Maritime reforms: India’s recent trade agreements with the European Union and the United States strengthen the commercial logic of its Maritime Amrit Kaal Vision 2047 (MAKV 2047). New market access matters. So does the ability to move goods reliably. That reliability rests on ports, ships, logistics—and on the people who keep vessels running at sea.
Yet, in the current push to modernise maritime trade, the condition of seafarers is still treated as an add-on. That is a weakness India can avoid. Indian seafarers are a central input into global shipping. If welfare gaps persist, operational continuity, compliance, and India’s credibility as a maritime partner will all take a hit.
READ | Maritime India Vision looks to deliver a blue economy boom
Trade strategy and legal overhaul
As major-power competition hardens and multilateral rules fray, India has tried to keep space for manoeuvre by widening partnerships across regions. Its recent FTAs signal strategic flexibility rather than fixed alignment.
On the domestic side, New Delhi has also moved to update the legal and administrative architecture of shipping and ports. The package of reforms includes the Indian Ports Act 2025, Merchant Shipping Act 2025, Bills of Lading Act 2025, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 2025, and the Coastal Shipping Act 2025. The Union Budget has also earmarked ₹10,000 crore for a container manufacturing scheme.
This is the visible part of reform. The less visible part—workplace fairness at sea—still lags.
Seafarer welfare gaps begin before a ship sails
Indian seafarers remain exposed to risks that are predictable and, therefore, preventable.
The first set of problems shows up at recruitment and training. Weak oversight enables exploitative contracts, opaque fees, and irregular terms of employment. A worker can be “placed” without clarity on wages, insurance, grievance channels, or repatriation responsibilities.
The second set of problems is onboard. Long stretches at sea create isolation and mental stress. Communication constraints, fatigue, and a closed hierarchy can compound harm. When a dispute arises, a seafarer often lacks access to advice, documentation, or timely redress.
READ | Maritime Development Fund: Big promises, but will it close implementation gaps?
The third set of problems appears during crises, especially vessel abandonment. In abandonment cases, workers can be stranded without wages, legal help, time-bound repatriation, or even basic provisions. Harassment and discriminatory treatment in foreign jurisdictions, as well as risks arising from rogue recruiters, add to the vulnerability.
These are not abstract welfare concerns. They translate into delayed voyages, compliance breaches, safety incidents, and reputational damage.
Aligning seafarer protections with MLC 2006
India has stated an ambition to raise its share in the global seafarers’ pool from about 12% to 20%. That target will not be met sustainably through numbers alone. It requires enforceable protections that travel with the worker across flags, ports, and jurisdictions.
The core reference point is the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC 2006). The MLC framework is explicit on minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship, conditions of employment, accommodation and recreational facilities, health protection, medical care, welfare, and—critically—compliance and enforcement.
India should treat MLC-consistent protections as an operating standard, not as a diplomatic checkbox. A workforce that is secure, documented, and supported is also a workforce that is more productive, safer, and easier to deploy across global routes.
Welfare equality must be applied in law and in practice
A second principle is uniformity. Welfare protections should not depend on which recruiter placed a worker, which vessel a worker boards, or which port a worker passes through. The Indian Ports Act 2025 already signals intent by outlining guidelines linked to seafarer welfare-related resources and activities. The gap is implementation discipline: clear rules, audit trails, and enforceable accountability across the maritime chain.
Uniform welfare is also an economic instrument. It reduces disputes, improves retention, and strengthens India’s bargaining position as a supplier of trained maritime labour.
READ | Shipping Bills: India’s maritime reforms to anchor global ambitions
Safety and environmental standards
The third principle is orderliness: compliance that is routine, not episodic. The relevant international standards are well-known—SOLAS 1974 for minimum safety norms, STCW 1978 for training and certification, and MARPOL 1973/1978 (including Annex III) for pollution controls and handling standards for harmful substances.
But standards work only when enforcement is predictable. Welfare and safety are intertwined. A fatigued crew, or a crew afraid to report violations, is a safety risk. A crew without medical access is a compliance risk. A crew stranded without wages is a reputational risk.
A practical approach is to treat seafarer welfare as part of the compliance stack: contracts, certification, working hours, medical cover, grievance channels, repatriation guarantees, and abandonment response protocols—tracked and enforced with the same seriousness as safety drills and pollution logs.
India’s maritime ambitions are better served by fewer slogans and more safeguards that work at sea. If trade deals and legal reforms are meant to deliver resilience, then seafarer welfare has to be embedded into enforcement, not appended to policy language.
A coherent welfare framework—aligned to global conventions, applied uniformly, and enforced routinely—will strengthen India’s maritime capacity. It will also make the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam more than a phrase: a claim backed by how India treats the people who keep its trade moving.
Aaqib Chaudhary is a research scholar in Global Trade & Logistics at the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi.