At 35,000 Feet, Bharat’s Arjuna Stood Up

 At 35,000 Feet, Bharat’s Arjuna Stood Up: Civilisational Values, Faith and Courage in the Story of Captain Smit Machchhar

Dr Siddhartha Dave

The character of a civilisation is not understood exclusively through its philosophical texts, political institutions or historical achievements. It is also reflected in the conduct of individuals when they encounter circumstances that test their convictions, judgement and sense of responsibility. At certain moments, an individual’s actions acquire a significance extending beyond personal experience and become part of a wider conversation about the values that shape human behaviour.

The emergency involving Flydubai Flight FZ1073, travelling from Dubai to Tel Aviv on September 30, 2026, presents such an opportunity for reflection. According to the account examined here, a violent confrontation occurred inside the aircraft’s cockpit, leaving Indian Hindu Captain Smit Machchhar seriously injured and placing the flight in grave danger. The aircraft was eventually diverted to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, where it landed safely. The reported interventions of the captain, passengers and other aviation professionals became central to accounts of how a potential catastrophe was averted.

The incident attracted attention not only because of its aviation-safety implications but also because of the subsequent discussion surrounding Machchhar’s Hindu faith and upbringing. During a reported conversation with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the captain spoke of reciting the Hanuman Chalisa during the ordeal. The Prime Minister also referred to the values of the Bhagavad Geeta in a conversation with Machchhar’s mother, Geeta Ben. Separately, UAE-based Middle East analyst and commentator Amjad Taha paid tribute to the pilot by invoking Arjuna and Hanuman as symbols of courage and determination.

These details provide the foundation for a broader inquiry. How might religious faith contribute to psychological resilience during a crisis? In what ways can concepts drawn from the Bhagavad Geeta and the Hanuman Chalisa illuminate the relationship between courage and duty? How does the conduct of an individual influence the international perception of the society from which he comes? And what lessons can an extraordinary survival story offer the aviation industry?

The purpose of this article is not to establish a causal relationship between religious belief and heroic conduct, nor to treat every reported detail of the incident as independently verified. Rather, it examines the cultural, ethical and institutional questions raised by the account, using the episode as a case study in the contemporary relevance of Bharatiya ideas of duty, faith and service.

The Courage of Arjuna and the Resolve of Hanuman

Amjad Taha’s tribute to Captain Machchhar provides a significant starting point for understanding the episode’s cultural resonance. By describing the pilot’s conduct through the figures of Arjuna and Hanuman, Taha drew upon two distinct but complementary traditions within the Bharatiya civilisational imagination.

Arjuna, the central warrior figure of the Bhagavad Geeta, represents the struggle to understand and perform one’s duty under conditions of uncertainty and emotional pressure. His dilemma on the battlefield of Kurukshetra is not simply a question of physical capability. It concerns the relationship between personal distress, moral responsibility and action. The Geeta’s engagement with this dilemma has made it an enduring source of reflection on ethical conduct, self-discipline and responsibility.

Hanuman embodies another dimension of courage. In the Ramayana tradition and its devotional reception, his strength is inseparable from service, loyalty and dedication to a purpose beyond personal advancement. His significance lies not merely in extraordinary physical power but in the direction and discipline of that power.

These figures therefore offer different but related ways of understanding courage. Arjuna evokes the challenge of acting when circumstances are overwhelming; Hanuman evokes the use of strength in the service of a larger responsibility.

Taha’s comparison is significant because it interprets Machchhar’s reported conduct through a cultural vocabulary rooted in Bharat rather than relying solely on generic descriptions of bravery. The comparison does not establish that the pilot consciously understood his actions through these epic figures. Its importance lies instead in how an external commentator chose to interpret and communicate the incident.

The distinction matters. Cultural symbols can provide a framework through which people understand an event, even when the individual involved has not explicitly invoked those symbols as a guide to every decision. In this case, the Arjuna–Hanuman comparison connects an emergency in contemporary commercial aviation with longstanding Bharatiya reflections on duty, courage and service.

The Hanuman Chalisa and the Psychology of Faith

The reported account of Captain Machchhar reciting the Hanuman Chalisa during the cockpit emergency introduces a personal dimension to the discussion. It moves the focus from how observers interpreted his conduct to what he himself reportedly drew upon during the crisis.

For millions of Hindus, the Hanuman Chalisa is an important devotional composition associated with faith, courage, protection and perseverance. Its significance extends beyond the recitation of verses. For many devotees, it forms part of a familiar spiritual practice through which they seek reassurance and strength during periods of uncertainty or distress.

Machchhar’s statement that he recites the Hanuman Chalisa when facing difficulties, and continued doing so during the emergency, illustrates how a familiar devotional practice may remain meaningful under extreme pressure. It suggests that faith was part of the personal framework through which he experienced the crisis.

This observation should not be confused with a scientific claim that religious recitation necessarily produces courage or guarantees a particular outcome. The available account does not establish such a relationship. It does, however, invite consideration of the ways in which religious practices may provide individuals with a sense of continuity, emotional grounding and purpose when ordinary circumstances break down.

Aviation emergencies impose exceptional cognitive and emotional demands. Fear, physical injury, uncertainty and the need to respond quickly can place enormous pressure on an individual. In such circumstances, a familiar practice may offer psychological reassurance. Its precise effect will vary between individuals, and the contribution of faith cannot be isolated from professional training, experience, temperament and the surrounding circumstances.

For Machchhar, the reported role of the Hanuman Chalisa adds an important dimension to the story. It presents faith not as an abstract identity marker but as a personal practice that he turned to during a life-threatening experience.

The Bhagavad Geeta, Family Upbringing and the Ethics of Duty

The conversation between Prime Minister Modi and Machchhar’s mother, Geeta Ben, brought family upbringing into the discussion. Prime Minister Narendra Modi referred to the values and teachings of the Bhagavad Geeta with which she had raised her son. This detail connects the immediate incident with a wider question: how are ethical commitments transmitted across generations, and how might they inform conduct in professional life?

The Bhagavad Geeta has occupied an important place in Indian philosophical and ethical thought. Its treatment of duty, disciplined action and the management of emotional turmoil has influenced religious practice as well as modern interpretations of leadership, public service and personal responsibility.

One of its central concerns is the relationship between action and duty. The text does not suggest that difficult circumstances can always be avoided. Instead, it explores how individuals should approach their responsibilities when the situation is morally or emotionally demanding. The Geeta’s teaching on disciplined action is therefore relevant to discussions of professional ethics, although its application to any specific contemporary incident requires careful interpretation.

In the case of an airline captain, responsibility is not merely a personal virtue. It is an occupational obligation. Passengers entrust their lives to the professional judgement of the flight crew, whose duties include maintaining control of the aircraft, responding to emergencies and protecting those on board.

The reported reference to the Bhagavad Geeta in Machchhar’s upbringing offers a way of considering how cultural and family influences may intersect with professional responsibility. It does not prove that the Geeta determined his actions. Rather, it illustrates how inherited ethical traditions can form part of the broader personal framework within which an individual understands duty.

The relationship between the Geeta and the Hanuman Chalisa is also instructive. The former offers a philosophical engagement with duty and disciplined action; the latter represents a devotional practice through which many people experience faith and reassurance. In Machchhar’s reported account, these traditions appear in different but complementary contexts: one in the discussion of family values, the other in his description of the crisis itself.

The cockpit thus becomes a setting in which a modern professional responsibility can be examined alongside longstanding ethical and devotional traditions.

Beyond Stereotypes: Bharatiyas and the Changing Global Image of Bharat

The international response to Captain Machchhar’s reported actions raises a wider question about how Bharat and Bharatiyas are perceived globally. National images are rarely static. They change as societies develop, as their citizens participate in international institutions and as individuals become associated with events that attract attention across borders.

For much of the modern period, international representations of Bharat have drawn upon a mixture of economic, cultural and political categories. Some have emphasised poverty and development challenges; others have highlighted spirituality, yoga, cinema, technology or the global movement of Indian professionals. None of these categories, taken individually, can adequately represent the diversity of a large civilisation.

The contemporary Bharatiya presence is visible across medicine, engineering, entrepreneurship, scientific research, defence, diplomacy, technology and aviation. The significance of these contributions lies not simply in the number of Indians participating in international life but in the range of roles they occupy and the responsibilities they discharge.

Captain Machchhar’s story adds a human dimension to this changing picture. His professional identity as a pilot is inseparable from the responsibilities of his occupation, while the reported circumstances of the emergency placed those responsibilities under extraordinary pressure.

The central proposition may be expressed as follows: The world is not merely seeing Indians; it is increasingly seeing what Bharatiya values produce in Indians.

This is an interpretive argument rather than a measurable conclusion established by a single event. One incident cannot demonstrate a comprehensive transformation in international perceptions. Nevertheless, it can contribute to the ways in which people understand a country and its citizens.

Taha’s invocation of Arjuna and Hanuman is particularly relevant in this regard. His tribute suggests that Bharatiya cultural references can provide an intelligible and compelling language for interpreting the conduct of an Indian professional. Rather than describing courage only in universal or abstract terms, he connected the reported actions of the pilot with figures recognised within India’s civilisational traditions.

Such recognition offers an opportunity to consider how cultural ideas travel internationally. Civilisational influence does not operate exclusively through formal diplomacy or cultural institutions. It can also emerge through individual conduct, public commentary and the stories people choose to tell about one another.

The challenge is to interpret this recognition without exaggeration. The value of Machchhar’s story lies in the specific conduct attributed to him and the discussion it has generated, not in any claim that one individual can represent the entirety of a civilisation.

India–Israel Friendship: The Human Dimension of Strategic Relations

The incident also acquired significance in the context of India–Israel relations. The flight was travelling to Tel Aviv, and the reported accounts describe Israeli passengers among those whose lives were at risk. The Indian captain was at the centre of the emergency, while the aircraft ultimately landed safely in Saudi Arabia.

The episode therefore brought together people and institutions associated with three countries in a situation where immediate human safety took precedence over political distinctions. The public recognition of Machchhar’s courage by the leaders of India and Israel further connected the incident with the relationship between the two countries.

India–Israel cooperation is frequently discussed in terms of defence, counter-terrorism, agriculture, water management, technology, innovation and strategic interests. These areas remain important to understanding the partnership. Yet relations between countries also acquire meaning through individual experiences, public gestures and the ways in which their citizens respond to one another in moments of difficulty.

The reported conduct of an Indian captain protecting a flight carrying Israeli citizens provides an example of this human dimension. It illustrates how professional responsibility can transcend national boundaries: the captain’s obligation was to the people entrusted to his care, irrespective of their nationality.

This does not mean that an aviation emergency should be treated as proof of a particular diplomatic outcome. Nor should the experience of passengers be reduced to a symbolic instrument of foreign policy. Its significance is more direct. The incident provides a human story through which the values of responsibility, solidarity and mutual recognition can be considered alongside the formal relationship between Bharat and Israel.

The response from Israel, together with the public attention generated by the episode, demonstrates how an individual’s actions can become part of a wider international narrative. Such moments do not replace strategic cooperation, but they can give it a more personal and accessible meaning.

Aviation Safety: Heroism and the Limits of Human Intervention

The cultural and ethical significance of the incident must be considered alongside its aviation-safety implications. A story of survival can inspire public admiration, but admiration alone cannot explain the circumstances of an emergency or prevent its recurrence.

The reported cockpit confrontation raises questions about insider threats, flight-deck security, emergency access and the procedures available when a threat originates within a secured cockpit. The precise sequence of events and the motive of the alleged attacker must be established through the appropriate investigation. It would be premature to draw definitive conclusions about either without verified findings.

The strengthened cockpit doors introduced after the September 11, 2001, attacks form an important part of modern aviation security. Their purpose is to prevent unauthorised access to the flight deck. However, a threat originating inside the cockpit creates a different operational challenge from one involving an external intruder.

The policy question is not whether cockpit security should be weakened. It is whether existing procedures provide an adequate response to an extreme internal threat while maintaining the security of the flight deck. Any proposed changes must be assessed carefully because a measure intended to improve emergency access could also introduce new vulnerabilities.

The episode also highlights the importance of layered safety. The account describes the captain’s actions, passenger intervention, medical assistance, the presence of additional aviation professionals and the eventual diversion of the aircraft. Each element belongs to a wider chain of response rather than constituting a complete explanation on its own.

Commercial aviation relies on training, standard operating procedures, aircraft systems, communications, air-traffic control and coordinated emergency response. Human judgement remains essential, but the safety of passengers cannot depend upon extraordinary individual intervention.

For this reason, the principal institutional lesson is clear: aviation authorities should examine the incident for evidence relevant to cockpit security, crew preparedness, emergency procedures and the management of insider threats. The purpose of such an examination should be to identify actionable lessons rather than to romanticise the circumstances that made intervention necessary.

The distinction between celebrating courage and evaluating safety is essential. Heroism may help avert a disaster, but a resilient aviation system should seek to reduce the likelihood that such heroism will be required.

An Integrated Perspective: Civilisation, Individual Agency and Institutional Responsibility

The story of Captain Machchhar brings together three dimensions that are often discussed separately: civilisational values, individual agency and institutional responsibility.

The civilisational dimension concerns the ideas through which people interpret courage, duty and service. The references to Arjuna, Hanuman, the Bhagavad Geeta and the Hanuman Chalisa place the incident within a cultural framework that remains meaningful to many Bharatiyas.

The individual dimension concerns the captain’s reported actions and account of his faith. His conduct must be understood in relation to the specific circumstances of the emergency, his professional responsibilities and the contributions of others aboard the aircraft. Cultural values may help interpret his experience, but they should not be treated as a complete explanation of his decisions.

The institutional dimension concerns the aviation systems intended to prevent emergencies and manage them when prevention fails. The incident raises questions that require technical investigation, professional scrutiny and regulatory attention. These questions cannot be answered through cultural symbolism alone.

Keeping these dimensions together produces a more balanced interpretation. A civilisational reading gives the story ethical and cultural depth; attention to individual agency recognises the decisions made by the people involved; and institutional analysis identifies the lessons that may improve future safety.

This approach also avoids two opposite errors. The first is to treat the incident as nothing more than a technical event, overlooking the personal and cultural meanings that shape how people experience crises. The second is to turn it into an exclusively symbolic narrative, allowing admiration to displace scrutiny of the systems involved.

A fuller understanding requires both perspectives. Human courage deserves recognition, and the institutions responsible for protecting human life must learn from the circumstances in which that courage became necessary.

The ultimate measure of courage is not the admiration it attracts, but the responsibility it fulfils.

Dr. Siddhartha Dave, PhD, is an alumnus of the United Nations University-Tokyo, former Lok Sabha Research Fellow. He writes on foreign affairs and national security.

Seema Sanghosh English | October 2026