The complete Enrica Lexie/St Antony episode is not a private issue between an Italian ship and an Indian fishing boat. We cannot, as a country, afford to be lenient in this case; we need to know the Directorate General of Shipping is being so hesitant in taking any action in this case

The latest twist in the Enrica Lexie/St Antony episode, covered by Moneylife extensively in the past, has taken the breath of many in India’s maritime community for its sheer audacity. Even in the worst of colonial era rule over pre-Independence India did we not experience the kind of blatant arrogance that the Italians are displaying in this case?

http://www.moneylife.in/article/why-are-our-seafarers-still-getting-killed-on-our-coast/24156.html

http://www.moneylife.in/article/indias-weakening-maritime-power/24869.html

Most certainly, compensation is rightfully due, and if paid by the Italians then there is a word that is often used in such cases as an ad-hoc interim compensation. This means, strictly with no strings attached and no subvention or compromising of the larger legal position. Interfering in due process of law and encouraging perjury, as it appears is happening, is serious.

Paying money is another matter altogether—something like taking responsibility for a moral payout, from a stronger entity to the weaker, more to help tide over difficult times. Certainly not to promote something like what the arrangement between the Italians and the families of the Kerala fishermen has done, which apart from disrespecting their own dear departed, is also interfering with the due process of law.

The complete Enrica Lexie/St Antony episode is not a private issue between an Italian ship and an Indian fishing boat, which can be settled by a payment like it would be for buying fish. There are many other parties involved. The larger issues involve maritime laws, economic security, energy security and future precedences. Apart from the central and state governments, there is the issue of the ship-owner. We still do not know who the beneficiary owner of this ship is. Then there is the issue of the 19 Indians onboard, held against their will for over two months now, unable to go ashore for things like medical check-ups or basic necessities of life. Would they not be entitled to sue the families for giving false complaints in the first case?

But the most important aspect of this episode on which we have yet no information in the public domain is the way in which the ship itself as well as the owners have not yet provided any information on the status of the log books, the voice data recorder, other data recorders and most of all, the information on the private and personal computers carried by people on board. I am unable to reveal my sources, but it is reliably learnt that:

• The Indian crew onboard the Enrica Lexie have not even been instructed to participate in an enquiry by the Directorate General of Shipping (DGS). This would be the normal procedure, and would run concurrently with the legal process.
• It has been attributed that in addition to the compensation, certain family members of those killed have been promised Italian citizenship, though this is difficult to believe. If true, then the chances of witnesses abdicating are always high, since Sri Lanka is just a hop-skip-and-jump away.
• Some records about the destination of the Enrica Lexie, which was said to have been heading for Fujairah, have been altered to state that the ship was headed for the Suez Canal.
• The issue about two Masters (captains) onboard the Enrica Lexie has not been responded to or answered as yet.
• There are inputs from the Indian Coast Guard, Indian Navy, as well as evidence from satellite which need to be brought to the table—is it true that the DGS is preventing this? Why has the DGS still not filed a complaint at the Yellow Gate Police Station in Mumbai?
• We have no idea if questions have been asked by our investigating agencies or the DGS or state/central government on ‘unilateral’ laws by Italy, e.g. on the absence of SOFA, non-declared rules of engagement, Master’s authority over-ridden.
• We have still no idea on whether the Indian authorities have insisted on whether the Enrica Lexie adhered to EMDM (European Maritime Data Management)—038374, Report on existing VDR and SVDR legislation dated 6 August 2008, which states that “In the event of an incident it is the owner’s duty to remove and preserve the VDR for investigation purposes at the earliest possible opportunity.”
• There is also no response by the owners of Enrica Lexie on the basis which they tried to implicate the Olympic Flair as the suspect vessel earlier on.

The question arises—what would, typically, happen in such cases, in other countries? Here’s how it would in all likelihood go:

• The government as well as the courts would insist that the beneficiary owners of the ship come out from behind their corporate veil and stand in front of them with clean hands.
• The other entities—ship-managers, operators, charterers, crew, mercenaries—would all go through due process to assess liabilities.
• The vessel itself—if there was full co-operation from the beginning—could be released on substantial bonds and securities, some in cash.
• If, however, the vessel or its crew, owners or others were party to displaying disrespect and initial resistance of accepting the validity of the law, then exemplary action by way of indefinite detention pending trial would be the norm.

We cannot, as a country, afford to be lenient in this case. And we need to know why the office of the Directorate General of Shipping is being so hesitant in taking any action in this case.

(Veeresh Malik had a long career in the Merchant Navy, which he left in 1983. He has qualifications in ship-broking and chartering, loves to travel, and has been in print and electronic media for over two decades. After starting and selling a couple of companies, is now back to his first love—writing.)