The Information and Broadcasting (I&B) ministry has called Netflix representatives to explain why the series shouldn’t be taken off the air and why the OTT platform shouldn’t face action amid the controversy surrounding IC814: The Kandahar Hijack, a show directed by Anubhav Sinha.
The show stars Naseeruddin Shah, Pankaj Kapur, Vijay Varma, Arvind Swamy, and Dia Mirza and is based on the terrorist hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight in 1999. On social media on Sunday, a boycott was called after several people drew attention to the show’s non-Muslim hijackers’ names.
Nonetheless, it was acknowledged in a previous Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) letter from 2000 outlining the events that the hijackers had gone by the code names Burger, Shankar, Bhola, and Doctor. Thus, supporters of the series and its authors assert that this is factually correct and that neither the director nor the writers came up with the names Shankar or Bhola.
According to sources, the objection is on the following grounds. “The portrayal of events during the hijacking of Indian airlines flight IC 814 from Kathmandu to Kandahar in a recent OTT series is far from the truth. The script and characterisation of actors in the series is an attempt to erase facts and replace them with fiction to normalise a crime against the nation masterminded and facilitated by Pakistan’s ISI,” they said.
“The plotters of the hijacking had intentionally chosen aliases for the hijackers that would sow confusion. This tactical ploy was repeated later when Pakistani terrorists who attacked Mumbai, most notably Kasab, were made to wear mouli on their wrists as part of their attire,” sources said.
One of the problems is the sympathetic portrayal of one of the hijackers. One of them, “Burger,” for instance, was overheard ordering the air hostess to look after herself. It is also believed that a photo showing hijackers and hijacked people playing antakshari was projected incorrectly.
“There was nothing remotely civil or polite about the hijackers. They were hardcore terrorists demanding the release of wanted terrorists who were to later become organisers of targeted killings and massacres. The killer of journalist Daniel Pearl was one of them. The hijackers killed a young passenger and terrorised everybody else, including the crew, leaving them traumatised. Whitewashing these and more facts in the public domain is not creative licence; it is negationism to supplant facts with fiction,” said sources.
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) IT cell head Amit Malviya in his statement on Sunday said, “Film maker Anubhav Sinha legitimised their criminal intent, by furthering their non-Muslim names. Result? Decades later people will think hindus hijacked IC 814. Left’s agenda to whitewash the crimes of Pakistani terrorirts, all Muslims, served.”
Even actor-MP Kangana Ranaut, whose movie Emergency is caught in a controversy and its release has been deferred, said, “One can even distort real-life events to suit their politically motivated sinister motives…There is freedom for Communists or Leftists across the world for such anti-national expression, but as a nationalist, no OTT platform allows us to make films that revolves around the integrity and unity of Bharat.”
BJP leader Rajeev Chandrasekhar and former minister said: “We all know that the hijackers were from the ISI. The I&B ministry will now look into the matter.”
Controversy is not new to Sinha. It is believed that he leans left. His previous pandemic-based film, “Bheed,” sparked uproar for inaccurately portraying real events. The director thanked fans of the series, even though Sinha has not yet responded to criticism or calls for a boycott.
The social media is divided with many arguing creative liberty should be provided to Anubhav Sinha. While others insist that a “maryada” must be followed and nothing that would incite the Pakistanis should be presented.
A number of measures in the recently proposed broadcast bill aim to simplify OTT programming. It states as under:
OTT service providers would need to provide an ‘intimation’ to the Central Government (likely through the MIB) about their services in India. The obligation here on the OTTs appears to be much lower than that of traditional broadcasters, who require a license to operate.
Adherence with a ‘Program Code’ and an ‘Advertising Code’, both of which have not been released yet.
Content classification, which may take the same shape as the one already prevalent under the IT Rules 2021.
Setting up content evaluation committees consisting of members who are eminent individuals representing different social groups.
A three-tier regulatory mechanism, which includes self-regulation by the broadcasters, establishing self-regulatory organisations, the appointment of a grievance redressal officer, etc.
Introduction of newer and detailed statutory penalties covering different violations. The penalties include censure, heavy monetary penalties, imprisonment and/or fines, etc.
The I&B ministry has long called for restrictions on over-the-top (OTT) platforms. Will this demand rekindle in light of the recent controversy?
