When a Pak fighter jet shot down Gujarat CM's plane 60 years ago
It was the height of the 1965 India-Pakistan war. And 25-year-old Pakistani Flying Officer Qais Hussain, flying a Sabre jet, was patrolling the tense skies over Bhuj and eastern Sindh. On spotting a civilian aircraft, Hussain sought permission and, once granted, fired at the Beechcraft. Feeling triumphant that he had foiled an enemy surveillance operation, Hussain returned to his base in Karachi.advertisementHours later, when All India Radio's 7 pm bulletin announced that a plane carrying Gujarat's then Chief Minister Balwantrai Mehta and seven civilians had been shot down by Pakistan, Hussain's pride gave way to shock, disbelief, and a lifelong burden.Gujarat CM Balwantrai Mehta, pilot Jahangir Engineer, and a journalist were among the eight people killed after their Beechcraft aircraft was shot down by the Pakistani fighter.
Almost 60 years after Balwantrai Mehta, known as the father of Panchayati Raj, lost his life in an air tragedy, Vijay Rupani, who had served as the Gujarat CM between 2016 and 2021, died in an air crash in Ahmedabad. The Air India flight to London, carrying Rupani, crashed just minutes after taking off from Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport with 242 people on board. All but one perished as the aircraft stalled mid-air and burst into flames upon hitting the ground.advertisementHere's a moment to revisit the 1965 tragedy that claimed Balwantrai Mehta's life, a rare and haunting instance when political leadership was quite literally lost mid-air.
Balwantrai Mehta is called the father of Panchayati Raj because he led the 1957 committee that recommended democratic decentralisation through a three-tier system of local self-governance, laying the foundation for grassroots democracy in India. (Image: India Post)
GUJARAT CM'S FLIGHT INTO THE FOG OF 1965 WARThe 1965 India-Pakistan war, which began in August, had reached a critical point by September.When the UN Security Council on September 22 passed a resolution calling for an unconditional ceasefire, India accepted it immediately. Pakistan, however, delayed its response, finally agreeing to it a day later, on September 23.Even as international pressure mounted to restore peace, the skies over the subcontinent remained hostile.That same afternoon, Gujarat CM Balwantrai Mehta was on his way to Mithapur, near the Gulf of Kutch, accompanied by his wife Sarojben, three aides, and two journalists.The eight-seater Beechcraft aircraft was piloted by Jahangir Engineer, the state government's chief pilot and a veteran of the Indian Air Force and the Royal Air Force. The group took off from Ahmedabad not knowing that they were flying into danger.CM BALWANTRAI MEHTA'S PLEA IN THE SKY GOES UNHEEDEDadvertisementFlying Officer Qais Hussain of the Pakistan Air Force had taken off from the Mauripur Airbase near Karachi along with Flight Lieutenant Bukhari in US-made F-86 Sabre fighter jets.While Bukhari had to return due to fuel issues, Hussain continued towards the border after receiving a report from ground control that an unidentified aircraft was flying near Pakistan's airspace. Amid the heightened tensions of war, the unidentified aircraft was suspected to be on a reconnaissance mission, possibly signalling an Indian attempt to open a new front in the Rann of Kutch.Cruising at 20,000 feet, Hussain was directed to drop to 3,000, the same level at which Mehta's Beechcraft was flying.As Hussain closed in, he spotted the Beechcraft marked with Indian insignia. Pakistani ground control instructed him to engage.The Beechcraft noticed the approaching Pakistani Sabre and began ascending, waggling its wings, a universal plea for clemency in air combat.Despite the Indian aircraft's distress signal, Hussain opened fire. His first burst tore through the left wing, and the second set the right engine ablaze. Moments later, the aircraft crashed near the India-Pakistan border in the Kutch region, killing all eight people on board, including CM Mehta.advertisement"After the shooting, I had a sense of achievement and satisfaction that I had completed my mission and destroyed any recce data that might have been collected to open a new war front," Hussain later recalled.QAIS HUSSAIN LEARNS HE SHOT DOWN A CHIEF MINISTERAfter shooting down the Indian plane, Hussain sped back to the Karachi base."I landed back at Mauripur, Karachi with my fuel tanks bone dry and was greeted by my seniors and other squadron colleagues. Later that evening, All India Radio announced the names of the occupants who had lost their lives in that aircraft...," Hussain recalled.Only then did Hussain learn the full gravity of what had happened, that he had killed a sitting Indian Chief Minister and other civilians. It was a rare moment during an international conflict: a political leader downed in wartime airspace by military misjudgement or perhaps misadventure.He asked his superiors why he had been ordered to shoot down what was clearly a civilian aircraft. The explanation: the plane was dangerously close to the border, and there were fears that India might open a second front in the Rann of Kutch.advertisement46 YEARS LATER, QAIS HUSSAIN SEEKS FORGIVENESSNearly 46 years later, in 2011, a retired Qais Hussain read an article in a Pakistani defence journal about the 1965 incident where shots fired by him killed 8 civilians, including a high-profile politician.Moved by the past and seeking closure, Hussain tracked down the daughter of pilot Jahangir Engineer, Farida Singh, in Mumbai and wrote her an email seeking apology.In the email, Hussain expressed sorrow for his actions but maintained that he was simply following orders in a time of war."I want to tell you that I did not pull the trigger out of malice," he wrote. "It was war. I followed the rules of engagement and carried out the command." He ended the letter with condolences to all eight families who had lost loved ones in the crash."For a moment, I wished I had returned without firing... But I was a soldier. And a soldier must follow orders," Hussain later said in an interview.Soon, Farida Singh responded with surprising grace.advertisementIn her reply, Singh admitted the loss of her father had shaped her life, but said she had never felt hatred towards the man who caused it. "I realised that in war, even good people are forced to do terrible things. We were all pawns in a larger game", she wrote.The Beechcraft carrying Balwantrai Mehta was not the only one; it was one of the four civilian or non-combat aircraft which came under Pakistani fire during the 1965 War. But the loss of a sitting Chief Minister made it significant.History rarely repeats with such cruel precision, but it has now claimed Gujarat Chief Ministers twice mid-air, once in war and once in peace.Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Israel sent Mossad agents deep into Iran: Report
Representative image JERUSALEM: Israel sent Mossad commandos deep into Iran to destroy Iranian weapons systems during Israel's attack on nuclear and military targets, an Israeli security source said, while another official said Israel used a ploy to suggest the strike was not imminent. The Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, described secret and lengthy preparations that went into the attacks. Reuters could not independently verify the accounts. Iranian officials who spoke to Reuters shortly before the attack had been dismissive about any imminent action and repeatedly said talk of strikes was just 'psychological pressure' to influence US-Iranian nuclear negotiations that were due on Sunday. Ahead of the strike, Israel gave the impression its focus was still on US diplomacy towards a nuclear deal with Iran. Instead, Israel said it sent 200 warplanes to conduct a wave of air strikes across Iran before dawn on Friday, hitting nuclear facilities and missile factories, and killing military commanders and nuclear scientists, in a culmination of its efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Israeli security source said Israel's military and Mossad had worked for years on the intelligence needed for the strikes. M ossad even smuggled weapons into Iran. The security source said Mossad commandos had covertly deployed weapons across Iran, including explosive drones that were launched at a surface-to-surface missile base near Tehran. The Mossad commandos also fired precision-guided weapons systems at Iranian surface-to-air missile systems as the Israeli attack got underway, reducing the threat to Israeli warplanes. A grainy black and white video distributed by Mossad showed what it said were its operational force — two camouflaged figures crouched in what looks like desert terrain, deploying the precision weapons system meant to destroy Iran's air defence systems. The decision to strike Iran was made Monday, the same day Netanyahu and Trump spoke, when Netanyahu, defence minister Israel Katz and military chief Eyal Zamir decided the operation would begin Friday, said a second source. The final green light was given by Netanyahu's security cabinet, which convened Thursday night. REUTERS
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Explained: Which Israeli Military And Nuclear Sites Are Iran's Targets
New Delhi: As tensions escalate following recent Israeli strikes and Iran's retaliatory attacks, attention has turned to what might come next. Iran has signaled its intent to respond after strikes inside its territory that resulted in high-profile losses. Military analysts and regional observers are examining the locations that could be in the spotlight if both Israel and Iran go ahead further. Reports suggest that several important installations in Israel may be under Iranian surveillance – especially those believed to have played a role in the recent military operations. Strategic Military Targets Based on past Iranian retaliatory patterns, it is likely that major Israeli airbases will be among the first on any target list. These airbases are known to host advanced fighter jets and long-range strike capabilities Prominent among them are Nevatim Airbase (which reportedly houses F-35 fighter jets and has runways capable of supporting long-range operations), Palmachim and Tel Nof airbases (both are critical for missile launches and drone deployments) and Ramat David, Hatzor and Hatzerim air bases (these are considered essential for ongoing aerial and logistical operations). Iran's prior actions suggest it typically responds by mirroring the scope and nature of attacks it receives. If fighter jets used in the recent strikes took off from any of these locations, retaliation targeting those airbases remains a strong possibility. Nuclear-Linked Facilities Iran has publicly raised concerns over attacks on its nuclear infrastructure. This, in turn, has brought attention to Israel's nuclear program, which remains outside international inspections. Though a few Israeli nuclear research centres were reportedly targeted by Iranian missile strikes late Friday evening, there is still no official confirmation about which specific facilities were hit. Though Israel has not officially confirmed its nuclear arsenal, the following facilities could be Tehran's symbolic or strategic targets. Dimona (Negev Nuclear Research Center): A highly sensitive site in southern Israel, this facility is widely believed to be the centerpiece of Israel's nuclear capabilities. Satellite imagery over the years has shown expansion activity there, though exact functions remain classified. Soreq Nuclear Centre: Located near Yavne, it hosts a small reactor and is said to focus on research and development. Unlike Dimona, it is under limited international monitoring. Intelligence and Defense Infrastructure Iran may also consider locations tied to Israel's security and command systems. This includes the Kirya, Tel Aviv. Informally as Israel's military nerve center, this district houses multiple defense offices. Beneath it lies a fortified underground command facility called the Bor, which is built to withstand missile strikes. While addresses are undisclosed, some buildings in central Tel Aviv and other urban hubs are believed to double as intelligence offices under civilian covers. Military experts suggest that any strike aimed at these facilities would require missiles capable of precision targeting and deep penetration that Iran has already used in Friday's strikes. Naval Facilities and Ports With Iran maintaining strong naval capabilities, including missiles that can threaten maritime infrastructure, Israel's ports might also be at risk. These include Haifa, Ashdod and Eilat. While the first two are major ports that are integral to Israel's naval operations, the last one is Israel's southernmost port, which is important for Red Sea operations. Iran's Capabilities Iran's defense development over the past two decades has focused on self-reliance. Despite long-standing sanctions, the country has built a vast array of ballistic and cruise missiles, many of which are capable of striking deep into Israeli territory. Some of Iran's known missile systems include: medium-to-long range missiles such as Shahab-3, Ghadr, Emad and Qiam; newer models like Khorramshahr and Kheibar that are believed to carry heavy warheads and are capable of bypassing advanced air defenses; and precision-guided systems such as Fattah (hypersonic) and Rezvan that could be used for pinpoint strikes. In addition to missiles, Iran has a growing fleet of armed drones, including Shahed-129, Mohajer-6 and the newer Mohajer-10, capable of long-endurance surveillance and strike missions.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Ram Madhav writes: What the current discourse on religious freedom gets wrong
In an interesting report, 'Changing the conversation about religious freedom: An integral human development approach', published in June last year, the Atlantic Council, a US-based think tank, claimed that it was seeking 'a new approach to religious freedom that integrates it with integral human development (IHD)'. In a welcome departure from the earlier practice of demonising countries in the name of religious freedom, the report argued that religious freedom should not only be treated as a human right but also as 'a crucial component of overall human flourishing and sustainable development'. Religious freedom became a bogey to defame countries after the US Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) in 1998 and created the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to 'monitor, analyse and report on violations of religious freedom worldwide'. The commission's annual reports have acquired notoriety for misrepresenting facts, often with an alleged political bias, in branding several countries as 'Countries of Particular Concern' (CPCs). Several countries have questioned its locus standi in interfering in their sovereign affairs. India took an aggressive stand by refusing to recognise the commission and denying visas to its officials. Earlier this year, the Ministry of External Affairs not only rejected the commission's 2025 report, which included India as one of the CPCs, but went further to brand the commission an 'entity of concern'. The USCIRF's reports have no sanctity outside the four walls of the US Congress. Yet, they have helped create a 'religious freedom industry'. A breed of 'religious freedom ambassadors' has emerged in over 30 countries. Religious freedom, per se, is not contentious. Several democracies, including India, hold it as sacrosanct. Articles 25 to 30 of the Indian Constitution offer various freedoms to religions including the freedom of conscience, the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate, and the freedom to manage their affairs without state intervention. Minority religions enjoy positive discrimination by way of special rights to run educational and cultural institutions. The same rights are not available to the majority Hindu religion. India is the only country where people of all religions, including several Christian denominations and Muslim sects, coexist in harmony. It's not that there are no religious tensions, but they must be seen in the context of India's population of a billion-plus Hindus, almost 200 million Muslims and 40 million Christians. In its long history, Hindu society has endured enormous religious persecution by invading Mughal armies as well as violent religious inquisitions by Christian rulers like the Portuguese in Goa. The country was partitioned in 1947 on religious grounds after a brutal and violent campaign led by the Muslim League. That history has made the leaders of modern India recognise the need for strengthening the bond of national unity based not only on political and constitutional foundations but also on cultural and civilisational ethos. Religious bigotry and fundamentalism — majority or minority — were rejected and emphasis was laid on creating a national mainstream. For a vast and diverse country with a long history of religious strife, that's not an easy task. Yet, occasional outbursts notwithstanding, India has achieved commendable success in demonstrating unity and harmony. Still, India remained in the USCIRF's crosshairs. There are two important reasons for that bias. One is that the commission places its religious freedom discourse in a Eurocentric framework. It refuses to take into account country-specific sensitivities. Two, it relies on scholars who are reportedly biased. I was at a conference in Rome recently where the Atlantic Council's initiative to view religious freedom from the prism of integral human development was the central theme. Propounded first by Jacques Maritain, a French Catholic philosopher, in 1936, and followed three decades later by Deendayal Upadhyaya, the ideological father figure of the BJP, Integral humanism emphasises the need to rise above religions to secure not only the material but ethical, moral and spiritual well-being of individuals. It advocates a pluralistic approach for achieving such an integral development. It is imperative that the religious freedom discourse be situated in the national context to achieve a proper understanding of the role of religions in the integral growth of people. The Indian Constitution imposes reasonable restrictions on public order, morality and health on all fundamental rights, including the freedom of religion. That calls for religions that came from outside to internalise the cultural experience of India, in which pluralism and respect for all religions is an important basic principle. No religion can claim universality or superiority. Hence, in the Indian context, the religious narrative should shift from 'one god' to 'only god' — everything is divine — and 'one truth' to 'only truth'. Religious conversions are an important challenge in this context. In a landmark judgment in Rev. Stainislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court held that the right to 'propagate' does not include the right to proselytise and hence there is no fundamental right to convert another person. The Court clarified that it does not impinge on the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution, but rather, protects it. It may be worthwhile to recall that Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis had criticised proselytism, albeit in the limited context of Catholics being won over by other denominations. A proper understanding of the cultural and civilisational experiences of various nations helps in reframing the religious freedom discourse in the right perspective. Otherwise, the Atlantic Council's efforts will also be seen as 'a form of 'cultural imperialism' or a 'Western' endeavour with a hidden agenda', to borrow from its own report. The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP. Views are personal
