
About: India is a messy, noisy democracy and life can literally take you from the lowest depths of the ocean to the highest mountain peaks. This is my commentary on the sounds made in the process. But, in this article, I digress slightly to write about superhero bravery in the Air by an Indian Pilot, and I return to the sound of India’s Election Commission fighting back on attempts to tarnish its name.
Unbelievable Heroism in the Air
This 30 September 2026, Flydubai, Flight FZ1073, a United Arab Emirates (UAE) Government-owned Airline based in Dubai, was on a regular flight from UAE’s Dubai to Israel’s, Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport. It was a Boeing 737 MAX8 aircraft carrying 174 passengers – almost all Israeli – and 6 crew. The low-cost, non-stop flight normally takes about 3 hours and 25 minutes to reach Tel Aviv. The Captain and main Pilot was Indian National Smit Machchhar, and his co-pilot in the cockpit, was an Omani National Mohammed Hamam Al-Hammami.
The plane departed Dubai at about 6am local time flying west, towards Tel Aviv. About two hours into the flight, Hamam Al-Hammami told Smit Machchhar that he wanted to pray, and got up from his seat. This was not abnormal, and out of respect for the ‘praying’ co-pilot, Smit Machchhar kept looking forward, without turning around. After about five minutes a deadly blow landed on the back of his head sending him into a tizzy. For a moment he thought the aircraft itself had been hit: that something catastrophic had happened. Then the blows kept coming, one after another, and he understood it was the co-pilot who was repeatedly clobbering him with the cockpit emergency crash axe.
The blows blurred Smit Macchchhar’s vision almost completely. He blindly tried to stop the attacker, and could feel the aircraft pitching steeply downward; heard a whooshing sound and passengers screaming. He managed to open the cockpit door once; the co-pilot shut it again, and Smit ended up on the floor. Believing he would die if he did not act, he forced himself, in one last-ditch attempt, back to the door, twisted the inside knob, and opened it a second time, before collapsing. Passengers who sensed trouble, on the dive of the plane, had gathered outside the cockpit and when the door opened they quickly entered, for the rescue.
Captain Smit Machchhar later revealed that he kept chanting the Hindu hymn, Hanuman Chalisa, to keep him going during the brutal attack. The hymn is recited in praise of Lord Hanuman who symbolises strength, devotion, and courage.
In between, Smit managed to signal a General Emergency Code, squawk 7700 ‘general emergency’ before switching to squawk 7500 a code for reporting ‘unlawful interference (hijacking)’. Meanwhile, the aircraft which was cruising at an altitude of about 34,000 feet began rapidly losing altitude and turned sharply to the north. It descended 17,400 feet in just under two minutes.
A squawk is a four-digit International Civil Aviation Organization code that a pilot punches into an airplane’s transponder – that talks to the ground radar – so that Air Traffic Control can identify and track the flight. The word ‘squawk’ itself comes from the World War II identification-friend-or-foe system, code-named ‘Parrot.’During World War II, primary radar only showed a blip. It could not tell a friendly aircraft from an enemy one, which was a serious problem especially at night and on cloudy days. Britain developed an early Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system: a ground station sent an interrogation signal, and a set in the aircraft replied with a coded signal so the radar operator could mark it as friendly. The British system was code-named Parrot, because it ‘repeated’ the signal back, the way a parrot mimics sound.
One of the first to enter the cockpit was Israeli, Plumber by profession, Yaniv Hayun, who along with three other passengers subdued the co-pilot, put him in a chokehold and dragged him out of the cockpit, while he was shouting, “kill me, kill me”. Hayun then pulled the nose-up stick and steadied the diving plane, inspired by watching a TV show called ‘Air Crash Investigation’, which reconstructs real-life air disasters. Another passenger Dr. Shota Musaev, a Dentist and the only Doctor on board, along with others, tied the attacker up using headphone cords and plastic zip-ties. He then tended to the wounded pilot and this effort saved Smit’s life, who was by this time was bleeding profusely.
Two Flydubai pilots who were already on board as passengers-crew travelling to operate the return sector, often called ‘deadheading’-then took control of the plane. The flight briefly entered Jordanian airspace before looping back into Saudi Arabia and making an emergency landing at Tabuk Airport in north-western Saudi Arabia. A large part of the Aircraft’s tail was missing – the rudder was damaged presumably due to the extreme G-forces on the airframe.
This plane was orders of magnitude above the limits and beyond the calculated safety factors built into commercial aircraft and yet it managed to survive. This is genuinely a testament to the 737 Max and modern carbon composite airframes. US President Donald Trump was quick to call Boeing, “A Great Aircraft”. In virtually every historical incident where an airliner got anywhere close to these speeds the tail ripped off the entire rear of the plane. The inherent strength of the airframe is genuinely unbelievable, as are the excellent piloting skills of the Pilots who pulled it out of the dive, which recovery is as impressive as Captain Sully’s famous landing on the River Hudson.
Captain Smit’s skull was broken in the axe attack and he underwent emergency treatment in Saudi Arabia, where doctors reconstructed his skull, before he was flown to the UAE for intensive treatment.
He later spoke to Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi who hailed him as a hero, who acted with the greatest possible courage in saving lives and in avoiding what could have been a unimaginable disaster.
Call it a case of ‘Risk Migration’, that for 25 years, regulators have designed the aircraft cockpit door to stay shut and even had it reinforced after the 9/11 US Twin Tower suicide attacks. On Flight FZ1073, the outcome depended on its opening.
The co-pilot Mohammed Hamam Al-Hammami, 29 years old, was a radicalised Islamic jihadi who was previously sacked by Air-Oman in 2024–2025 for his extremist views and ideology, for regularly browsing extremist websites and expressing support for the Islamic State, jihad, and anti-non-Muslim sentiments during conversations with colleagues. It is absolutely clear that he underwent Islamist radical indoctrination and should never have been on that plane.
He seems to have been hired by FlyDubai without a background check. It never checked with Oman Air where he had worked there for about eight months.
His mother is of Syrian origin, and father is Omani. He visited Pakistan in August 2026 and Turkey in May 2026. His diary notes contained praise for several terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Maulana Masood Azhar.
At the time he was a trainee first officer at Oman’s national carrier. The ban came in 2024, and he was moved into an administrative role. He left the airline in February 2025.
Hamam Al-Hammami filmed El Al and Arkia planes at Dubai Airport on 11 October 2023, just four days after the deadly 7th October attacks on Israel. He intended to carry out a terror attack by crashing a plane into Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport and planned the attack for months before FlyDubai hired him. “I searched and checked which company flies to Tel Aviv, and that’s why I chose Flydubai,” he said. He had planned to carry out the attack during an earlier flight, in July, but aborted the plan when he learnt that a crew member he knew was on board. A backup plan involved crashing the flight into a United States military base in Jordan.
One of the main questions being looked into is how the flight included a pilot from a country with which Israel does not have diplomatic relations.
Captain Smit sustained what doctors called a ‘depressed skull fracture-when a piece of skull has been pressed inward towards the brain it protects. During surgery Doctors made a careful incision to lift the pressed-in fragment, checked the protective membrane around the brain for tears and repaired/reconstructed damages. He is recovering and says he wants to fly again. Smit lives in Dubai with his wife Sonal Machchhar and two children. The 38 years old Captain has over 9750 flying hours including about 6400 hours as pilot-in command.
The outstanding act of Captain Smit Machchhar’s bravery will live on for time to come. It would have been an entirely different story if the plane with all 180 people on board had crashed into Israel or perhaps was shot-down as a defensive mechanism. And this was just a few days away from the anniversary of the brutal Hamas attack of 7 October 2023 when 1200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.
One simple act of courage can mean so much and it conks all of us on the head to be alert, mindful, and show the best in us when the stakes are high. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories do the rounds – best left to people’s pig-headed imagination. Did this kind not say that the Man’s first landing on the moon was staged in a studio?
Election Commission of India
Once upon a time, from India’s independence in August 1947 up to 1990, the Election Commission of India (ECI)operated as a hand-maiden of the party ruling at the Centre- mostly the Indian National Congress. If Alice in Wonderland’s Queen of Hearts thundered, ‘off with their heads’, and heads rolled, India’s then Government(s) decided when to hold an Election and the ECI meekly obeyed.
Those were the days of stupendous election malpractices such as, booth-capturing, bribing and intimidating voters, impersonation, intoxicating voters with the ‘spirts of Ireland and Scotland’ -not to mention local, legal (and often illegal) brews- to keep them on a high, use of Government funds and machinery… a long list.
Why, India’s first Prime Minister(PM), Jawaharlal Nehru lost 0 – 12 to Sardar Vallabhai Patel and yet was made PM by Mahatma Gandhi, overruling the voting by members of the State Congress Committees. Hey Ram, that was the earliest instance of, call it Election malpractice, or stealing of votes to manifest one man’s idea! And Elections rolled on, unchecked in a way.
Indelible Ink-usually applied on the index finger of a voter to mark his/her having voted-was first introduced during the 1962 General Elections, and it brought some checks & balances into vote-cheating. Never mind the ink, Jawaharlal Nehru served as PM from 15 August 1947 until his death in May 1964 – 16 years and 286 days.
Then in December 1990, an ex-Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Officer, T N Seshan was appointed Chief Election Commissioner(CEC)- the 10th. He boldly overhauled the ECI bringing in much-needed, vital, path-breaking Electoral Reforms such as, introducing Voter Identification, enforcing election model code of conduct, limiting campaign expenses, etc. In fact, he did nothing but dust off and implement existing Rules. And ever since, subsequent CECs have built upon that foundation to make the ECI one of the best in the World in conducting elections. A mean machine delivering election after election, all these years, without interference from the Government.
Originally, the ECI had only a Chief Election Commissioner – hence the malleability. It currently consists of the CEC and two ‘plain’ Election Commissioners. In a first, two additional Commissioners were appointed in October 1989, but faced ‘sudden death’ in January 1990. Later, in October 1993, two Commissioners were again appointed and the three-member Commission has stuck ever since, with decision-making being unanimous, or in the event of disagreements among the three, deciding by a majority vote.
Over to a slice of history: The fiercely independent, ‘James Bond of the ECI’, T N Seshan famously challenged the equal status of the two other Election Commissioners who were added midway during his tenure from 1990 to 1996. The Supreme Court ruled, in 1996, that all three members hold equal voting power.
The next step in ensuring squeaky-clean elections in India was the introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM). These are stand-alone, battery-powered machines that use write-once-read-many memory. This is basically an immutable system where, once data is recorded, the storage medium permanently locks the information so that it cannot be altered or overwritten – no edits or deletions can be done. They do not require network connectivity, and have no wireless or wired components that connect to the internet. The EVMs had iron-clad security features such as locking mechanisms, limits on the rate of voting per minute, and verification of thumb impressions.
Prior to electronic voting, paper ballots were used and counting was done manually. Printing paper ballots was expensive, required substantial resources and time to count. And was susceptible to fraudulent practices such as the use of pre-filled fake ballots. With the coming of the EVMs, elections costs reduced significantly, besides shortening the time required to count votes.
EVMs were first put-to-test in May 1982 in the By-Election of Paravur Assembly Constituency in Kerala in a limited number of polling stations. Nothing changes easily in India, and the use of EVMs was promptly challenged. The case found its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that existing Rules specified only the usage of paper ballots and forbade the use of any new methods, including electronic voting. And that the manner in which the orders were issued for the use of EVMs was unconstitutional, and the usage of any alternate means must be specified under the Law. This called for an Amendment to the old Rules, which was passed by India’s Parliament in December 1988 and came into force in March 1989. Subsequently, in March 1992, necessary Rules changes were made to legally permit the usage of electronic voting. However, deployment was delayed as a general consensus could not be reached among the various political parties.
In the year 1998, EVMs were used on an experimental basis across 25 State Assembly constituencies during the Assembly Elections in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi. Result: It was an instant hit and declared an ‘unqualified success’.
In May 2001, EVMs were used in all constituencies for the State Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Puducherry, and West Bengal. In 2004, in the General Election, the EVMs were used in all 543 Parliamentary Constituencies for the first time. Since then, all State Assembly and Parliamentary Elections were held using EVMs.
To further plug loopholes in the system, in 2013, the Supreme Court directed the ECI to include a paper trail to help verify the vote cast using the EVMs. The ECI then developed EVMs with a Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT), which was tested for the first time in the 2014 General Elections. This closed the door on any doubts about the EVMs.
Now, the focus shifted to the voter himself, the Electoral Rolls – who actually votes?
Riding on the long road of Elections, today the ECI is facing a major credibility crisis- in another dimension- over its nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls. This is an exercise periodically undertaken by the ECI to verify and revise Electoral Rolls through house-to-house enumeration, pre-filled forms, and verification of old data. A nationwide SIR process was announced on 27 October 2025; the previous SIR was carried out between 2002 and 2004 – about 20 years ago. And even before that, there were eight SIRs conducted.
For about a year now, Gyanesh Kumar, India’s CEC, has been under intense political pressure over the sweeping revision of the country’s Electoral Rolls under the SIR. The exercise, which began in the State of Bihar last year, has since been extended to cover most of India and more than 13 crore names – mostly dead, shifted to another location, or duplicate – have been struck from draft voter lists across 30 States and Union Territories – roughly 13% of India’s electorate.
The SIR process was challenged by the Opposition Parties (probably, fearing the loss of votes of dead voters – in those days even the dead voted!) in India’s Supreme Court. In May 2026, the Court supremely upheld the legitimacy of SIR and ruled it to be in consonance with India’s Constitution and that the ECI has a constitutional obligation to conduct free and fair elections.
The ECI explained that the SIR is intended to remove duplicate and ineligible entries while ensuring legitimate voters are included. Opposition parties and activists claimed that it disenfranchised eligible voters. The ECI outright rejected accusations that the process is being manipulated for political ends.
This September 2026, an Indian Express Newspaper investigation by journalist Ritika Chopra reported that other two Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded written dissent at least 14 times, over 10 months. This was to decisions supposedly taken without their knowledge-including ‘unauthorised changes to Form 6’, for new voters and centralisation of voter data.
Since the SIR has deleted over 13 crore names from draft rolls, opposition parties cried that this was done unilaterally by CEC Gyanesh Kumar in a way that disproportionately affected minorities, the poor, and young voters. And they demanded his resignation. Protests to this effect were organised in the national Capital.
The ECI released a statement that all decisions were unanimous and lawful and any objections-made out as dissent notes-were merely suggestions in the course of a normal day’s work. It has ordered a software review, eased some verification processes, extended deadlines in certain States, and removed the disputed Form 6 Declaration in States where SIR is completed. It unequivocally said that even ‘a comma’ of Form 6 has not been changed.
Lets go deeper into the meat of the matter.
Form 6 is a statutory application form used by eligible Indian citizens to apply for inclusion in India’s Electoral Rolls. These may be first-time voters who turn 18 years of age, or others who have never enrolled themselves for voting. It requires basic details such as personal information, proof of age and residence, and declarations regarding citizenship and non-registration elsewhere. The form itself is straight-jacketed, prescribed by Rules that can only be amended by the Central Government after consulting the ECI, and notified in the Official Gazette-subject to parliamentary approval.
A controversy arose during the ECI’s SIR of Bihar. The ECI introduced an additional declaration to be submitted along with the ‘untouched’ Form 6 for SIR-related applications. This was not part of the printed/downloadable statutory Form 6, but was added to the online version on the ECINET (online) portal.
Key elements of the declaration involved focus on birth details and supporting documents (one of a list of documents to establish date/place of birth for the applicant and, depending on birth year brackets parents). Later versions (from around July 2026 onward on the online portal) shifted emphasis to linkage with the previous SIR rolls (from the early 2000s in many places). Applicants were asked to choose among options such as, their own name appeared in the last SIR roll; a parent’s or grandparent’s name appeared; neither appeared.
Selecting the first or second option required providing details such as the Assembly constituency, polling booth/part number, and serial number (and sometimes related identifiers like EPIC number or relationship). The field was not always marked mandatory, but online submission could not proceed without completing it. False statements carried warnings of penalties-up to one year imprisonment, fine, or both.
The ECI maintained that Form 6 itself was never amended: only an additional SIR specific declaration was attached for the duration of the exercise; the Bihar SIR order (including the initial declaration) had the full Commission’s approval and was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 27 May 2026 judgment; the declaration was an additional requirement, not a change to Form 6, and that ordinary statutory forms apply outside SIR periods.
On 5 October 2026, the Chief Justice of India clarified that the Court had not approved any modified Form 6. The bench said it would examine ECI records to determine who authorised any changes and what exactly was modified.
The ECI reiterated that it had not altered the original Form 6 and that the SIR declaration was separate; it also issued fact-checks describing certain opposition claims as misleading. It withdrew the additional declaration from the online portal in states where SIR had concluded, while it continued in places where the exercise was ongoing.
The ECI continues to distinguish between the unchanged statutory Form 6 and temporary SIR-linked additional requirements. Critics focus on the lack of formal rule amendment, internal objections, practical burdens on new voters, and the precise scope of what the Court previously upheld.
Whether attaching the SIR declaration (especially in its later online form) amounted to an unauthorised or illegal amendment of the statutory Form 6 is contested-internally within the ECI, by opposition parties and some former officials, and in petitions before the Supreme Court. No final judicial determination that it was illegal has been made; the matter is pending examination of the records and the validity of the specific requirements.
In these circumstances, it’s worthwhile to dig into the career of the CEC-Gyanesh Kumar. What does he bring to the table – to the ballot?
For most of his 36-year career in India’s bureaucracy, the 62-year-old Gyanesh Kumar built a reputation for getting difficult things done. Now he faces a rather different challenge: defending how his own institution makes decisions.
Gyanesh Kumar hails from the State of Uttar Pradesh. He completed his BTech in Civil Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology- Kanpur (one of the very best in the country) and then pursued Business Finance at the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India before studying Environmental Economics at Harvard University, USA. He cleared the Civil Services Exam and entered the IAS in 1988, in the Kerala State cadre.
He began his career as an Assistant Collector in Ernakulam, then Sub-Collector of Adoor, followed Secretary of the Kerala Public Works Department. Leaving Kerala, he became Joint Secretary in the Department of Defence Production Secretary in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Ministry of Co-operation.
In 2016, Gyanesh Kumar joined the Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) division of the Home Ministry. Three years later, in 2019, he was involved in drafting the J&K Reorganisation Bill which culminated in revoking Article 370 (recall, this gave J&K a special status, disjointed from the rest of India). J&K was bifurcated into two distinct Union territories: J&K – with a Legislative Assembly, and Ladakh – without a Legislative Assembly, hence directly administered by the Central Government.
In 2019, India’s Supreme Court cleared the way for a temple of Lord Ram to be built in Ayodhya at a site that had been disputed by Hindus and Muslims for decades. Gyanesh Kumar, who was then an additional secretary in the Home Ministry, headed the team responsible for implementing the court’s ruling, including setting up the Trust that would oversee the temple’s construction.
The assignments were very different, but both demanded a particular bureaucratic skill of taking decisions of enormous political consequence and working out how the machinery of government would put them into effect. Gyanesh Kumar retired from the Civil Services in January 2024. Less than two months later, he was appointed an Election Commissioner – a day before the timetable for India’s general election was announced. In February 2025, he became Chief Election Commissioner.
He was the first CEC appointed by the President of India under a new law in 2023 in which a three-member Selection Committee recommended a name to the President of India. A Search Committee headed by the Union Law Minister shortlists five candidates, which it puts forward to the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee consisting of the Prime Minister (Chairperson), Leader of the Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister(nominated by the PM) makes a final choice by majority vote.
In February 2025, Gyanesh Kumar was selected by such a panel, consisting of Narendra Modi- PM, Amit Shah-Union Home Minister, and Rahul Gandhi- Leader of the Opposition. Only Rahul Gandhi opposed Kumar’s appointment (he even asked for it to be deferred while the Supreme Court considered challenges to the new law). But the majority vote saw Gyanesh Kumar through.
The ECI is one of India’s best autonomous Institutions handling the awfully difficult task of conducting Elections, and it is being besmirched by a kind of people who want a return to the old ballot system in which they have been swimming all the years and presumably won Elections on their choice.
Three Cheers to Captain Smit Machchhar- for showing exemplary bravery and indomitable spirit in the skies; and to the Election Commission Of India – for working hard in the cesspool of Indian Politics to clean India’s dirty Electoral Rolls, where draining the swamp isn’t an option.







