There is a lot of discussion happening on the recently released web series based on the IC 814 hijack of 1999. The series is produced by Netflix and is directed by Anubhav Sinha. Both have a reputation of being leftist and over the top liberal. Sinha in the past has come out openly in support of the protests against the present government which appeared to be based more on misleading and politically motivated agenda than any material impact of any policies. In his earlier movie ‘Article 15’ he was accused of twisting the known facts quite blatantly. It is therefore not a surprise if the sensitive topic of IC 814 is used and misused to promote a certain biased narrative instead of a straightforward story telling.
The general discussion has so far been directed to only one point – the names of the hijackers being Bhola and Shanker. Sinha has been less than honest in using these names and never revealing the true identities of these people. This is, however a very minor matter when compared to the more serious messages conveyed in the series. A few such are listed here.
1. Is it fact or fiction? The disclaimer at the start says it is a work of fiction based on true events. And that’s where the deceit lies. The entire series is based entirely on the IC 814 events. The film includes actual video footage of the TV coverage. The clips of then Prime Minister, External Affairs Minister and the National Security Advisor are used in the film directly as a part of the story. It is one thing to use minor dramatization required for telling a story, but to call it a ‘work of fiction based on true events’ is simply an act of intellectual dishonesty. This one aspect alone leaves the producer Netflix and the director Sinha with no credibility whatsoever.
2. Was the goal to show Pak as the nice guy? This line has often been pushed by the left leaning and even mainstream film makers. The series attempts to gives a clean chit to Pak while cleverly mixing it up in the naturally disturbing story. There are two clear instances:
a. A Pak ATC officer gives a totally artificial lecture to one of the hijackers about the true teachings of Islam. The scene also hints that Pakistanis are honest people doing their duty without any bias.
b. In the end, we are told that the released terrorists had a celebration in Kandahar with Osama Bin Laden where no ISI officer was present. This apparently is enough for us to believe that ISI had no role in the hijacking!!
3. Why Naseeruddin Shah? Truth be told, he gives a pathetic performance. It is pretty clear he did no preparation and simply sleepwalked into the role. It reminds one of Om Puri’s similarly incompetent performance as the navy chief in the movie ‘Gazi attack’ where he is totally unfit for the part. We very well know that both of them have been great actors, but your reputation unfortunately does nothing for you once the camera starts rolling.
We are in any case, living in times when an actor playing a role completely unrelated to his or her ideology is now history – we know from several instances in recent past that the left leaning actors don’t work in right leaning films and vice versa.
So, Naseer seems to be there more because he is a leftist than anything else. On more than one occasion, it appears he was voicing his personal opinions rather than a scripted dialog. As an example, in a critical situation, when a decision needs to be taken within minutes, he says, “the PM will have to consult all coalition partners and only then he can decide.” No emergency is handled this way – even by a coalition government. Besides, Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the PM who crossed the nuclear threshold. Did he call up all partners for the decision?
4. When asked why they are doing this, the hijacker – multiple times in the series – claims this is to avenge what happened to their country and refers to Afghanistan. This is when the Taliban was already ruling Afghanistan, a Pakistani national’s release from Indian custody was demanded, and the hijackers were all from Pakistan. By giving a vague purpose, the real agenda of Pakistan of using Jihadi terror against India, which is now well known, is quite deliberately diluted.
5. The Indian senior officials are initially shown to be very casual and almost irresponsible while interested more about inter groups rivalries than the national security. These same people later risk their lives and do a commendable job in a very difficult situation. The contradiction simply doesn’t look believable. Even here the choice of an actor who has generally played comic role, to play the key negotiator, seems a deliberate distortion.
6.The series tells us that the commando operation at Amritsar couldn’t be done because the then Punjab CM didn’t give the go ahead to the commando team of Punjab police which was ready for the action. We are also told that the then CM of J&K was not at all ready to release one of the terrorists and the centre had to trick him into it. We do not know if both these are facts. If not, then clearly these have been manufactured to support a political agenda.
The series has its positives. It’s well made from a cinematic standpoint. The use of visual effects such as of the ariel shots are stunning. Vijay Varma is a consummate actor and gives a superb performance as the captain of the ill-fated flight. As does the veteran Pankaj Kapoor in the role of Jaswant Singh with a very unnecessarily changed name to justify the ‘fiction’ bluff. The locations are well chosen and look authentic.
However, the real question that arises here is ethical. Can events which have had severe impact on the national psyche, and which are very much in living memory, be allowed to be twisted from clearly known facts? Is this creative freedom or deliberate distortion of history? As an example, if someone shows that Osama Bin Laden offered water and food to the American commandos when they reached his hideout in Pakistan, will the American audience accept it in the name of ‘fiction based on real events’?
Comments