Language and Humanities in the Maritime Curriculum

Below is an extract from a report of the Maritime and Education Summit held on 1^st August 2013 at the Crowne Plaza, Kochi.

The highlight  of the day was the very effective and erudite presentation by Vice-Admiral Pradeep Chauhan AVSM, VSM, Commandant, Indian Naval Academy. With his command over the language and effective style of delivery he made a case for language and humanities in the syllabus.

He urged everyone to revisit the basics. He said that the quality of officer was a problem not just in the Merchant navy or navy but across all sectors. He felt it was fundamentally wrong to avoid humanities and focus on science. He said we have “de-romanticised”the merchant navy ( and navy)and so we (institutes) produce mechanics.

He believes for developing concepts we need a strong base in Humanities , history and language. For translating such concepts to reality we need the sciences.

He felt it imperative to define what the institute was producing. He talked of his dilemma where the INA he heads produces BTechs who are officers or Officers who are BTechs. He felt the need to clearly define in words the end product desired. He defined an Officer as “An intellectually, physically, emotionally and behaviourally exemplary, courageous and inspirational leader, imbued with a fine sense of pride, honour and integrity, possessing strong articulation and clear and evident expertise and refinement in multiple domains and deeply committed to the service of his country and the wellbeing of his subordinates”.

He felt training institutes must handle the Role of language in their curriculum. That language is a means of communication, according to him is a myth. Language is an expression of thought, he says. He lamented the fact that Lexicons don’t exist. We don’t use nouns anymore. He illustrated this with an example where an officer gets what he wants without using any nouns -  “अरे तुम, नही तुम। हा तुम.वो देना। वो नही ,वो. हा वो”

Romanticism is extinct,  he feels,  because trainers lack knowledge of language.  He defined Ethic as “ what I do institutionally aligns with what I do individually” If in an organization there is difference between what they purport to do and what they do, that organization breeds unethical people.

People are nowadays concerned only about how to man their ships and not in what manner they man

Are Rest hour violations not serious enough?

The USCG used to (and still do) penalise ships officers and the owner / manager for MARPOL violations. They used to reward handsomely the whistleblowers who reported such violations (they don’t reward them as easily now). Ships officers used to be handed personal fines in thousands of dollars and fines used to be in hundreds of thousands of dollars for the managers / owners. Everyone who has sailed on the ship now know what a magic pipe is. Trainings are conducted to raise awareness. Bilge holding and pumping systems are made more efficient. No one tells the Chief Engineer to pump his bilges out anymore. No one spares any effort at keeping the OWS operational. The OWS is what the Chief Engineer has a look at as soon as he takes over. All this mainly because the USCG was eager and took it on themselves to check for and penalise violations.

But the fact is that most of these violations happened in international waters and the US had no jurisdiction over them. It was a matter for the vessel’s flag states to take up. The US took it up for reasons they know best. And because they did there are not as many MARPOL violations; this despite the fact the no port states showed as much vigour as the USCG.

How then did the US take this up?  Falsification of records and Obstruction of justice were the main charges.  Tampering with evidence, lying to investigators, Coercing the juniors to lie to investigators, tampering with logs were all brought in to add to the counts.

I saw this after I blogged and I think you should also listen to George M Chalos who thinks the USCG is worse than the pirates.

It wasn't very difficult to prove when they find could discharges in excess of stated capacity, conflicts between sounding log and the ORB entries, flexible hoses, fresh paint , malfunctioning incinerators, lack of familiarity with the OWS etc.,

And with each count, the quantum of fine and punishment went up. It was upto US$ 500,000 per count upto 5 years imprisonment for individual defendants. And if they jury could prove that the individual was acting within his scope of employment ( this is liberally interpreted), then criminal liability is brought upon the owners / managers.

I often wondered why the US resorted to such affirmative action. It couldn’t have been just to prevent pollution in their waters. They used all available enforcement tools to make sure such violation that hadn’t even occurred in their waters were prevented and eliminated in the future. But whatever be the reason, OWS got into everyone’s mind and its misuse prevented.

Why  such a long and winding prologue before I actually get down to hours of work and rest? Because I am wondering why is there no such affirmative action by the Port state control inspectors or USCG  when it comes to enforcing WRH provisions?

Everyone knows how a passage up the Mississippi is. Shuttle tankers that do 5 operations in 3 days is not an anomaly any more. And most of us would agree that the pressure is on the Master to manipulate record of hours worked.

I agree that with planning most Non Compliances can be reduced if not eliminated in normal operations with a normal crew ( I am not venturing to define normal, but leave it to the experienced readers judicious interpretation). But a shuttle tanker’s operation is not normal so long as its manning is not enhanced. But if after planning, the actual operation deviated from it for reasons beyond the control of the Master and his crew, then such hours worked should be recorded truthfully.

The MLC as a convention has come to help the seafarer without unduly burdening the owner. And the provisions of hours of work and rest must be looked at in the same way – as not burdening the owner.

MLC has an enforcement mechanism. I believe it is time that the enforcement mechanism supports the seafarers. It is time that the PSC inspectors look into falsification of records that can be easily proved with an interview or checking associated logs and records.

Many masters and crew do it for fear of losing their jobs. Even in this age of MLC, most seafarers work on contracts that last the duration of time spent at sea. A mal intentioned owner / manager conspire against the Master (or seafarer) who is not as pliant as they would have liked. The seafarer could sign off and not find another contract to sign and no recourse. (What can the managers do if there is “no suitable vacancy”)  If not the PSC, atleast the USCG should show the same vigour and initiative as it did in enforcing the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.

It is time that accurate records are made. And such records will paint the picture for the world to see. If a ship is fined / detained, then that day will not be far when a ship is properly manned and operated. When the seafarer can comply properly with the provisions of the MLC requirements. Why are PSC inspectors and USCG inspectors not showing as much interest in looking for rest hour violations and falsification of rest hour records? Who will bell the cat?

Read http: //mylifeatsea.blogspot.in/2008/03/seafarer-fatigue-where-next.html

http://san-nytt.se/english/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/fatigue_at_sea_english.pdf

image courtsey : http://gcaptain.com/crew-fatigue-addressing-problem/ and http://www.researchperspectives.org/rcuk/BD22FCE5-0590-4B9E-B80B-10076EE44BA1_Producing-A-Video-To-Disseminate-Research-On-Seafarers--Fatigue