In a world where stories, particularly ones depicted on OTT platforms, have the power to shape young minds, a recent Netflix release has ignited a fierce debate over artistic expression v/s historical accuracy. IC814: The Kandahar Hijack directed by Anubhav Sinha, which tells the dramatic tale of the 1999 hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight IC 814 by Pakistan-based terror outfit Harkat-ul-Mujahideen released on August 29, 2024, quickly became the centre of controversy, drawing both public outcry and legal action. This article aims to breakdown the source issue of the PIL (defined below) while also understanding the potential far reaching impact that the Delhi High Court’s decision on the matter will have on creative freedom that over-the-top platforms exercise while developing content.
Case Background
On its release, the Series, which stars prominent actors such as Vijay Verma, Naseeruddin Shah, Pankaj Kapur and Dia Mirza, seemed destined for success. However, shortly after, viewers of the Series observed that two of the hijackers, amongst the real-life hijackers named, Ibrahim Akhtar, Shahid Akhtar Sayeed, Sunny Ahmad Qazi, Zahoor Mistry, and Shakir used code names of Hindu origin, i.e., Bhola and Shankar. This struck a nerve with many, particularly amongst the Hindu community across the country.
Public Interest Litigation Filed
A Public Interest Litigation was swiftly filed on September 2, 2024 in the Delhi High Court by Surjit Singh Yadav, the president of Hindu Sena, seeking a ban of the Series on the ground that the Series distorts critical facts by not disclosing the true identities of the hijackers and instead only using Hindu alias’s, thereby misleading the public at large and hurting religious sentiments of the Hindu community. The PIL also allegedly sought government intervention to revoke the censor certificate granted to the Series by the Central Board of Film Certification and further contended that if the Series is continued to be viewed, India’s biggest and most shocking hijacking would go down in history as one that was perpetuated by Hindus.
Central Government’s Summons
Subsequent to the filing of the PIL, Netflix found itself in the crosshairs of public scrutiny over the Series with the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting summoning Monika Shergill, Netflix India’s content head, seeking an explanation on the allegedly contentious aspects of the Series. Ms. Shergill assured the Centre that going forward, the platform would conduct a thorough content review, keeping in mind the nation’s sentiments.
Netflix’s Battle Of Facts vs. Sentiments
A new layer of complexity was added to the debate when it came to light that an official statement from the Union Home Minister, dated 6th January, 2000, had previously confirmed that the hijackers of IC 814 did indeed use codenames like Doctor, Burger, Bhola, and Shankar during the hijacking of IC 814. However, this did not deter Mr. Yadav in his pursuit to have the Series taken down from the platform and require Netflix to defend its creative decision to not have the Series identify each and every hijacker by their real names in addition to the code names they used. The petitioner’s argument seems to hinge on Netflix’s alleged political views favouring the left wing and their utilisation of the platform to produce, content in general and the Series in particular, to create confusion amongst the masses by not providing the whole complete truth. In short, the argument against Netflix is that, Netflix’s choice not to clarify the real identities of hijackers and therefore the actual religion and community they belong to, was a deliberate one, done solely to further their political cause. This one creative decision on Netflix’s part has sparked an unintended uproar that can be heard across the world.
Conclusion
While the PIL filed before the HC raises significant questions about the responsibilities of filmmakers and platforms when dealing with sensitive historical events or depicting true life stories, some of the arguments made by the petitioner to substantiate the ban of the Series seem rather farfetched. Netflix’s creative decision’s have been given a political colour, rather than identifying it for what it may just be – Negligence.
For the sake of argument, let’s remove all context from the issue and assume that the Series was based on a hijack involving or initiated from any other part of the world, but the largest democracy. How likely is it, that people of such place, would raise a claim on the identification of the hijackers by their “real” codenames, solely because two of those names have a certain origin? In fact, even if a claim were raised in such a scenario, one would argue that, the factual accuracy of the Series would be sufficient proof of any lack of intent on the platform’s part to hurt a community or nation’s sentiments
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the question regarding Netflix’s decision to provide half information under the garb of ‘creativity’ and whether the same can be construed as complete “factual accuracy” remains. Besides, if Netflix’s recent ‘creative call’ to allegedly revise the disclaimer of the Series and provide the complete names and codenames of the hijackers, solely in India and nowhere else in the world; is anything to go by, the odds don’t seem likely to favour the platform. This discrepancy or ‘creative choice’ does beg the question: should artistic liberties be allowed at the cost of potentially misleading the public? Or should historical accuracy take precedence, even if it limits creative expression? The present PIL appears to be hinging on Netflix’s creative decision to not specify the real names of the hijackers, rather than its call to include their codenames, thereby questioning the balance between creative freedom and public responsibility, and which side holds more value.
While it is vital to address any inaccuracies or rather half information that could harm social or religious sentiments, outright censorship or banning of content might not be the answer. Instead, producers and filmmakers could be encouraged to provide context or disclaimers that clarify the use of their artistic liberties whilst also focusing on advising their viewers to find out more about the content depicted from sources other than the cinematograph film itself. This approach would allow for creative expression while ensuring that viewers are well-versed with the facts and are hence unlikely to be misled.
In the wake of ongoing discussions on the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, the Delhi HC’s decision on the present PIL and the fate of the Series is expected to set the stage for, if and how much censorship of content can platforms and producers/filmmakers expect in India before the same can be construed as an attack on their creative expression. This will also determine the fate of “creative freedom” and its application in the country, while setting precedent for future productions developed on real life events.
Authors: Dayita Panicker & Shaanal Shah