Used every bit of my energy to save lives, Captain Smit tells PM

1. At a Glance

• What happened: On a Flydubai flight bound for Tel Aviv, the co-pilot attacked Indian commander Captain Smit Machchhar, allegedly to take control of the aircraft. The injured captain opened the cockpit door and passengers overpowered the co-pilot [1].
• PM's call: PM Narendra Modi spoke to the captain by video call on Gandhi Jayanti, called him a hero and said he had shown the world the true meaning of ahimsa [1].
• Why it matters for UPSC:
• It brings in the international law against hijacking: the Tokyo Convention (1963) and The Hague Convention (1970), both concluded under ICAO [2][3][4].
• It is a case of an insider threat in the cockpit.
• It touches the welfare of the Indian diaspora in the Gulf and GS-IV themes of courage and duty.

2. Why in the News

• PM Modi spoke to Captain Smit Machchhar by video call on Friday, Gandhi Jayanti (2 October 2026). The report ran on Page 1 of The Hindu International edition on 3 October 2026 [1].
• PM Modi praised him for foiling an attempt to crash an Israel-bound flight [1].
• The captain is in hospital in the UAE, recovering from wounds the co-pilot gave him in an alleged bid to seize control of the aircraft [1].
• The PM said the captain proved to the world that Indians "are willing to risk their lives to save others." The captain called the PM his "biggest idol" [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Tokyo Convention, 1963 (Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft):
• It was the first big step in international law on crimes committed on board aircraft.

• States must extend their criminal jurisdiction to aircraft registered with them, even outside their own airspace [2][4].

• Hijacking wave from 1968 → the Hague Convention, 1970 (Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft). Its aim was to deny hijackers safe haven in any contracting state [3][4].

• Both conventions were concluded under ICAO auspices [4].
• Present case (2026): the threat came from inside the cockpit (the co-pilot), not from a passenger. This is a different threat from the hijacker profile these conventions were written for [1].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Pilot	Captain Smit Machchhar, an Indian national flying for Flydubai (UAE carrier) [1]
Experience	17 years of flying [1]
Destination of flight	Tel Aviv, Israel [1]
Attacker	The flight's co-pilot [1]
Decisive act	The wounded captain opened the cockpit door and passengers overpowered the co-pilot [1]
Current location of pilot	In hospital in the UAE [1]
PM interaction	Video call on Gandhi Jayanti, Friday [1]
Tokyo Convention	1963: crimes and certain other acts on board aircraft; flag-state jurisdiction [2]
Tokyo obligations	Restore control of a hijacked aircraft to its lawful commander. The landing state must let passengers and crew continue their journey and return the aircraft and cargo [4]
Hague Convention	1970: suppression of unlawful seizure (hijacking) of aircraft [3]
Parent body	ICAO, under whose auspices both conventions were concluded [4]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / International Law

• Under the Tokyo Convention, the state where the aircraft is registered (here, the UAE for a Flydubai aircraft) has jurisdiction over offences on board, even outside its airspace [2][4].
• The Tokyo Convention focuses on restoring control to the lawful commander. In this case the commander himself was the target, so the incident tests that design [4][1].
• The Hague Convention's "no safe haven" principle (1970) covers prosecution or extradition of anyone who tries to unlawfully seize an aircraft [3][4].

Security / Strategic

• Insider threat: a flight-deck crew member allegedly tried to seize the aircraft. Security checks built around passengers would not catch this [1].
• West Asia context: the flight was bound for Israel during a period of regional tension. The Hindu's site was running a live topic on "Israel-US strikes on Iran" at the time [1].
• The cockpit door works both ways: reinforced doors keep intruders out but can trap a commander inside with an attacker. Here, opening the door saved the flight [1].

Geopolitical / Diaspora

• The case involves an Indian professional on a Gulf (UAE) carrier, hospitalised in the UAE. It falls under India's diaspora outreach [1].
• The PM's personal call is a soft-power message, linking a citizen's courage to India's image abroad [1].

Ethical (GS-IV)

• Courage and duty: the captain put others first. In his words: "although I was thinking of saving myself, I could not bear to think of what would happen to others if I didn't act" [1].
• Professional competence: his 17 years of experience made him realise the plane was losing altitude and what would happen to passengers if he failed to act [1].
• Collective action: the passengers "saved the day" once the door was opened [1].
• Ahimsa framing: the PM linked protecting life to Gandhian non-violence [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 2026 (date of flight not given in source): the co-pilot attacked Captain Machchhar on a Flydubai flight bound for Tel Aviv; passengers overpowered the co-pilot [1].
• 2 October 2026 (Gandhi Jayanti): PM Modi spoke to the captain by video call [1].
• 3 October 2026: The Hindu carried the report on Page 1 of its International edition [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• Captain Smit Machchhar flew for Flydubai, a UAE carrier, not an Indian airline [1].
• The aircraft was bound for Tel Aviv [1].
• The attacker was the co-pilot, not a passenger [1].
• The captain had 17 years of flying experience [1].
• The PM spoke to him on Gandhi Jayanti and invoked ahimsa [1].
• The Tokyo Convention (1963) covers offences and certain other acts on board aircraft [2].
• The Tokyo Convention requires states to extend criminal jurisdiction to aircraft registered with them, even outside national airspace [4].
• The Tokyo Convention requires states to restore control of a hijacked aircraft to its lawful commander [4].
• Under Tokyo, the landing state must let passengers and crew continue their journey [4].
• The Hague Convention (1970) is the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft [3].
• The Hague Convention came in response to a hijacking wave that began in 1968 [4].
• Both the Tokyo and Hague Conventions were concluded under ICAO auspices [4].

8. Why Hijacking Treaties Fit a Rogue Co-Pilot Badly

• The treaties assume the danger comes from outside the cockpit
• The Tokyo Convention's answer to a hijack is to give control back to the lawful commander [4].
• That plan works only if the crew are the victims. Here, one of the two people lawfully at the controls was the alleged attacker [1].

• Once the commander is wounded, there is no other 'lawful' person the treaty can hand the aircraft back to.

• 'Seizing' a plane is hard to prove when the attacker is already flying it

• Hijacking under the Hague line of law means unlawful seizure (taking control by force or threat) [3].
• India's law, which puts the Hague Convention and its 2010 Supplementary Protocol into effect, defines hijacking as seizing control "unlawfully and intentionally, by technological means or by exercising force, coercion, or any other form of intimidation" [5].
• In this case the co-pilot allegedly wounded the captain, so force was used, and the definition fits [1][5].

• Now take a pilot who simply flies the plane down without fighting anyone. He seizes nothing. He already has control. That case slips out of the 'hijacking' box.

• The treaties were updated once for a new threat, so it can be done again

• The 2010 Protocol added "technological means" to the hijacking definition. This covers control taken without a physical takeover [5].
• That shows ICAO treaty law changes after a new kind of threat appears. An attack by the crew is the next kind of threat it has not yet addressed.

9. Two Countries Could Claim This Case

• The flag state and the victim's country both have a claim
• Under Tokyo, the UAE (where Flydubai aircraft are registered) has jurisdiction over offences on board [2][4].
• India's Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016 lets Indian courts try offences committed "by or against Indian citizens", even abroad [5][6].

• The captain is an Indian citizen [1]. So on paper, India could also act.

• Why this overlap matters

• When two states can both prosecute, one has to give way, or the case stalls between them.

• The co-pilot is in UAE hands and the evidence is with UAE authorities, so in practice the flag state leads. India's claim is mostly a lever for diplomacy and consular support, not a real trial.

• The punishment depends on whether anyone died

• The 2016 Act gives the death penalty only when the hijacking causes the death of a hostage or of security personnel. In all other cases it gives life imprisonment, plus confiscation of property [5].
• The Act also punishes an attempt at hijacking, not only a hijacking that succeeds [6].

• No one died here [1]. So under Indian law this would be an attempt case, with life imprisonment at most.

• Who would investigate in India

• The Centre can hand investigation, arrest and prosecution powers to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) [5].

10. What the Hero Story Leaves Out

• Every fact here is still only alleged
• The source calls it an alleged bid to seize control. The co-pilot's motive is not reported [1].

• A public hero story, told before any inquiry ends, can shape how people judge the accused. Due process (the right to a fair trial before being called guilty) still applies.

• The real question is how the co-pilot got into the cockpit at all

• Praise for one brave captain is the right response from a person. It is not a fix for the system.

• Passenger screening cannot stop a threat that is already on the crew list [1]. The weak point is the vetting and monitoring of crew, and that is the airline's and the UAE regulator's job, not India's.

• Calling this 'ahimsa' raises a GS-IV question

• The flight was saved because passengers physically overpowered the co-pilot [1].
• The PM still called it ahimsa (non-violence) [1]. This works only if ahimsa means protecting life, not never using force.
• That is a useful ethics point for an answer: limited force used to save many lives can still fit a non-violent value system. Avoid writing that no force was used.

11. What India Can Actually Push For

• India should raise crew-insider attacks at ICAO
• India has already brought the 2010 Beijing Protocol into its own law through the 2016 Act [5].

• So it can credibly ask ICAO for the next update: clear treaty language for attacks by people lawfully at the controls.

• MEA should keep a standing support system for Indian aircrew abroad

• Indian pilots fly for foreign carriers and fall under foreign regulators. This captain is in hospital in the UAE [1].

• A PM's phone call is one-off. A fixed consular process for crew injured or charged abroad would cover the cases that never make Page 1.

• Parliament should check whether the 2016 Act covers crew attackers

• The Act's definition is built around force or intimidation [5].
• A review should ask whether a crew member who crashes a plane without using force is caught by this Act or only by other criminal law.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: India's Act treats an aircraft as 'in service' from pre-flight preparation until 24 hours after landing, which widens when the hijacking law applies [5]
• Report/Committee: Parliamentary Standing Committee report on the Anti-Hijacking Bill, 2014 (filed 11 May 2015) [5]
• Law/Case: Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016 (replaced the 1982 Act; death penalty if a hostage or security personnel dies, otherwise life imprisonment; covers attempt and abetment) [5][6]; Hague Convention 1970 + Beijing Supplementary Protocol 2010 [5]
• Comparison: Tokyo 1963 gives jurisdiction to the flag state (UAE here). India's 2016 Act also covers offences by or against Indian citizens, so the two claims overlap [2][5]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: International Relations — Indian diaspora; bilateral ties with the UAE; international institutions (ICAO).
• GS-III: Security — challenges to internal and transport security; terrorism; insider threats.
• GS-IV: Ethics — courage, duty, empathy, compassion for the weaker sections; lessons from the lives of exemplary individuals; Gandhian values.
• Plausible question stems: 1. International aviation security law was built around the external hijacker. Examine whether the Tokyo (1963) and Hague (1970) Conventions are adequate for insider threats from flight crew. (GS-III) 2. Courage in public service is often an act of choosing others over oneself. Illustrate with recent examples and discuss how such values can be built in professionals. (GS-IV) 3. The welfare and recognition of Indian professionals abroad has become a tool of India's soft power. Discuss with reference to the Gulf region. (GS-II)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• ICAO (structure, Chicago Convention 1944): the parent body for all aviation-security treaties.
• Montreal Convention 1971 and Beijing Convention/Protocol 2010: later treaties in the same series as Tokyo and Hague.
• India's Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016 and BCAS: India's domestic counterpart. (These facts were not verified in this session's sources; check them on indiacode.nic.in.)
• Indian diaspora in the Gulf / India–UAE Comprehensive Strategic Partnership: context for an Indian pilot on a UAE carrier.
• India–Israel relations and the West Asia crisis: the Tel Aviv destination and regional tension.
• Pilot mental health and cockpit-access rules: the insider-threat dimension (compare the Germanwings 2015 case).
• Gandhian ethics (ahimsa) in GS-IV: the PM's framing of the incident.

15. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Carrier nationality: Flydubai is a UAE airline. The pilot is Indian, but the aircraft is not Indian-registered. Under Tokyo, flag-state jurisdiction goes to the registering state [1][2].
• Mixing up the conventions: Tokyo 1963 covers offences on board. Hague 1970 covers unlawful seizure (hijacking). Do not swap the years or the scope [2][3].
• "Hijacker" vs co-pilot: the attacker was the co-pilot, and the source calls it an alleged bid to seize control. Do not describe it as a passenger hijacking [1].
• The incident date is not the call date: 2 October 2026 is the date of the PM's call, not of the attack. The source does not give the flight date [1].
• Single source: the incident details rest on one newspaper report. News search on whitelisted Indian outlets was blocked in this session, so treat flight-specific details as provisional [1].