Bollywood actress Dia Mirza has recently found herself at the center of a controversy surrounding the film IC 814, which is based on the infamous 1999 Indian Airlines hijacking. The film, directed by a renowned filmmaker, aims to tell the story of the harrowing hijack and its political aftermath. However, the controversy erupted when reports surfaced that the names of the terrorists involved in the actual event had been altered in the film. Critics and certain sections of the audience have accused the filmmakers of trying to water down the narrative or engage in historical revisionism. Responding to the backlash, Dia Mirza, who plays a pivotal role in the movie, addressed the issue by firmly stating that “everything is verifiable and factual. In this article, we will explore the background of the IC 814 hijacking, the nature of the controversy surrounding the film, Dia Mirza’s response to the allegations, and the broader implications of altering historical facts in cinematic portrayals. The Indian Airlines Flight IC 814 incident is one of the most significant events in India’s modern history. On December 24, 1999, an Airbus A300, flying from Kathmandu, Nepal, to New Delhi, India, was hijacked by five terrorists shortly after entering Indian airspace. The plane was forced to land at multiple locations, including Amritsar, Lahore, and Dubai, before reaching its final destination in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The hijackers demanded the release of several militants in exchange for the hostages’ safety, including Maulana Masood Azhar, the founder of Jaish-e-Mohammed. The incident spanned seven days, during which one hostage, Rupin Katyal, was murdered by the terrorists. The Indian government, after intense negotiations, eventually complied with the hijackers’ demands, leading to the release of the militants. The event had a long-lasting impact on India’s counter-terrorism policies and its relationship with Pakistan, as it was later revealed that the hijackers had ties to Pakistan-based terror groups. The film IC 814 is a dramatized account of the hijacking and the political events surrounding it. A highly anticipated project, the film features an ensemble cast, with Dia Mirza playing a critical role, presumably as a family member of one of the passengers or someone involved in the political negotiations. The movie, while meant to be a retelling of the event, has sparked controversy over its alleged changes to key historical facts. Specifically, the controversy centers on the alteration of the names of the terrorists involved in the hijacking. Reports suggest that the names of the actual terrorists responsible for the hijack were replaced with fictionalized or altered names in the film. This decision has led to accusations from critics who argue that the filmmakers are trying to either soften the depiction of the terrorists or avoid directly naming those responsible, which could potentially be seen as bowing to political pressures or concerns about diplomatic ramifications. Amid the growing backlash, Dia Mirza, a vocal supporter of various social and political causes, addressed the controversy in a public statement. She emphasized that the film was rooted in factual evidence and historical accuracy, stating, “Everything is verifiable and factual.” According to Dia, the filmmakers took great care to ensure that the portrayal of events was in line with the known facts surrounding the hijacking. Mirza’s statement suggests that any changes made in the film, such as the altering of names, were done with careful consideration, likely to avoid legal complications or international controversies. It is not uncommon for filmmakers to alter names or certain details in films based on real events, especially when dealing with highly sensitive topics like terrorism and international diplomacy. Mirza also highlighted that the film’s core narrative—the hijacking, the plight of the hostages, and the political decisions involved—remains true to the historical record.
Dia Mirza reacts to controversy over changing names of terrorists in IC 814: ‘Everything is verifiable and factual’
In defending the film, Mirza also pointed out the importance of cinema as a medium for storytelling and education. She noted that the purpose of IC 814 is not just to entertain but to shed light on a critical moment in Indian history. By bringing this story to a new generation of viewers, the film aims to remind people of the grave consequences of terrorism and the resilience of those affected by it. The controversy surrounding IC 814 and its depiction of real events brings up a broader debate about the role of filmmakers in portraying history. Filmmakers often face the challenge of balancing factual accuracy with creative liberty. While films based on true events aim to stay as close to the truth as possible, they are also artistic interpretations, which means certain elements may be dramatized or altered for narrative coherence or dramatic effect. In the case of IC 814, altering the names of the terrorists could be seen as a way to sidestep potential legal challenges, especially considering that some of the individuals involved in the hijacking continue to be active or have connections to volatile political situations. On the other hand, critics argue that changing such crucial details might dilute the film’s authenticity and mislead the audience about the true nature of the events depicted. This is not the first time a Bollywood film has faced criticism for altering historical facts. Films like Padmaavat, Jodhaa Akbar, and The Accidental Prime Minister were all subject to similar controversies, where historians, political groups, or audience members accused filmmakers of distorting facts for dramatic purposes. In each case, the filmmakers defended their choices as necessary for the storytelling process while maintaining that the essence of the historical event was preserved. In stories as sensitive as the IC 814 hijacking, factual integrity becomes even more important. The incident is a traumatic memory for many people, especially the families of those involved, and the survivors themselves. Any alterations to the story, whether they involve the portrayal of the terrorists or the depiction of the political response, have the potential to reignite emotional wounds or create misunderstandings about the event’s significance. However, it’s also worth noting that the primary objective of cinema is not always to provide a documentary-like retelling of history.
