Could you give us some some background on Indian seafarers in general?

Ajith Sukumaran: Only recently has society started realising the importance of shipping, but unfortunately from a negative point of view. Whether it was the Titanic, the Exxon Valdez incident, or more recent maritime accidents, shipping has often been in the news for the wrong reasons. But the fact is that shipping carries around 90% of global trade by volume. It is the lifeline of modern society.

The Ever Given incident in 2021 showed this clearly. A 20,000-TEU container ship blocked the Suez Canal for six days, affecting around 20% of seaborne trade. Hundreds of ships were delayed, and loss to world trade was enormous.

The Strait of Hormuz is equally important. It carries around 11-12% of global seaborne trade, but it is strategically significant because of energy transportation. Nearly 25% of fossil fuels and around 20% of LNG move through this route. For India, this is critical because more than 85% of our energy requirements are imported, and almost all of it comes via ships.

But we often talk only about ships and cargo. Ships do not move on their own. They are operated by people. Seafarers take these vessels through difficult and risky situations, and society needs to recognise their contribution. These are high-value and high-risk assets, and they need competent professionals.

Modern cargoes also involve huge risks. LNG carriers, for example, carry enormous energy potential, yet they may be operated by only around 20-21 seafarers. Indian seafarers have been among the most respected in international shipping. They have built a reputation for their discipline and technical competence. Globally, there are around 1.8 million seafarers. India has more than five lakh registered seafarers, of whom around 3.2 lakh are active. This means one in five seafarers in global shipping is Indian. The foreign exchange contribution from Indian seafarers is estimated at between $6 billion and $9 billion annually. Their importance to India is much greater than many people realise.

What is India’s position on the sanctions imposed by countries such as the U.S., the U.K. and the European Union?

Ajith Sukumaran: There is a legal and a practical aspect. There are two broad categories of sanctions. One is UN sanctions, which are binding. The other is unilateral sanctions imposed by individual countries or groups such as the U.S., the U.K., the EU or the G-7. The challenge is that each country has its own list. It is not always easy to draw a line between sanctioned and non-sanctioned vessels. From the government’s perspective, the issue is also practical. India has to protect its trade and its seafarers while dealing with international realities.

Should the government track these vessels and advise Indian seafarers not to join them?

Ajith Sukumaran: Whether India should impose a blanket ban is a political decision. Such a move would have consequences because India imports energy from different countries and employment is also important. The Directorate General of Shipping has issued guidelines that seafarers should be aware of the type of vessel they are joining and the risks involved. But every sanctioned vessel is not necessarily unsafe. If it is not operating in regions enforcing those sanctions, the situation changes. Therefore, it is not easy to identify every vessel and prohibit Indians from joining it.

What is the legal position on these sanctions and on the arrest of the captain in the U.K.?

Biswanath Gupta: There are two kinds of sanctions. UN Security Council sanctions passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are binding under international law. Unilateral sanctions are more contested. They are technically limited to the jurisdiction of the country imposing them, but powerful states often try to enforce them beyond their territory. In international law, this is highly contested — whether those sanctions are binding or non-binding. If a strong country is applying sanctions, they are binding by nature.

Regarding the Indian captain, international law raises the question of jurisdiction. India can question whether the British court has jurisdiction, especially if the incident occurred on the high seas. Another option is diplomatic protection. If an Indian citizen is affected by a violation of international law abroad, India can intervene. Regarding missile attacks on ships, the issue comes under the law of armed conflict in the United Nations Charter. Questions arise about necessity, proportionality and whether proper warnings were given. If sufficient warning was not given, India can take the issue to the international court.

International maritime law has always been important because many principles of international law developed through the law of the sea. Existing maritime frameworks can be useful in protecting seafarers.

Has India signed such maritime agreements?

Biswanath Gupta: Yes, India is part of important international maritime frameworks. Since India has a large number of seafarers working globally, these agreements are significant. Some reports suggest that seafarers killed in conflict zones were pressured to enter dangerous areas with threats relating to wages, employment. These issues can be examined through international mechanisms.

What is the difference between dark fleet vessels and sanctioned vessels?

Ajith Sukumaran: Dark fleet vessels are identified through certain criteria. These may include fraudulent registration, false insurance documents, illegal ship-to-ship transfers, or switching off identification systems. The case of the Indian captain arrested in the English Channel was different. The issue was related to the vessel’s registry and whether it was considered stateless. The ship apparently had Cameroon registration but midway through the voyage, before entering the English Channel, the ship seems to have lost the registration. We don’t know how that happened. A ship must have a proper flag state. So the legal cover was that the ship was stateless. But whether the master should be held responsible is a separate question, because a captain may not always know about administrative issues.

Given this situation, what should India do?

Biswanath Gupta: India should focus on diplomatic engagement. International platforms such as UNCLOS [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea] provide a space where countries can negotiate and raise concerns. The International Labour Organization is also important because seafarer welfare and rights are discussed there.

But should the government tell Indian seafarers not to join these ships?

Biswanath Gupta: That cannot be the approach for a country like India. Much of our trade happens through the sea, and shipping is also an important source of employment. These global platforms remain important for protecting our interests.

Ajith Sukumaran: Yes, it can be done. Recruitment in India happens through agencies licensed by the Directorate General of Shipping, and any directions issued by the DG Shipping are binding on them. The government could maintain a dynamic list of sanctioned or high-risk vessels and require recruitment agencies to exercise caution while placing seafarers on them.

In many cases, vulnerable seafarers — those struggling to find employment or facing certification and documentation issues — are being targeted by agents and drawn into risky jobs. These seafarers often become innocent scapegoats in larger geopolitical conflicts.

The government has already taken an important first step by requiring seafarers to be informed. But awareness alone is not enough. The vulnerability remains, and in such circumstances, I believe the government has a responsibility to step in.

Listen to the conversation