For the last three weeks India has been trying to get the oil tanker Desh Shanti released from the Iranian custody, but without much success. Even the diplomatic efforts are yet to yield any positive results. The delay raises eyebrows as it reflects the vulnerability of national-flag carriers and New Delhi’s inept handling of such maters.

Mind you, both the ship and the cargo belong to the Government. The merchant ship with a crew of 32 has been kept under ‘virtual captivity’ at the Bandar Abbas port since August 12 for a yet-to-be proved pollution charge.

What we know so far is that Teheran has demanded $1 million guarantee for the release of the vessel, which was detained by Iranian naval authorities for allegedly causing oil pollution in their waters. India refused to provide the guarantee as there is no evidence that the ship, owned by the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), caused the alleged oil pollution.

As the maritime authorities in Teheran refused to budge, New Delhi has chosen diplomatic channels to sort out the issue.

The SCI tanker was intercepted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps while it was on its way back to India after loading crude from Iraq for the public sector Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Though the ship was subjected to repeated port state control inspections by the Iranian maritime authorities, they could not reportedly find any evidence of oil leak from it.

Unfair detention

Indian classification society, IRS and the international protection and indemnity (P&I) club Steamship Mutual, the ship’s insurer, have given a clean chit to Desh Shanti.

But the Iranian authorities still insist on guarantee for the ship’s release.

As time runs out, the crew on board and their families are getting worried. Seamen’s unions, which feel the Government is not doing enough to get the tanker released, allege that the men on board are facing a “hostage like situation.” Some of the crew members were said to be due to sign off and join their families last week.

The unions — National Union of Seafarers of India (NUSI) and the Maritime Union of India — have threatened to go on an agitation on all SCI vessels if Desh Shanti is not freed soon. Abdulgani Serang, General Secretary of NUSI, says the issue reflects the Government’s attitude towards the shipping sector. For example, he says, if it was an Air India aircraft which was held at a foreign airport, the Government would have ensured that it was released in no time. “Why this apathy, when it comes to a ship? Is the master of a ship inferior to a pilot? How is the crew on a ship different from that of an airline,” he asks.

SCI is the largest Indian shipping company and if this is the kind of humiliation the men on an SCI vessel have to face, what would be the fate of those in other Indian flag-carriers, he rues.

Shipping analysts are of the view that the issue would have been sorted out much earlier but for the US and EU sanctions against Iran. Normally, in the case of oil pollution, P&I insurers provide the guarantee and ensure that the ship is released at the earliest. But in this case, P&I club is prevented from dealing with Iran because of the sanctions.

Leading maritime lawyer S. Venkateswaran says, “A maritime dispute can be settled only after proper investigation. But the ship needs to be released as there will be revenue loss. In this case, P&I club will not provide guarantee. So, if there is evidence against SCI, it could give a corporate guarantee, subject to adjudication.”

Joy Thattil another maritime lawyer also has the same view. “One option would be to furnish the guarantee and get the ship released at the earliest. Then fight the case through the existing legal system in Iran. This is because for each day the ship is detained, there will be revenue loss,” said Joy Thattil, a maritime lawyer.

But the fact is that Iran has failed to provide any proof that the SCI tanker was responsible for the alleged oil pollution. In such a situation, why should SCI provide any guarantee? On the other hand, the shipping line should claim compensation from Iran for illegal detention of its vessel, said a shipping consultant.

Formal protest

Last week, India made a formal appeal with the Iranian maritime administration seeking immediate release of the ship. India’s petition stated that the satellite pictures show that the ship has been 85 nautical miles and 400 nautical miles away from the said oil slick site on July 29 and 30. Iran has not provided any other evidence to indicate the involvement of Desh Shanti in the alleged pollution incident.

The ship was not in the Iranian waters. It was on its way from Basrah (Iraq) to Visakhapatanam. The Iranian Navy forcibly diverted the vessel towards the Nowrouz oil fields and later coerced it to anchor at Bandar Abbas and then subjected it to inspection, the petition stated.

The petition also pointed out that Teheran has not followed the procedures prescribed by the International Maritime Organisation for state port control authorities in dealing with incidents of oil pollution. Iran was supposed to inform the Indian maritime authorities with details of the ship’s involvement in the said oil pollution before detaining it.

“We, the Indian administration strongly objected to this colourable exercise of power and remind your administration that your act in this case was in transgression of the UNclos’82 and several international conventions including article 6(2) of the Marpol 73/78,” the petition pointed out.

India’s protest has also been registered with the office of the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Port state Control in which India and Iran are members.

Indian maritime administration has made it clear that the ship is not guilty and its detention is illegal. And Iran has not been able to provide any evidence to the contrary. Why, then, is the ship still being detained? Is Iran trying to signal something else as alleged by certain quarters? It is for New Delhi to figure out.

But further delay in getting the ship out of Iran could only expose the Government’s ineptitude in handling such matters. It would be a sad commentary on the Government of a large maritime nation.