Netflix’s latest web series “IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack” sparked significant controversy earlier this week after several social media users voiced their outrage regarding the names of the four hijackers portrayed in the critically-acclaimed series. This backlash prompted the Information & Broadcasting Ministry to summon Monika Shergill, the content chief of Netflix. Additionally, a public interest litigation was filed before the Delhi High Court by the president of the ‘Hindu Sena’ organization. The plea accused the series of distorting the religious identities of the hijackers by naming two of the five hijackers as Bhola and Shankar and called for the revocation of the series’ certification.
Directed by Anubhav Sinha, the six-part series recounts the dramatic hijacking of the IC-814 flight on December 24, 1999. The flight had just taken off from Kathmandu, destined for Delhi, when it was seized by the hijackers. The Airbus 300 was diverted through multiple locations, including Amritsar, Lahore, Dubai, and finally Kandahar in Afghanistan, which was under Taliban control at the time. The hijacking ordeal lasted six days, ending after the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government released three notorious terrorists, Masood Azhar, Omar Saeed Sheikh, and Mushtaq Ahmad Zargar, in exchange for the hostages.
The series takes inspiration from “Flight To Fear”, a firsthand account penned by the flight’s pilot, Captain Devi Sharan, with journalist Srinjoy Chowdhury. Despite a disclaimer labeling it a work of fiction inspired by real events, the uproar stems from the creative liberties taken by the creators, particularly the decision not to clarify that the hijackers used codenames during the operation, which many viewers took as an implicit truth.
Numerous journalistic sources from the period have indicated that the hijackers indeed used aliases, referencing a press release from the Union Home Ministry on January 6, 2000. The release identified the true names of the hijackers as Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayeed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi, Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, and Shakir, and detailed the aliases they used: (1) Chief, (2) Doctor, (3) Burger, (4) Bhola, and (5) Shankar. “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,” the press release stated.
.
The clarification seems understood by some of those expressing outrage, yet they appear to be more concerned with how future generations might misinterpret these details when the events are less fresh in public memory. BJP leader Amit Malviya voiced his concerns on the social media platform X, 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.”
Even though the series does not explicitly mention that Bhola and Shankar are code names, it does reveal the true identity of ‘Chief’ when the negotiations are at a critical point. Journalist Neelesh Misra, who authored a book on the hijacking, confirmed on X that Chief was indeed the brother of Masood Azhar. Within the storyline, Bhola and Shankar are considered minor players and are only referred to by their code names once throughout the six episodes.
The controversy highlights a growing tension between creative freedom and historical accuracy, as streaming platforms increasingly dramatize real-life events. While the makers of “IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack” might view their creative decisions as permissible artistic liberties, those opposed are concerned about preserving historical truth and religious identities in the collective memory of the public. This incident underscores the ongoing debate over how far creative projects can go in altering factual history while remaining respectful to the actual events and individuals involved.
Indian media, including cinema and television, frequently grapples with the responsibility of portraying historical events accurately. As streaming services continue to expand their reach and their influence on public perception, the balance between creative storytelling and factual representation becomes ever more crucial. With public scrutiny and legal challenges, it remains to be seen how creators and platforms will navigate this fragile dynamic in the future.
