Netflix’s latest web series “IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack” has flown into a patch of turbulence this week, with a section of social media users expressing significant outrage over the monikers assigned to the four hijackers in the critically-acclaimed show. In response to this rising furor, the Information & Broadcasting Ministry summoned Monika Shergill, Netflix’s content chief, for an explanation. Furthermore, a public interest litigation has been filed before the Delhi High Court by the president of an outfit called ‘Hindu Sena.’ This plea contends that the series distorts the religious identities of the hijackers by naming two of them Bhola and Shankar, and it seeks to revoke the series’ certification.
Directed by Anubhav Sinha, the six-episode series portrays the gripping narrative of the hijacking of IC-814 on December 24, 1999. Shortly after taking off from Kathmandu en route to Delhi, the Airbus 300 was diverted to multiple locations including Amritsar, Lahore, Dubai, and finally Kandahar in Afghanistan, which was under Taliban control at that time. Following six days of intense and high-stakes negotiations, the hijacking culminated with the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government agreeing to release three dreaded terrorists—Masood Azhar, Omar Saeed Sheikh, and Mushtaq Ahmad Zargar—in exchange for the safe return of the passengers and crew members.
Drawing inspiration partly from “Flight To Fear,” a detailed first-hand account authored by the plane’s pilot, Captain Devi Sharan, along with journalist Srinjoy Chowdhury, the series carries a disclaimer stating it as a work of fiction set against some real-life events.
The bone of contention surrounding the series is primarily rooted in the creative liberties exercised by the makers. Specifically, the discontent centers on the names Bhola and Shankar, which are given to two of the hijackers without explicitly clarifying that these were the codenames employed during the hijacking. To some viewers, this seems like crucial information that was omitted without clear justification.
Numerous journalistic accounts from the time of the hijack elucidate that the hijackers did indeed use aliases. A press release from the Union Home Ministry dated January 6, 2000, revealed the identities of the hijackers as Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayeed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi, Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, and Shakir while also confirming their respective aliases.
. According to the release, “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.”
Although it appears that the showrunners assumed viewers would naturally infer that Bhola and Shankar were aliases, this nuance was lost on many, sparking widespread outrage. Some social media users are keenly alert to the broader implications, worrying that such details might inevitably fade from public memory over time. BJP leader Amit Malviya voiced his concerns on platform X by stating, “The hijackers of IC-814 were dreaded terrorists, who acquired aliases to hide their Muslim identities. Filmmaker Anubhav Sinha, legalized their criminal intent by promoting their non-Muslim names. Result? Decades later, people will think Hindus hijacked IC-814.”
While the series refrains from explicitly detailing the intricacies behind the names Bhola and Shankar, it does unmask one hijacker, Chief, during a critical juncture in the negotiations. Journalist Neelesh Misra, who has also written about the incident, elaborated on platform X that Chief was the brother of Masood Azhar. Within the narrative of the series, Bhola and Shankar are minor figures who are referred to by their codenames merely once in the entire six-episode run.
As the controversy swirls, the debate highlights a broader discussion on how creative freedoms intersect with historical accuracy, especially in sensitive and impactful events like the IC-814 hijacking. While the series claims to be a fictional portrayal, the depiction of such real-life events inevitably carries a heavy weight of responsibility, bringing to fore the delicate balance filmmakers must maintain between storytelling and truth.
Indian cinema, known for its rich and varied stories, continues to grapple with these questions, especially when revisiting historical events. The public’s response to “IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack” is but the latest testament to how potent and contentious this intersection can be.
