Netflix’s latest web series, **IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack**, found itself facing significant backlash after social media users reacted strongly to the names of the hijackers portrayed in the critically-acclaimed series. The controversy escalated to a point where the Information & Broadcasting Ministry had to take notice, summoning Monika Shergill, the content chief of Netflix. Moreover, a public interest litigation was filed at the Delhi High Court by Vishnu Gupta, president of the organization ‘Hindu Sena.’ The litigation claims that the series distorts the religious identities of the hijackers by naming two of the five hijackers Bhola and Shankar, and demands the revocation of the series’ certification.
Directed by Anubhav Sinha, the six-episode series recreates the gripping saga of the IC-814 hijacking that took place on December 24, 1999. Shortly after its departure from Kathmandu for Delhi, the Airbus 300 was hijacked and rerouted to Amritsar, Lahore, Dubai, and eventually to Kandahar in Afghanistan, a region under Taliban control at the time. The hijack lasted six harrowing days and came to an end following intense negotiations, during which the government, led by then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, decided to release three notorious terrorists—Masood Azhar, Omar Saeed Sheikh, and Mushtaq Ahmad Zargar—in exchange for the passengers’ safety.
The series draws part of its narrative from “Flight To Fear,” a first-hand account by Captain Devi Sharan, the pilot of the hijacked plane, co-authored with journalist Srinjoy Chowdhury. Despite a disclaimer stating that the story is a fictionalized account based on real events, the contention arises over the seemingly unnecessary creative liberty taken by the filmmakers with the hijackers’ names.
Several historical accounts clarify that the hijackers used aliases during the hijacking event. A press release from the Union Home Ministry on January 6, 2000, listed the real names of the hijackers as Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayeed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi, Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, and Shakir, and confirmed their use of aliases. The release stated, “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 this historical clarity, the makers of the series didn’t explicitly spell out that Bhola and Shankar were mere codenames used by the hijackers.
. This omission has alarmed certain viewers and political figures who worry about the long-term implications. BJP leader Amit Malviya, for instance, took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice his concerns: “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.”
For others aware of the historical context, the distinction between real names and aliases might be obvious, but it raises concerns about future misunderstandings. The criticism doesn’t just center on these names but also about how easily sensitive details can be misconstrued when removed from their historical context.
Interestingly, within the series, the lead hijacker, referred to as Chief, is eventually unmasked during a critical negotiation standoff, revealing his true identity as the brother of Masood Azhar, as noted by journalist Neelesh Misra in a post on X. Misra, who has also authored a book on the subject, pointed out that Bhola and Shankar are minor players in the series and are referred to by their codenames only once in all six episodes.
The friction this series has caused between creative representation and historical accuracy raises broader questions about artistic license in dramatizing real events, especially ones as sensitive and impactful as the IC-814 hijacking. As filmmakers continue to navigate these treacherous waters, the balance between storytelling and factual integrity remains a contentious and delicate challenge, reflecting deep-seated concerns about how history is remembered and retold.
The legal proceedings and public discourse surrounding **IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack** highlight the tremendous responsibility borne by creators when portraying real-life events. With an ever-watchful audience ready to voice concerns, the necessity for transparency and accuracy becomes paramount, especially in an era where information—accurate or otherwise—spreads rapidly and can shape public perception significantly.
