Entertainment and sports are meant to be free from religious bias, as we’ve always believed in India. But it’s painful to see that certain narratives in films and sports still play into religious stereotypes. For example, a badge with the number 786 is portrayed as a protective symbol, while Hindu characters like a crooked Munimji or a temple priest are shown in a negative light. If sports truly have no religion, then why did the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, show more love to India, or why did players from other countries express support for the Indian community in tough times? Filmmakers often try to appease minorities, assuming the majority won’t object. This has been the trend for years, but when movies like the Kashmir Files or The Tashkent Files show a different side of the story, liberals quickly raise objections.
Let me be clear: I’m against both kinds of narratives. Why bring religion into any story at all? If it’s fiction, don’t use it to push an agenda; if it’s based on real events, just tell the real story—nothing more, nothing less.
Take Netflix’s IC 814 series, which is an adaptation of the book Flight into Fear: The Captain’s Story by Captain Devi Sharan and Srinjoy Chowdhury. It’s based on the December 24, 1999, hijacking of an Indian aircraft by five terrorists, just 40 minutes after the plane took off from Kathmandu. The series, however, presents a half-truth. By the time this article is published, Netflix might have added a disclaimer with the real names of the hijackers to pacify the outrage. But why did this happen in the first place? Was it a PR stunt to gain attention? Why did the creators play the religion card, instead of following the principle that entertainment should be free of religion?
The series doesn’t discuss Pakistan’s role—why? If they briefly show Pakistan in a negative light, it seems like there could be a hidden agenda. The story focuses on Afghanistan and Kandahar while conveniently ignoring Pakistan’s involvement and the role of its intelligence agency, the ISI. Why?
The captured terrorist in the show talks about the brutality of Indian forces in Kashmir, but there’s no mention of what these people were doing in the valley. Why?
Respected actors like Naseeruddin Shah, Pankaj Kapur, and Kawaljeet Singh portray politicians and bureaucrats behaving childishly. Why? They were supposed to be on a mission, in a war-like situation, yet they’re shown gossiping about other departments. This portrayal could give the younger generation a wrong impression of how officials work—do you want to create such a reflection?
The pilot, who was unfairly criticized for things he didn’t do, doesn’t get a positive portrayal. Why? His wife reassures their children that the world will know the truth, but the series doesn’t clarify his side. Why?
The terrorists are shown as decent, not just in appearance but in behavior too.
Why? They’re seen playing Antakshari—really? But there’s no mention of how one of the terrorists asked passengers to convert to Islam (an incident documented in the public domain). Why?
The terrorists use fake names, with two of them called Bhola and Shankar, which could have easily been Engineer or Professor. Is this a PR strategy to demean Hindu names and get away with it?
The worst part of the Netflix series is how it tries to humanize the terrorists involved in the hijacking. They repeatedly say they don’t want to harm any passengers, but they killed innocent Rupin Katyal and slashed another passenger’s neck. Despite this, they’re shown as considerate enough to allow an air hostess to call home to check on her father.
The negotiations with the terrorists, which should have been serious and emotionally disturbing, are depicted comically, portraying the negotiator as incompetent.
Overall, the series has many loopholes, and the actors weren’t used effectively—any actor could have played these roles. However, the most problematic part
comes at the end, where the released terrorists are shown celebrating with Osama
Bin Laden. It’s suggested that Osama kept ISI away from the celebrations, implying
that ISI wasn’t involved in the hijacking and that it was all Osama’s idea. Why?
This could have been a great story if it had been told from an Indian perspective, rather than from another viewpoint.
(The writer is a communication professional. Views personal)
Comments