Netflix’s latest web series “IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack” found itself at the center of a storm earlier this week when several social media users expressed their anger over the series’ portrayal of the hijackers’ identities. Many viewers claimed that the names of the four hijackers in the critically-acclaimed series were problematic, leading to a significant backlash. In response, the Information & Broadcasting Ministry has summoned Monika Shergill, the content chief of the OTT platform. Adding to the controversy, a public interest litigation was filed before the Delhi High Court by the president of the Hindu Sena, an activist group.
The primary contention centers around allegations that the series distorts the religious identities of the hijackers by naming two of them as Bhola and Shankar. The legal plea is seeking the revocation of the web series’ certification, arguing that the names are misleading and could distort historical facts.
Directed by Anubhav Sinha, the six-episode series dramatizes the events of December 24, 1999, when the IC-814 flight was hijacked shortly after taking off from Kathmandu, en route to Delhi. The hijacked Airbus 300 was diverted through various locations—Amritsar, Lahore, Dubai—before finally landing in Kandahar, Afghanistan, then under Taliban control. The harrowing six-day ordeal ended with India’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government agreeing to the release of three notorious terrorists—Masood Azhar, Omar Saeed Sheikh, and Mushtaq Ahmad Zargar—in exchange for the safe release of the passengers and crew.
The series is partially derived from “Flight To Fear,” a first-hand account documented by Captain Devi Sharan, the pilot of IC-814, alongside journalist Srinjoy Chowdhury. The show carries a disclaimer stating it is a work of fiction inspired by real-life events. However, the choice to name the hijackers Bhola and Shankar, seemingly common Hindu names, in a narrative rooted in factual events has sparked ire.
The main issue raised by critics stems from the creative liberties taken by the series’ creators. They point out that the series does not clearly indicate that the terrorists were using codenames during the hijacking.
. This vital piece of information appears to be implied rather than stated, leading to confusion and outrage.
Several historical accounts and journalistic records have indicated that the hijackers operated under aliases. A press release from the Union Home Ministry, dated January 6, 2000, named the hijackers as Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayeed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi, Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, and Shakir, and confirmed that they used codenames. The press release additionally noted, “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.”
While for some critics the distinction between fact and fiction appears unnecessary, others worry about the potential long-term implications. For example, BJP leader Amit Malviya voiced his concerns on X, pointing out that the hijackers were known terrorists who used aliases to disguise their Muslim identities. He argued that by further promoting these aliases, filmmaker Anubhav Sinha legitimized their positions through non-Muslim names, leading to potential historical misconceptions. “Decades later, people will think Hindus hijacked IC-814,” Malviya warned.
Although the series doesn’t explicitly clarify that Bhola and Shankar are aliases, it does reveal the real identity of “Chief” when the negotiations reach a critical juncture. In a social media post, journalist Neelesh Misra, who also authored a book on the subject, confirmed that “Chief” was actually Masood Azhar’s brother. Within the series’ narrative, Bhola and Shankar are relatively minor characters, addressed by their codenames only once throughout the six episodes.
The controversy surrounding “IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack” has thrown a spotlight on the delicate balance between creative expression and historical accuracy. As the discourse continues, it serves as a reminder of the power of storytelling and its impact on collective memory. With legal battles and public outrage brewing, the conversation on how historical events are depicted in popular media is far from over.
