Netflix’s latest web series “IC 814: The Kandhar Hijack” has found itself enveloped in quite the storm this week, as social media users and several concerned parties have voiced their outrage over the representation of the hijackers in the critically-acclaimed series. The uproar comes from the alleged insensitive re-naming of two of the five hijackers, an act that has prompted a series of reactions from authorities and public figures alike.
The Information & Broadcasting Ministry, in addressing the heated controversy, swiftly summoned Monika Shergill, the chief content officer of the popular OTT platform, to provide explanations. Adding to the escalating situation, a public interest litigation has been filed before the Delhi High Court by the president of ‘Hindu Sena’, an outfit that alleges that the series distorts the religious identities of the hijackers by naming two of them as Bhola and Shankar. The petition aims to revoke the certification granted to the series, arguing that such changes are misleading and could cause societal harm.
Directed by Anubhav Sinha, the six-episode series dramatizes the infamous hijacking of the IC-814 flight on December 24, 1999. The Air India Airbus 300 had just taken off from Kathmandu, bound for Delhi, when it was seized by hijackers and diverted to Amritsar, Lahore, Dubai, and ultimately to Kandahar in Afghanistan under Taliban control. After nearly a week of tense negotiations, the high-stakes standoff 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 safety of the passengers and crew.
The series bases part of its narrative on “Flight To Fear,” a detailed account by Captain Devi Sharan, who piloted the hijacked plane, written collaboratively with journalist Srinjoy Chowdhury. While the series is described through a disclaimer as a fictional work inspired by real-life events, its link to factual incidents is unmistakable.
At the heart of the controversy lies the naming of the terrorists. The creative liberty taken by the show’s makers in not explicitly clarifying that the hijackers used codenames has sparked a firestorm. According to several historical sources and journalistic accounts published at the time, the five hijackers were known by aliases.
. An official press release by the Union Home Ministry on January 6, 2000, listed their actual names as Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayeed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi, Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, and Shakir. It also confirmed the codenames used: Chief, Doctor, Burger, Bhola, and Shankar.
The distinction between real names and aliases appears lost to some who have raised concerns, fearing that future generations may misinterpret these details. Among those vocal about this issue is BJP leader Amit Malviya, who took to X (formerly Twitter) to criticize the series for allegedly legitimizing the hijackers’ attempts to mask their Muslim identities with Hindu-sounding names. Malviya warned of potential historical inaccuracies, stating, “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 doesn’t explicitly clarify that Bhola and Shankar are codenames, it does reveal the true identity of Chief when negotiations reach an impasse. A post on X by journalist Neelesh Misra, who has also written extensively on the event, corroborates that Chief was Masood Azhar’s brother. Within the series, Bhola and Shankar play minor roles and are addressed by their codenames only briefly, once in all six episodes.
As Indian cinema and streaming content continue to explore historical and real-life events, this controversy underscores the delicate balance between creative storytelling and factual integrity. For now, “IC 814: The Kandhar Hijack” remains available on Netflix, but the conversation surrounding it is far from over, bringing to light crucial discussions about representation, historical accuracy, and the power of narrative in shaping public memory.
