IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack controversy: Should Anubhav Sinha Have Revealed the Real Names of IC 814 Hijackers?
The recent Netflix series, IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack, directed by Anubhav Sinha, has stirred up controversy. The series, based on the 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight, uses the codenames of the hijackers: Chief, Doctor, Burger, Bhola, and Shankar. The issue? These codenames were used by Muslim terrorists, and critics argue that Sinha should have revealed their real names instead. This article explores the controversy and whether Sinha should have highlighted the real identities of the hijackers.
Background on the IC 814 Hijacking
In 1999, five terrorists hijacked Indian Airlines flight IC 814, forcing it to land in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The hijacking lasted for seven days, ending with the release of the hostages after the Indian government agreed to release three militants in exchange. The terrorists involved were part of the Pakistan-based Harkat-ul-Mujahideen group, and their real names are Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi, Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, and Shakir.
The Netflix series and the controversy
Anubhav Sinha’s IC 814 attempts to stay true to the actual events of 1999. However, the series refers to the hijackers only by their codenames, which were used during the hijacking. This decision has led to accusations that the series is whitewashing the facts by not revealing that the hijackers were Muslim terrorists. Critics argue that by not using the real names, Sinha is misleading viewers and downplaying the religious identity of the hijackers.
Public and Political Reaction
The controversy gained momentum on social media, with many accusing Sinha of deliberately concealing the hijackers’ real identities. Amit Malviya, head of the BJP’s IT cell, criticized the series for “legitimizing the criminal intent of the terrorists” by using their aliases. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting even summoned Netflix India’s content chief, Monika Shergill, to explain the contentious aspects of the series.
On the other hand, some defended the series. Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah pointed out the irony of those who accepted movies like The Kashmir Files as factual but now demand accuracy in IC 814. He argued that the same people who previously ignored nuances in other films are now calling for them in this series.
Could Anubhav Sinha Have Mentioned the Real Names?
The question remains: Could Anubhav Sinha have mentioned the real names of the hijackers? The answer is yes. The real names were confirmed by the Indian government in 2000, and Sinha could have included them in the series. The filmmaker may have intended to stay true to the events as they happened, where the codenames were used by the hijackers themselves. However, given the controversy, this decision has sparked debate about the responsibility of filmmakers in portraying historical events accurately.
The Way Forward
So, what can be done now? One practical solution would be to edit the series to include the real names of the hijackers. This could be done through captions or a brief mention in the series, ensuring that viewers are aware of the true identities of the terrorists. While this would incur additional costs and time, it could help resolve the controversy.
However, the bigger question is whether Anubhav Sinha should give in to the protests. On one hand, highlighting the real names would address the factual concerns. On the other hand, it could be argued that the focus should be on the events themselves, rather than the religious identities of the hijackers.
Conclusion: IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack is a well-made series that has received positive reviews, apart from the controversy over the names. The debate over whether Anubhav Sinha should have revealed the real names of the hijackers raises important questions about the portrayal of historical events in media. While there are practical ways to address the controversy, the decision ultimately rests with the filmmaker.
