The latest on cabotage in India

And how it will affect you.

http://www.moneylife.in/article/switching-off-the-lighthouses-cabotage-kills-a-maritime-nation/28743.html

And why this impacts the future of not just your jobs, or the maritime industry in India, but the larger issues therein.

Mumbai Port Trust, Taj Mahal Hotel, and a fraud on us?

Here's an interesting little episode - the land on which the Taj Mahal Hotel stands, all of it and some more nearby, is rented out to Indian Hotels (the Tata company that owns the Taj brand of hotels) for all of 13 lakhs a year.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/mumbai-port-trust-taj-hotel-lock-horns-over-land-rent/397727/

Now, what happens is that in the larger public interest, somebody wants to know how and why this is happening, after all, why not put the property to open auction?

The Mumbai Port Trust, which otherwise seeks central funds for expansion, will not ask its tenants to increase rentals!!

http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_000666_M_67686.pdf



Appeal Nos.CIC/SS/A/2011/000666

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
B- Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal Nos.CIC/SS/A/2011/000666

PARTIES TO THE CASES:

Appellant : Shri Vikas Patel (present in person)
Respondent : Deputy Estate Manager, General Administrative Department,
Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai (represented through Shri K.L. Sache, Dy.
Estate Manager, Mumbai Port Trust)
Date of Hearing : 26/09/2011

ORDER

1. The Appellant vide his RTI Application dated 27/10/2010 had sought
the photocopies of Lease Agreement executed between the Taj Mahal
Palace (“Taj Hotel”) situated at Apollo Bunder, Mumbai – 400 001 and
the Mumbai Port Trust (“MbPT”) along with all such Lease Renewal
Agreements which were executed subsequently between the said parties.

2. The CPIO of the Respondent authority vide his Order dated
09/11/2010 denied the above sought information under Section 8 (1) (e)
of the RTI Act. Aggrieved henceforth, the Appellant preferred first
appeal dated 07/12/2010 to the FAA of the Respondent authority. The
FAA dismissed the said first 1Appeal Nos.CIC/SS/A/2011/000666 appeal
vide his Order dated 19/01/2011 and held that MbPT has a fiduciary
relationship with its lessees and as such, the copies of the lease
agreement cannot be provided to the Appellant. The FAA further held
that there was no larger public interest involved in disclosing such
information and therefore, upheld the Order of the CPIO.

3. The Appellant has thereafter approached this Commission in second
appeal. The Commission has duly considered the submissions made by
both the parties and has perused through the material placed on
record.

4. The MbPT is constituted by the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (“MPT
Act”) enacted by the Parliament and the Preamble thereof reads as
follows: “An Act to make provision for the constitution of port
authorities for certain major ports in India and to vest the
administration, control and management of such ports in such
authorities and for matters connected therewith.”
For each major port trust established by the MPT Act, such as the
MbPT, the Central Government has constituted a Board of Trustees for
such major port under Section 3 of the MPT Act. One of the many powers
exercised by the said Board of Trustees under the MPT Act is stated in
Section 49 (3) of the said Act and reads as follows: “(3)
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Board may,
by auction or by inviting tenders, lease any land or shed belonging to
it or in its possession or occupation at a rate higher than that
provided under sub-section (1).” 2Appeal Nos.CIC/SS/A/2011/000666
Section 57 of the MPT Act states that the Board of Trustees shall not
lease, farm, sell or alienate any power vested in it under the MPT Act
of levying rates without the prior sanction of Central Government.

In light of the afore-quoted provisions of the MPT Act, it becomes
clear that the power vested in the Board of Trustees of the MbPT to
execute lease agreement is a statutory power which cannot be exercised
without prior sanction of Central Government. The lease agreement
entered into between the MbPT and the Taj Hotel, therefore, cannot be
termed as being such information which is held by the MbPT in the
capacity of a fiduciary under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act.

5. It is apposite to mention the following excerpt from the decision
of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of ‘Treesa Irish vs
Central Information Commission’ [ILR 2010 (3) Kerala892]: “16. […] it
is clear that 'fiduciary relationship', although arises out of a
transaction involving trust between two parties, it requires something
more than mere trust to make the relationship fiduciary. It also
cannot be equated with mere privacy or confidentiality. At the heart
of fiduciary relationship lie reliance, de facto control and
dominance. A fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed
on one side and there is resulting superiority and influence on the
other. The Canadian Courts have developed the following tests for
determining whether fiduciary relationship has been established, viz.
Appeal Nos.CIC/SS/A/2011/000666
a) The fiduciary has the scope for the exercise of some discretion or power;
b) The fiduciary can unilaterally exercise that power or discretion so
as to affect the beneficiary's legal or practical interests; and
c) The beneficiary is peculiarly vulnerable to or at the mercy of the
fiduciary holding the discretion or power.

Based on the legal principles arising from the above discussion, I am
inclined to add one more to the same viz.

d) The fiduciary is obliged to protect the interests of the other party.

From the material available on the subject, I am satisfied that those
tests can be applied for deciding the question as to whether there is
fiduciary relationship between two parties.”

(EMPHASIS ADDED)

6. Clearly, the features of a fiduciary relationship, as observed by
the Hon’ble High Court (supra), are missing in a lease agreement
entered into between MbPT as an exercise of a statutory power under
the MPT Act, with the Taj Hotel. Therefore, there is no merit in the
reasoning given by the FAA of the Respondent authority in this regard.

7. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO of the Respondent authority
to provide the information sought by the Appellant herein, i.e.
photocppies of the lease agreement entered into between the MbPT and
the Taj Hotel, Mumbai along with any subsequent renewal agreements
thereto, to the 4Appeal Nos.CIC/SS/A/2011/000666 Appellant within 15
days of receipt of this Order.

The Appeal is accordingly allowed.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
30.09.2011
Authenticated True Copies
(D.C. Singh)
Deputy Registrar

Name & Address of Parties:

Sh. Vikas Patel,
Plot No. 31, Sector No. 9,
Above Central Bank of India,
Gandhidham – 370 201, Kutch – Gujrat

The PIO/CPIO,
Southern Division, Estate Department,
Mumbai Port Trust, “Vijaydeep”, Third Floor,
Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Mumbai – 400 001
The Appellate Authority/Transparency Officer,
Mumbai Port Trust, O/o Secretary, Port House,

2nd Floor, S.V. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001

Appeal Nos.CIC/SS/A/2011/000666

+++

Interesting, no??

____++++____

Wonder if any of our Nautical Advisors, Surveyors, Shipping Masters, would go on board a ship through the Gulf of Aden . .

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/iaf-chief-flies-su30mki-to-assure-it-is-safe/213941-3.html

Pune: A week after a Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter plane crashed leading to grounding of the fleet, IAF chief NAK Browne on Wednesday took an hour-long sortie in the aircraft in Pune, in an exercise aimed at restoring the confidence of pilots.

The Air Chief Marshal took off from Lohegaon air base and was accompanied by Wing Commander Anurag Sharma, Commanding Officer of the SU-30 MKI squadron, based in Pune.

Addressing the air-warriors after the sortie, Browne said, "I wanted to be here to not only fly the SU-30 MKI but also to assure you that our SU-30 fleet is in good and capable hands."

IAF had temporarily grounded the fleet of nearly 120 Russian-made Sukhois to carry out checks after an aircraft that had taken off from Lohegaon base crashed on December 13.

"The Chief has been restoring the confidence of pilots and all the air-warriors in these fighter aircraft. He personally wanted to ensure that the Sukhois are safe," an IAF spokesperson said.

Browne is on a working visit to Lohegaon base, which he had commanded as the Air Officer Commanding (AOC), from 2001 to 2003.

Stressing that the force personnel have been doing an "excellent job", the air chief said the momentum of building up the new SU-30 Squadrons needs to be maintained.

"Our people should remain our highest priority because it is then, that a cohesive team translates itself in to a success story," he said.

Officials also said that the IAF chief performed several different manouvers on the plane.

"The sortie of course had a profile and the aircraft performed several tasks during the flight," they said.

The report of the Court of Inquiry (CoI), which was ordered after the December 13 crash, is yet to come but the Sukhois resumed flying duties from Monday. Russian experts have also been called in to assist in the probe.

IAF has also deployed the Sukhoi-30 MKIs in North Eastern region as well and Browne was touring one of these bases when the crash took place.

Sukhois have been serving in the IAF for over a decade and has registered a sound safety record with only three crashes so far.

Two of these crashes took place in 1999 owing to the fly-by-wire control system, which were repaired by the force.

+++

I wonder what our Deck side Nautical Advisor, Engine side Chief Surveyor and for that matter the Radio Chief at DG Shipping would do if they had to sail onboard a ship in the Arabian Sea piracy affected areas?

Note what the Air Chief said:- ""Our people should remain our highest priority because it is then, that a cohesive team translates itself in to a success story,"


Have any of us in all our lives EVER heard of any of our Nautical Advisors, Engine Surveyors, Radio Surveyors, Ship-management managers, Shipowners even SAY ANYTHING remotely like this, leave alone DO anything about this.


A few steps away from the office of the DG Shipping is the office of the Shipping Master and MMD. A few days ago I received feedback of what was going on there, as well as a video clip of the "activities" therein, and am currently taking legal opinion and permissions on posting the video online because the building also houses some Defence offices and there is the issue of the identity of the person involved. That should take a few days, because this is only for safety's sake, and the issue of prohibiting photography at Government Offices or premises of Public Authorities was taken care of me a few years ago in context with photography at airports and in airplanes - the DGCA subsequently issued a circular saying it was permitted here:- http://dgca.nic.in/manuals/Procedure%20Manual%20for%20Regulation%20and%20Information%20Directorate.pdf

Take a look at Chapter 11.

Why is taking photographs of illegal activities on ships and in shipping offices so important?

Well, from the seafarer's point of view, simple:- take a look at how the crew members (Master and 2nd Officer) of the RENA are looking forward to 7 years in jail for "altering records".

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/12/21/Rena-crew-faces-new-charges-after-spill/UPI-33011324473801/

Which Merchant seafarer has not altered records at some stage or the other, and will be backed up by the unknown owner for doing so?

All parts of a larger puzzle - and the solution lies at the DG Shipping office's doorsteps. They HAVE to start walking the talk on caring for their seafarers first - just like the IAF Chief did.

Technocrats are of no value after some time, if all they do is warm chairs, and prefer to be surrounded by sycophants.

++++

e-Navigation and the Human Element - a report

Speaker after speaker at the Nautical Institute seminar on "E-Navigation and the Human Element" (New Delhi, 6th December 2011) waxed eloquent and more on the wonders of technology available onboard and more in the near future. Nobody, least of all your correspondent, denies the simple fact that new technology has to be introduced on ships to if nothing else, keep up with the real world out there. As a simple matter of fact, up until the '70s and even '80s, it was a given fact that merchant shipping along with civil aviation was ahead of the curve globally, as far as being early adopters of technology was concerned.

To just cite a few examples - merchant ships had facsimile machines using heat resistant paper, echo sounders using sonar, radars which moved on from valves and thence to double as well as multi sided PCBs, economisers later on known as turbo chargers ashore and environmental adherences well before these wonderful concepts came ashore in the '70s. The first computer many of us saw outside of IITs in India were on ships in the '70s and '80s. We had technology aboard to make pure water, serve us with clean electricity and provide us with brilliantly filtered air whether we were in the middle of the ocean or in the heavily polluted waters in some parts of the then developed world.

And then, somewhere down the line, technology on ships simply slipped behind the curve when compared with the rest of the world, as owners and the even more ruthless "ship-managers" along with compliant state authorities went along as accomplices bent on cutting costs on almost everything in the name of cost savings. Leave alone reducing head count, vicious chops were made not just as far as quality of life was concerned onboard, but also in keeping up with change and technological growth ashore - why, after all, was something needed if it was not legislated was the approach. It was almost like the attitude of truck owners - why improve matters for drivers, if all they have to do is deliver the goods to the other side - and if you make them suffer, they will work better.

For those of us lucky enough to sail with some ownership companies which thought otherwise, it was wonderful - as early as 1978, some of us who had sailed with Arya Lines, Blue Star or WorldWide, had worked on computers onboard, used situation display radars with television type colour monitors and were adhering to environmental norms ahead of what the ports demanded in those days. But then, it suddenly went bust, as the lowest common denominator fundamentals caught up with shipping globally, and from a career of choice, seafaring deteriorated to one of last resort.

One major reason for this drop-back as far as technology was concerned, ofcourse, was the advent of the internet globally around early 1990 and widely in India by 1995 - most Indian flag and FOC ships still don't have broadband on board, and the global figure for broadband onboard is below 7% of all merchant cargo ships. Even villages in totally backward countries have better penetration, never mind middle class homes in India, urban or rural. Likewise, the world of environmental compliances and adherences raced ahead ashore, while at sea it became a conspiracy of magic pipes and get the work done - never mind the pollution - even by hoodwinking everybody and by filling up more and more forms and reisters. Sad, but true.

The other reason, was simpler - the big recession in shipping in the mid-'80s brought forth a generation of seafarers who were simply not willing to rock the boat. Some of those same people form the backbone of senior seafarers onboard today, and they know the truths - the administration and unions will not back them, PSC in many countries are in the pockets of the owners and managers, and when it comes to a job, the typical seafarer is concerned only with what his wages will be like. And add to that the absolute backwardness of the training and certification system - the less said about that, the better. And on top of everything else, the famous "blacklist" now does better and goes global and even receives official patronage from the Government offices in shipping in India.

Ever wondered why there is no blacklist of owners and ship-managers? Simple - where else would the government babus go after they retire?

In the midst of all this, we now have a scenario where electorate generated noise and static in many countries is pushing administrations to the wall, and there is only so much mileage that can be achieved by criminalising the seafarer on board. The spotlight - and oh yes, shipowners, secretive creatures at the best of times hate the spotlight - is now looking for fresh victims, and after the recent episode of the RENA going aground off Taurongo in New Zealand, it is brilliantly clear to all that something is very wrong if ships have navigating bridges which resemble a hotch-potch of add-ons and ship-owners consider seafarers to be certificates acquired by any means who eat food.

A ship's bridge today is the best example of rampant confusion caused by a total lack of standarisation of design. Keep adding more stuff, keep deleting more people, and 100+ hours a week are standard. To that, add the simple fact that in many cases, the first exposure a seafarer has to a totally strange and new environment called his workplace and home, is often at the end of a long trans-continental flight, in the back of the plane known as cattle class, and thence straight to the airport without even a break. And then expected, often, to run a takeover as well as the regular business of work, right away. But this is all old hat, we seafarers know that this is our lot, and we do manage.

What is new here is that the "human element", which is the new name for seafarers, is now to hopefully be given due recognition by the maritime community ashore, at least up on the bridge, by something called "e-Navigation". Here's the IMO definition, and like everything from IMO, it goes into prose that is not just prolix but also confusing.

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/Navigation/Pages/eNavigation.aspx

"The aim is to develop a strategic vision for e-navigation, to integrate existing and new navigational tools, in particular electronic tools, in an all-embracing system that will contribute to enhanced navigational safety (with all the positive repercussions this will have on maritime safety overall and environmental protection) while simultaneously reducing the burden on the navigator. As the basic technology for such an innovative step is already available, the challenge lies in ensuring the availability of all the other components of the system, including electronic navigational charts, and in using it effectively in order to simplify, to the benefit of the mariner, the display of the occasional local navigational environment. E-navigation would thus incorporate new technologies in a structured way and ensure that their use is compliant with the various navigational communication technologies and services that are already available, providing an overarching, accurate, secure and cost-effective system with the potential to provide global coverage for ships of all sizes."


The seminar on e-Navigation and the Human Element organised by the Nautical Association's Delhi Chapter, held on the 6th of December, tried to delve further into the subject. The complete seminar has been video - recorded and the organisers have promised to put it up on the internet as well as web-stream it live next time in keeping with the theme - please wait for the information, till then you can check out the photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/vm2827/ as well as chronologically in reverse order on photostream counted from here:- http://www.flickr.com/photos/vm2827/6465863359/in/photostream/

It would take a thick book, and defeat the purpose of e-Navigation onboard, to try and do justice to the various schools of thought propagated so well by people who had prepared very diligently to provide us with their views as well as those from the audience who actively gave theirs in what was an eminently inter-active experience - far removed from the usual "talk down to the audience" type of seminars that are usually the rule. As a matter of fact, if you were a seafarer and in or around Delhi, then you missed a great event by not being there - hats off to the organisers for that.

Those who spoke at the function, were:-

Capt. I.V. Solanki, who gave a welcome address, and outlined the proceedings.
Capt. M.M. Saggi, Nautical Advisor to the Indian government, who gave an overview of the present scenario on technology upgrading in all aspects of shipping in and around India.
A keynote address by Mr. John Erik Hagen, who is the Director NCA at IMO and Chairman of the committee on e-Navigation, and spoke about the IMO role therein.
A short speech by Ms. Kirsti Stotsvik, Director General of the Norwegian Coastal Administration, outlining a view from Scandinavia of the situation as they see it.
A very interesting point to point kind of talk by Capt. David Patraiko, Director of Projects of the Nautical Institute along with some basic ideas on the concept of e-Navigation as seen from a future bridge.
An extremely lively delivery by Capt. Rod Short of GlobalMET, straight shooter and now the seminar was finally heading toward the human element part of things.
A valid presentation on the new-generation seafarer by Ms. Naomi Rewari of ARI, which brought out some straight talking on the difference between fact and perceptions on young people at sea.
And then, the first of two open sessions, where the debate shifted from technology towards the human element, and back and forth.

All this, very cleanly moderated by Capt. Rakesh Saxena and Capt. I. Kharbanda, and with answers to some tough questions well fielded by those on the dais.

+++

After a sumptuous lunch, the gathering reconvened, and this was unlike at other seminars where people tend to drop off. The organisers, in another brilliant master stroke, brought two seafarers from the modern generation "Y", Sumit Puri (ASM candidate) and T.P. Shivaramakrishnan (Chief Officer) to speak on the subject. They chose to deliver their valid views, followed by Capt. S Butalia's excellent presentation on the Ship Manager's perspective.

This was followed by another interactive session co-ordinated by Capt. S. Verma of Ocean's XV - lively and educational.

But, and this is how it is at all such seminars, the one main topic of discussion and clarification which pertains to fatigue as well as quality of life on board was carefully skirted. Every attempt to stir the pot a bit by yours truly as well as the effervescent Capt. Rod Short from GlobalMET, was sweetly snooked by wellmeaning friends ashore.

Thus ended on a warm and friendly note the Delhi seminar on e-Navigation and the Human Element.

If you have any views, comments, suggestions on the subject, please write in to the author or directly to the Nautical Institute, IMO or your employers.

Open observation on Indian flag ships and life therein

Basad on first hand observations as well as supported by inputs from others, the one big thing that needs to be done is that people involved in the shore aspect of shipping need to spend atleast 6 months onboard an Indian flag ship every five years.

The full cycle, from recruitment to briefing to joining to life on board and sign off/debrief.

This business of revalidating tickets basis a course or being involved in shipping ashore is simply not enough.

This doesn't include a separate treatise on the games indian shipping companies and their agents play in context with salaries, taxation, and the rest of it.

Ongoing discussion with INSA on the subject of Indian seafarers and more . . .

From Anil Devli/INSA:-

"A few points from INSA (Indian National Shipowners Association) to provide
Indian shipping's perspective on this issue.

The usage and utility of armed guards has been debated much as various
international fora including at the IMO who has finally come out with a position
on the use of Armed Guards, as have other international associations or agencies
such as BIMCO, ICS, and ISF. The use of armed guards on merchant vessels was
discussed at the 89th session of the IMO in May 2011 and interim guidance on the
employment of privately contracted armed security personnel on board ships
transiting the high risk piracy area was approved.

The use of such PCASP is not considered as an alternative to Best Management
Practices (BMP) and other protective measures. Placing armed guards on board as
a means to secure and protect the vessel and its crew is only an additional
measure at best, and something which all Indian ship owners would do in
discussion and in consultation with the Master of the vessel. However, much of
this is academic since we are awaiting permission from the GoI to employ such
Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP). We have been told that
such a policy should be released soon. Incidentally, it is not unknown for
tankers to have used PCASP's on board their vessels.

However, while the usage of PCASP's are an interim measure, INSA has always
advocated the use of our Naval Personnel, (trained commandos) who would be
posted on Indian flag vessels in order to secure the safety of the crew, the
cargo and the vessel. The comfort factor to the Indian seafarer of having
somebody from his own armed forces guarding him is immense but equally important
is the fact that having our own Navy guarding our ships ensures that the
national security angle within our ports and our coastal waters is also secured.
INSA hopes to see a positive comeback from the Indian government on this.

It would be erroneous to assume that some ship owning company is always at fault
whenever an Indian seafarer is in peril. As it is incorrect to suggest that ship
owners and ship managers are comfortable with seafarers on board being the
collateral damage. On the contrary, Indian flag ship owning companies have
shared a long relationship with its crew – with several of them rising from the
rank of trainee cadets over the years.

What in fact has broken this bond and increased attrition rates within the
Indian shipping industry by facilitating large migration of Indian seafarers to
foreign flag companies – is Indian government's policy of differential taxation.
The wages of an Indian seafarer on board Indian flag vessel are subject to tax
whereas those paid for doing a similar voyage on a foreign flag vessel is tax
free. By incentivizing, this policy has fueled the drain from Indian flag ships
to foreign flag vessels.

In this context too, INSA has demanded several times that the tax treatment for
Indian seafarers on Indian flag ships should be on par with that on foreign flag
but we have yet to see the government do something about this.

The casualty in all of this is the Indian seafarer and the Indian ship owner.
These two are the only entities left holding the baby. There has been little
hesitation in certain quarters to term Piracy as a "business" since every
stakeholder seems to be raking in money – from the underwriters who charge
additional premiums to the negotiators, insurers, security companies and of
course the pirates. It is the seafarer who faces personal risk and a responsible
ship owning company who has to attempt and resolve the issue at the earliest and
in the best possible manner.

While our Navy has done an excellent job in controlling piracy within the
coastal zone of India and has been extremely active in tackling pirates and
their vessels in the Indian Ocean region, we at INSA believe that it is time for
the Indian government to escalate this to the United Nations Security Council.
An international force under the aegis of the United Nations against the scourge
of Piracy is the only definitive answer.

INSA believes that the media can play an extremely important role in building
public opinion that would make action by United Nations Security Council
inevitable. However, other than a few articles on piracy, one does not see much
policy shaping or opinion creating endeavours by our media. We at INSA would be
more than happy to share information/data with the media as we appear to be in
consonance on the core issues – safety of Indian nationals, future of shipping,
trade, economy and above all national security. "

+++

Original article as well as my response to INSA are here:-

http://www.moneylife.in/article/another-piracy-attack-on-fairchem-bogey-the-thre\
at-to-national-security-and-economic-growth-just-gets-bigger/19097.html

+++

Dear Mr. Devli/INSA, thank you for writing in, thank you for reaching out, and thank you for the points brought up.

A full response shall be provided to you on INSA address after consulting with the editors of MONEYLIFE.

I would like to respond interim as follows;-

# On armed guards, in the specific case of the FAIRCHEM BOGEY, which as you know is an American controlled ship operating under the Marshall Islands FOC, there were armed guards on board till the 18th of August. they were then withdrawn because SALALAH anchorage was considered 'safe'.

# However, on the larger issue of armed guards onboard merchant ship, taking into account a variety of issues including lifeboat capacity, accomodation, line of command, inter-personal issues, port state issues, much still remains to be done. A strong flag state like India can, if it chooses to, bulldoze its way on this subject if it wants to.

# To blame the exit of Indian seafarers from Indian flag to foreign flag only for reasons of taxation is to miss the woods for the trees. This is another subject which can be debated at length.

# The media is not some sort of tap, to be switched on and off at will, as your last para suggests. In the first instance, INSA and its members will need to open themselves up for much more scrutiny from the media, on a variety of issues like:-

=how many INSA members are also owners/operators of foreign flag/FOC vessels.
=where is INSA on wage negotiations with Indian seafarers.
=why are Indian seafarers on Indian ships not treated as "employees" by INSA members, but instead, kept on contractual basis.
=what is INSA's position on citadels and non-armed responses onboard Indian flag ships.
=what is INSA's position on additional insurance as well as compensation for Indian seafarers on Indian ships who end up in trouble of any sort including piracy.
=what is INSA's position on the RPS Rules 2005 from DGS, which acts as a direct counter-punch to anything that INSA expects wrt employing Indian seafarers?

=Most of all, what is INSA doing to encourage media to interact with Indian seafarers on Indian ships, along the lines of what, for example, the Indian Armed Forces are doing lately?

There is a lot that INSA can and should do, instead of just picking on one aspect - taxation. Today Indian seafarers on Indian flag ships are not given shore leave in Indian ports, they are treated like rubbish by the vast variety of "authorities" who are inter-acting with ships in port, the big issue of still keeping seafarers on contractual "wages" instead of on employment is ofcourse mentioned.

Thank you for writing in. I would certainly wish to take these issues forward, but please look within - when was the last time INSA came out strongly on issues pertaining to the way shipping is being destroyed in India, especially Indian flag?

The answer, Mr. Devli, lies in the simple fact that most of the INSA members have more ships under foreign / FOC flag than under Indian. So obviously, where do the real interests lie?

Warm regards/Veeresh Malik

++++

Some home truths about INSA (Indian National Shipowner's Association):-

# Still going out to lunch on the SS LOYALTY

# New membership very difficult almost impossible.

# No forms of other membership for national interest like inland waters, port craft, dredgers, offshore vessels, etc.

# Most members have foreign flag ships.

# Terms of employment for floating staff are sweatshop era.

# Want media support but unwilling be transparent.

# No clear position on issues like cabotage.

As stated before, INSA has a credibility issue, but refuses to accept it.

++++

Tug JUPITER VI (Jupiter 6) and the latest position (Pelican Marine/Mumbai)

The Supreme Court of India took another step to prod the increasingly sleepy Indian administration towards doing their duty. The Honourable Courts have been at the forefront of what is called "judicial activism" for some time now, and matters have finally reached the doors of our babu log at Jahaz Bhavan, DG Shipping.

 

In a far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court permitted the family members of the missing tug JUPITER VI, to withdraw and take an interim compensation without prejudice to their rights of more compensation. As had been reported previously, this had been challenged by the owner's agents, with support from the DG Shipping.

 

The JUPITER VI was (or still is) an anchor handling tug which had a ship named the SATSUNG in tow for scrapping from WALVIS BAY towards India when she vanished in the middle of the Indian Ocean in September 2005 with with 10 Indians and 3 Ukrainians onboard  Like in the case of the REZZAK with 25 Indians onboard, the agent for the crew in both cases was the Mumbai based PELICAN, at that stage. At a later stage, James MaCintosh as representatives for the owners came on the scene,

 

Briefly, this is what is known about the JUPITER VI/JUPIER 6:- (kind courtesy http://users.skynet.be/p.woinin/sjup6.htm)

 

Built in 1975 by "Brodogradiliste Tito" at Mitrovica (Yard number 925) Gross tonnage 323 or 299, thus normally not a SOLAS ship, not subject to the ISM code. It indicates also that it was a rather small tug for a long ocean operation. It could be that the tonnage had been artificially kept low in order to escape SOLAS rules, but the list of previous owners shows only slight variation in the tonnage, the largest one being when the ship was under Philippines register (447gt). No owner will require to increase a tonnage, but the only pictures available suggest anyway large tug.
Tug/Anchor Handling/Supply , IMO n° 7391745, Gross tonnage 299 GRT, Netto tonnage 85 NRT
Lenght 39,93m(32,19), Beam 10,14m, Depth 4,611m(5,31)
Fighter fighting and salvage capabilities 
Main engine: B&W ALPHA type 16V23LU, total power 4690 bhp, 2 propellers with 4 blades
Bow thruster of 300 bhp
Generators: 2 diesels 
Speed 13,5kn, bollard pull 65 tons. 
July 2004: Harbour tug "SEA HUSKI" of Trinidad, damaged by fire was bought by "Jupiter Shipmanagement Inc" at Mumbai (IND), renamed JUPITER 6
Owner: PELMAR Shipping & Engineering Pvt Ltd, has an office in Mumbai.
Management: reported to be a company located in India or PELMAR itself? Crewing agent: Pelican Marine, Mumbai
Flag: ST.VINCENT & GRENADINES ( Previously reported as MARSHAL Islands & JAMAICA)
P&I: Unknown, it is not sure there was a P&I 
CLASS: Unknown
Crew: 3 Ukrainians, 10 Indians

 

+++

 

 

The JUPITER 6 left Cuba in November 2004 towing the bulker ITHOMI (Also called SATSANG, POINTING). Called Port of Spain, Trinidad, left 6 January 2005 and reached Fortaleza in Brazil on 18 March 2005. The tow made an average speed of 0.7 knots, not taking into account the eventual stop due to engine breakdown or other. There is also a strong current in the opposite direction north this part of the coast of South America, but almost no strong winds. After a short call, the tug left Fortaleza on 19 March and reach Walvis Bay in Namibia only three and a half months later, on 1 July 2005. The average speed during this crossing of the South Atlantic was 1.3 knots. Engine problems can be assumed to have delayed the vessel as it went to dry dock for extensive repairs.

 

The tug left Walvis Bay on 9 August 2005 and sent its last position on 5 September 2005: 35.52 S 23.26 E with as final destination the shipbreaking yard of Alang near Bhavnagar in the Indian state of Gujarat. An intermediate call in Mauritius was probably foreseen. On 7 September a large low centred on the Orange Free state provoked heavy thunderstorms. A sattelite picture shows that the associated troughs could have brought high wind from NE then NW in the area where the tug was sailing on 6 September. The suggestions that the JUPITER 6 could have been the victim of a pirate attack are ridiculous. These were never reported off South Africa, and the bad weather itself would discourage piracy. But it is well known that freak waves associated with a depression frequently occurs near the edge of the Agulhas bank.

 

On 25 September the towed ITHOMI was found drifting by bulker POSEIDON drifting in position by 37.48 S 28.59 E or 25.59 E. The tug SMIT AMANDLA was sent to recuperate the vessel. It found the tow line snapped and indication that two emergency towing wires had been rigged. Which means that the crew had a hard time to keep the ITHOMI in tow. On 8th October a distress signal from the ship emergency beacon (EPIRB) was received from the position 35,12S 24,17E. A plane was sent and observed traces of oil and some floating wreckage. The EPIRB was somehow recuperated and found to have manually activated. Remain the mystery of the cellular phone call from Namibia. One sailor phoned when the ship called Walvis bay in August 2005, and on 23 and 24 June 2006 one relative received a phone call from the same phone. She tried to call back but nobody answered. It is possible that the phone had been stolen or lost, and somebody in Namibia tried to use it.

Here follows a list of the crewmember prepared on basis of internet information.
BULGARU Y. Master(?), Ukrainian
ZELENETSCIY O. Chief Officer(?), Ukrainian
TKACH S. Chief Engineer (?), Ukrainian
KUMAR Raj, 2nd officer from India 
HOLIDATHAGOTI Hussein, crewmember from Lakshadweep, his mother died in November 2005
KATTAMPALLY Jose Matthew, electrician from the Indian state of Kerala
JAGOTHI Ibrahim Eduruman, crewmember from India
FAIKAGE Hassan, 20 year old, crewmember fron India
KOLUGEDORU Ali, crewmember, his father died around 30-6-2006
EDURUMANJAGOTHI Ibrahin, crewmember, his father died begin 2006
DAS Shri Subhas, cook from Calcuta.
MATHEW Jose, crewmember from India
PRAVIN Pandey, crewmember from Uttar Pradesh province, India.

Besides the crew from the Indian state of Kerala, 4 others are from Minicoy in the Lakshadweep islands, one from Calcuta and apparently one from the Uttar Pradesh province.

 

Apparently the Management did not provide much since the disappearance of the tug, otherwise the relatives would not have used the net to publish their desperate situation. The crew manager advised the Indian relatives only one month after it had lost contact with the crew.

 

It is almost certain that the tug was either sunk by bad weather, a large unexpected wave could have flooded the engine through an open door, or was rammed by the tow itself. Then some damage could have been found on the bow of the ITHOMI, a report from the SMIT AMANDLA would be welcome here. The most important clue remains poorly studied, the manual activation of the EPIRB 33 after the disappearance of teh tug. One report indicates that the battery life of the EPIRB is only 90 hours, thus it was not self-activated by sea water if the tug sank around the 5 September. One possibility is that the EPIRB remained afloat was likely found by a passing low freeboard ship, possibly a fishing boat that was fishing or sailing the area, but did not want to report its own position. But another and more distressing possibility was that the tug boat had been disabled by heavy seas around the 5 September and lost communications due to lack of electric power or wet instruments. As she was not so far from well frequented sailing routes, with plenty provisions the crew could have hoped to get help from a passing ship. This could be supported by a single piece of information made available by the owners "One fact so far not known was that a ship named Caroline reported sighting Jupiter 6 on 12/9 but no radio contact could be extablished, the position was in the proximity of the last reported position but without a tow. The owners were in a hurry to reach the scrap yard in India as they already had the next charter, a lucrative one, in place in the oil fields off Bombay.".

 

+++

 

What is more important here is the role of the owners/agents (Pelican Marine of Mumbai) and that of the Directorate General of Shipping. Following this case closely, it is apparent as day, that both these entities supported and continue to support each other in trying to ensure delay in payment of even interim compensation to family members of the complement onboard. To quote from the report in the Times of India:-

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/After-SC-prod-shipping-firm-pays-Rs-13cr-damages/articleshow/9304622.cms

 

"The bench interrupted him and said, "All these exhaustive provisions are not working. That is why these petitions are before us. The implementation of the act is lax. Why are these provisions not resorted to by the government during the numerous cases of pirate attacks on ships? Why is it only on paper?" The court also asked the Directorate General of Shipping to detail steps taken since 2006 to improve the fate of seamen and seafarers. 

In the petition, relatives alleged that they were stonewalled by the Centre, which had all along refused to divulge whether or not steps were being taken to collect information about the whereabouts of the missing crew."

 

+++

 

It is time that the office of the DG Shipping started taking a more pro-active role in protecting seafarers. Suggestions received include:-

 

# Indian seafarers to be sent on ships by RPS agents only if beneficial ownership is known. With the increasing investigations on all matters to do with tax havens, this is very important. In this case, for example, it has long been suspected that Pelican were owners as well as agents for this tug but ownership was hidden behind ofshore tax havens.

 

# Indian seafarers to be sent on ships by RPS agents with DGS authorisation only if full details of P&I, Class, insurance and adherence of vessel to all Indian and vessel flag state laws are adhered to. Safe Manning to be as per Indian standards, not as per flag, since some flags have abysmal safe manning certifications.

 

# Minimal compensation in case of any injury or loss of life by way of secured bank guarantees or insurance covers, be provided for in advance, before the Indian seafarer joins the said ship through RPS agents - and copies be provided to next of kin.

 

If just these three small steps could be taken, it would be a beginning, otherwise DGS can continue to listen to more raps on the knuckles from the Supreme Court in future.

 

+++

 

To the family members of the JUPITER VI, we extend our hand of support, and wish you more success.

 

+++