Netflix’s latest web series, “IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack,” encountered a turbulent reception early this week as several social media users voiced outrage over the names of the four hijackers depicted in the highly anticipated series. Responding to the growing discontent, the Information & Broadcasting Ministry summoned Monika Shergill, the content chief of the OTT platform, for a discussion. Moreover, a public interest litigation has been filed before the Delhi High Court by the president of an organization called ‘Hindu Sena’. The plea alleges that the series distorts the religious identities of the hijackers by naming two of them as Bhola and Shankar and seeks the revocation of the series’ certification.
Directed by Anubhav Sinha, the six-episode series portrays the dramatic hijacking of the IC-814 flight on December 24, 1999, just after its departure from Kathmandu en route to Delhi. The hijackers diverted the Airbus 300 to several locations, including Amritsar, Lahore, and Dubai, before finally landing in Kandahar, Afghanistan, then under Taliban control. After six days of intense negotiations, the hijacking concluded with the release of three notorious terrorists, Masood Azhar, Omar Saeed Sheikh, and Mushtaq Ahmad Zargar, by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government, in exchange for the safety of the aircraft’s passengers and crew.
The series draws inspiration in part from “Flight To Fear,” a firsthand account of the incident penned by the plane’s pilot, Captain Devi Sharan, and journalist Srinjoy Chowdhury. A disclaimer in the series describes it as a work of fiction that takes creative liberties while being set against the backdrop of real-life events.
The controversy centers on the use of names by the series’ creators, who opted not to overtly indicate that the terrorists used codenames during the hijack. This information, argued by those in outrage, is not explicitly stated in the series, leading to allegations of misleading viewers about the hijackers’ identities.
Numerous journalistic accounts from the period clarify that the hijackers used aliases. They reference a press release from the Union Home Ministry, dated January 6, 2000, which disclosed the real names of the hijackers as Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayeed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi, Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, and Shakir. The press release also confirmed the codenames used: “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 distinction between real names and aliases seems clear to some of the series’ critics. They express concern that future audiences might misinterpret the historical facts once the event fades from public memory. BJP leader Amit Malviya wrote on X, “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 does not explicitly denote that Bhola and Shankar are just codenames, it does reveal the true identity of Chief when negotiations threaten to fail. Journalist Neelesh Misra, who also wrote a book on the hijacking, posted on X, stating that Chief was the brother of Masood Azhar. Within the narrative context, Bhola and Shankar are minor characters and are referred to by their codenames only once in six episodes.
This incident has sparked a wider discourse on the responsibilities of filmmakers when handling sensitive historical events. The Netflix series, aimed at unraveling a significant chapter in India’s recent history, has unintentionally reignited debates about religious identity and the portrayal of terrorism in media. As the public interest litigation proceeds and the summoned discussions ensue, the outcome of this controversy remains to be seen. The series’ depiction raises fundamental questions about the balance between creative freedom and historical accuracy, resonating with viewers and critics alike. Whether the outrage will lead to concrete changes in the series or a broader understanding of creative liberties in historical narratives will unfold in the coming weeks.
