoff from Kathmandu en route to Delhi. The Airbus 300 endured a catastrophic journey, being diverted to Amritsar, Lahore, Dubai, and ultimately Kandahar in Afghanistan, which was then under Taliban control. Following six harrowing days of negotiations, the crisis ended when the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government released three notorious terrorists—Masood Azhar, Omar Saeed Sheikh, and Mushtaq Ahmad Zargar—in exchange for the safety of the passengers and crew.
The series draws inspiration partly from ‘Flight To Fear,’ a first-hand account penned by the plane’s captain, Devi Sharan, in collaboration with journalist Srinjoy Chowdhury. Despite a disclaimer stating that the series is a fictional narrative based on real-life events, the issue has ignited a heated debate about the liberties taken by the creators. At the crux of the discontent are allegations that the series fails to disclose that the hijackers utilized codenames during the operation, leaving viewers with a misleading impression about their identities.
Historical documents and journalistic reports from the time of the hijacking reveal that the terrorists indeed operated under aliases. According to a January 6, 2000, press release from the Union Home Ministry, the true identities of the hijackers were Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayeed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi, Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, and Shakir. The document further clarifies that the hijackers addressed each other using codenames: (1) Chief, (2) Doctor, (3) Burger, (4) Bhola, and (5) Shankar. These codenames came to be associated with them by the passengers on the plane.
.
The concern among critics appears to focus not only on the present but also on the future, particularly when the details of the hijacking might fade from collective memory. BJP leader Amit Malviya commented on social media platform X, stating, “The hijackers of IC-814 were notorious terrorists who adopted aliases to conceal their Muslim identities. Filmmaker Anubhav Sinha has legitimized their criminal actions by perpetuating their non-Muslim names. The result? Decades later, people might mistakenly believe that Hindus hijacked IC-814.”
Despite the series not explicitly mentioning that Bhola and Shankar are codenames, it does reveal the true identity of Chief, especially when negotiations appear to be stalling. Journalist Neelesh Misra, who has also authored a book on the subject, reiterated on X that Chief was in fact Masood Azhar’s brother. Within the narrative framework of the series, Bhola and Shankar play minor roles and are referred to by these codenames only once in the span of the six episodes.
Public reaction to the series has been polarized, with some viewers praising its storytelling and production values while others critique it for perceived factual inaccuracies. The debate underscores a broader conversation about creative freedom and historical accuracy in media portrayals of real-life events.
As the controversy continues to unfold, it casts a spotlight on the responsibilities of filmmakers when blending fact with fiction. While artistic liberties are often taken to enhance storytelling, the case of ‘IC 814: The Kandhar Hijack’ demonstrates the fine line creators must tread to avoid misrepresentations that could lead to public confusion or historical distortion.
Netflix has yet to release an official statement on the situation, and it remains to be seen how this will influence the series’ standing among viewers and critics alike. The outcome of the ongoing legal battle in the Delhi High Court will also be critical in determining whether any changes will be mandated for the controversial series.
