The recent release of the crime thriller drama mini-series ‘IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack’ has ignited a storm on social media, fueling debate and controversy over its narrative choices and the portrayal of certain historical events. Directed by the acclaimed Anubhav Sinha, the series delves into the harrowing hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814, an incident that has left an indelible mark on the annals of Indian aviation history.
The series attempts to recount the events from December 1999 when six terrorists from the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen group – Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayed, Sunny, Ahmad Qazi, Zahoor Mistry, and Shakir – brazenly hijacked the flight with the aim of securing the release of three Pakistani terrorists imprisoned in India: Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, Masood Azhar, and Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar. However, what has caught the attention of the viewers and critics alike is how the Netflix series has allegedly altered and whitewashed certain elements, sparking an online uproar.
The heart of the controversy lies in the alleged ‘whitewashing’ of the narrative, particularly criticisms that the series humanises the hijackers and obfuscates their true identities. Social media platforms have been buzzing with opinions and sharp critiques, accusing the series of diluting the harsh reality of the hijackers’ identities and backgrounds. Many users have specifically pointed out that the names and perhaps even the religion of the hijackers were purposefully altered or concealed.
One particular user expressed their dismay on X, formerly known as Twitter, stating, “Kandahar flight hijackers’ original names: Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar, Sunny Ahmed, Zahoor Mistry and Shakir. Anubhav Sinha’s hijacker web series ‘IC 814’ depicted them as Bhola, Shankar. This is how whitewashing is done cinematically.” Another user added more fuel to the fire by commenting, “The hijackers of IC814 were lethal, cruel — to even attempt to show some of them as human in the Netflix series is unfair.”
These grievances were compounded by a third user’s post highlighting their surprise and disappointment with the streaming platform’s editorial choices. “I noticed that too and was extremely surprised. Not a cool thing to do. I wonder how the @NetflixIndia team can be so reckless to let this happen,” they wrote.
.
While the online backlash pivots around these crucial points, it’s imperative to reference the Ministry of External Affairs report from January 2000, which substantiates the fact that during the crisis, the hijackers did indeed address each other with aliases such as Chief, Doctor, Burger, Bhola, and Shankar. The serial’s choice of using these names, albeit heavily criticized, does have its basis in documented interactions from that time.
Further defending this narrative choice is journalist-writer-lyricist Neelesh Misra, the author of the book ‘173 Hours in Captivity: The Hijacking of IC814’. Taking to his own X account, Misra emphasized, “Shankar, Bhola, Burger, Doctor and the Chief, the brother of then-jailed Masood Azhar himself. All the hijackers assumed false names. That is how they referred to each other and how the passengers referred to them throughout the hijacking. Regards, the author of the first book on the IC-814 hijacking.”
Misra’s statement attempts to provide context to the names used in the series, indicating that these were indeed the names the hijackers used amongst themselves and were recognized by the hostages by these monikers throughout the ordeal. Nevertheless, the divergence between documenting real events and dramatic storytelling in the mini-series continues to stir contentious debates.
The hijacking saga lasted for an agonizing seven days, with the Indian government capitulating to the terrorists’ demands to extradite the prisoners, which eventually led to the release of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, Masood Azhar, and Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar. These events remain a grim reminder of the complexities and the high stakes involved in handling international terrorism.
As discussions rage on, it’s evident that any attempt to recount such dark chapters of history, whether through literature or visual media, will always be subjected to public scrutiny and differing interpretations. While artistic licenses are often taken in dramatizations, the backlash against ‘IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack’ underscores the delicate balance creators must strike between historical authenticity and storytelling.
The contentious reception of this series accentuates the broader discourse on how sensitive historical events should be portrayed in popular media. As social media continues to be a platform for re-evaluation and debate, the hope is that such discussions lead to more conscientious discourses in future works.
