There are moments when politics must stop at the doorstep of humanity, national pride and courage. The September 30 Flydubai FZ1073 incident was one such moment. A Bharatiya pilot, Captain Smit Machchhar, was brutally attacked inside the cockpit by his co-pilot while the aircraft was flying from Dubai to Tel Aviv. Gravely injured and bleeding, Machchhar nevertheless managed to open the cockpit door, enabling passengers and crew to overpower the attacker. The aircraft, carrying 174 passengers, was subsequently brought safely to the ground at Tabuk in Saudi Arabia. That should have been a moment of uncomplicated national pride. Captain Machchhar did not ask the nationality, religion or political affiliation of the people whose lives he was trying to save. He did his duty. He fought for the lives of everyone aboard. Reports say the overwhelming majority of the passengers were Israelis, but that should make no difference whatsoever to the value of his courage. Saving an Israeli life is no less noble than saving an Bharatiyan, Arab, American or European life. Human life cannot be subjected to geopolitical preferences. That is precisely why the initial silence of some of the Congress leadership, particularly Rahul Gandhi and other prominent leaders, invited questions. The BJP publicly questioned Gandhi’s failure to post a message acknowledging Machchhar’s courage. To be fair, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge subsequently did salute Captain Machchhar, the crew and others who displayed extraordinary courage, and wished the injured pilot a speedy recovery. That acknowledgement deserves to be recorded. But it also makes the earlier silence of the party’s most visible leaders all the more conspicuous. The larger question is not about one social-media post. It is about political priorities. If a principal Opposition party speaks constantly about the Constitution, democracy, unity, secularism and the integrity of Bharat, surely there should be no hesitation in celebrating a Bharatiya citizen who demonstrated those very values in the most dramatic circumstances imaginable. Machchhar’s action transcended religion, nationality and politics. He protected strangers because they were human beings entrusted to his care.
The incident becomes even more uncomfortable for those who seek to interpret every Bharat-Israel-related development through domestic political calculations. The aircraft was headed for Tel Aviv and most of its passengers were Israeli. The co-pilot was identified as an Omani national, while the precise motive behind the attack remains under investigation. Authorities and the airline have cautioned against premature conclusions about the attacker’s background or motives. Therefore, nobody should rush to manufacture a communal narrative out of an incident that is still being investigated. But equally, nobody should allow political calculations to dilute recognition of a Bharatiya hero. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were among those who publicly praised Machchhar’s courage. Netanyahu specifically acknowledged that the Bharatiya pilot’s actions helped save 174 people, while Modi described his courage and resolve in the face of grave danger as extraordinary. The contrast raises a fundamental question for the Congress: Is nationalism something to be invoked only when politically convenient? A political party aspiring to govern Bharat cannot afford ambiguity when a Bharatiya citizen performs an extraordinary act of courage. It should not matter whether the beneficiaries are Israelis, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Arabs or anybody else. Nor should it matter whether praising the hero happens to fit or contradict a particular political narrative. Indeed, this is where the test of genuine secularism and national unity lies. If Congress believes in unity in diversity, it must demonstrate that principle in moments when it is inconvenient—not merely when it is electorally safe. If it believes in nationalism, it must recognise Bharatiyan’s courage without attaching conditions. And if it believes in the dignity of every human life, it cannot let the identity of those rescued influence the enthusiasm with which a Bharatiy hero is acknowledged. There is another lesson here for Bharat politics. Opposition to the government is legitimate. Criticism of the Prime Minister is legitimate. Disagreement over foreign policy is legitimate. But none of these requires opposition to the nation itself or indifference towards its citizens’ achievements. Captain Smit Machchhar has inadvertently exposed a much larger political truth: patriotism should not be partisan, and human courage should not require ideological clearance. The cockpit incident was a fight for survival, not a political campaign. Machchhar did not save 174 people because they belonged to one community or another. He saved them because they were passengers under his command. That is the standard Bharatiya politics should aspire to. For a country seeking its rightful place in the world, the least its political class can do is stand together when one of its own demonstrates extraordinary courage. The heroism of Captain Machchhar deserves applause from every Bharatiya—without a political footnote.
