India’s Bollywoodization of history represents a dangerous trend.

Indian media has long faced criticism for distorting facts, but Netflix’s IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack underscores a dangerous evolution in this trend. The series sensationally accuses Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, and its military of orchestrating the 1999 hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight IC 814. This narrative selectively ignores key eyewitness accounts and critical context, presenting a skewed version of history that prioritizes sensationalism over accuracy. Such portrayals are emblematic of a broader strategy in Indian media to weaponize entertainment for political and nationalistic purposes.

The hijacking incident itself was a multilayered diplomatic and security crisis. The resolution—mediated by the Taliban in Kandahar, Afghanistan—required a nuanced approach involving multiple stakeholders. Yet Netflix’s retelling flattens these complexities into a one-dimensional story, casting Pakistan as an unequivocal villain. This depiction contradicts firsthand accounts from Captain Devi Sharan and Flight Engineer Anil Jaggia, who were directly involved in the ordeal. Their testimonies reveal a more intricate narrative, one that Netflix seemingly ignored in favor of a storyline that aligns with dominant political agendas in India.

This selective storytelling reflects a troubling pattern in Indian media, which increasingly serves as an extension of state influence. Entertainment platforms, including dramas, films, and web series, are wielded as tools of soft power, shaping domestic and international perceptions. Productions like IC 814 capitalize on their wide reach to reinforce stereotypes about Pakistan, portraying it as a perpetual antagonist on the global stage. This tactic not only simplifies complex geopolitical issues but also shifts attention away from India’s own internal challenges, including political unrest and human rights violations.

The 2019 capture of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman during the Pulwama-Balakot crisis offers another striking example of narrative manipulation. Despite Pakistan’s swift decision to return Abhinandan as a gesture of goodwill, Indian media reframed the incident as a strategic victory. Reports lauded Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, suggesting that international pressure orchestrated by India forced Pakistan’s hand. In reality, the incident involved a web of diplomatic factors, which were largely ignored in favor of a nationalistic triumph narrative. This oversimplification not only misrepresents events but also cultivates a misleading sense of geopolitical superiority.

The use of media to advance state narratives extends beyond India’s borders. Productions like IC 814 are part of a broader effort to export Hindutva-aligned ideologies, presenting India as a moral and democratic counterpoint to Pakistan. This binary framing capitalizes on the emotional power of storytelling, amplifying stereotypes that position Pakistan as a haven for extremism and instability. Meanwhile, India’s internal struggles—ranging from religious intolerance to caste-based violence and the erosion of democratic norms—are downplayed or omitted entirely.

At the heart of this strategy is the promotion of Hindutva, a nationalist ideology that seeks to project India as a morally superior state. Media aligned with this doctrine often glorifies militarism and cast Pakistan as a malevolent force intent on destabilizing the region. By distorting historical events, these narratives sideline the complexities of diplomacy and conflict resolution, reducing nuanced situations to simplistic tales of good versus evil. This approach not only fuels hostility but also undermines efforts toward peace and understanding in South Asia.

The global implications of this narrative manipulation are significant. By repeatedly framing Pakistan as a hotbed of militancy, Indian media hampers its neighbor’s ability to foster international partnerships or attract foreign investment. This portrayal exacerbates existing tensions, discouraging constructive dialogue and perpetuating cycles of distrust. For audiences outside South Asia, these skewed narratives shape perceptions, painting a one-sided picture that ignores the region’s intricate realities.

Domestically, this strategy serves another purpose: it deflects attention from India’s internal challenges. While focusing on external threats, Indian media downplays domestic issues such as growing communal violence, crackdowns on dissent, and widespread discrimination against marginalized groups. This selective reporting shifts public focus, creating an illusion of national unity against a common adversary while obscuring the structural issues that threaten India’s stability.

The role of misinformation in shaping public opinion has grown more potent in an era dominated by digital platforms and mass entertainment. Productions like IC 814 exemplify how entertainment can serve as a powerful vector for propaganda, leveraging its appeal to misinform audiences on a massive scale. Such narratives deepen divisions between nations, undermining prospects for regional peace and collaboration. Accurate storytelling, by contrast, has the potential to bridge divides and foster dialogue, emphasizing shared humanity over manufactured hostility.

This Bollywoodization of history—where historical events are repackaged into politically charged spectacles—represents a dangerous trend. By prioritizing nationalist agendas over journalistic integrity, Indian media perpetuates cycles of animosity that obstruct reconciliation efforts. The consequences are far-reaching, affecting not only India-Pakistan relations but also global perceptions of the region.

For peace to take root in South Asia, both nations must engage in honest dialogue and commit to fair, transparent storytelling. Media creators bear a profound responsibility to reject sensationalism and prioritize accuracy, fostering understanding rather than exacerbating conflict. Misleading portrayals may serve short-term political goals, but their long-term impact is to deepen mistrust and hinder progress.

As India continues to wield its media industry as a tool of soft power, it must also confront the ethical implications of this approach. The pursuit of peace requires more than diplomatic initiatives; it demands a collective effort to champion truth, fairness, and respect for historical complexities.

Only by embracing these principles can the media contribute to a future where shared understanding triumphs over division, and where history serves as a bridge rather than a battleground.