विश्वास : ज्ञान ::: सागर : भूभाग

विश्वास और ज्ञान के बीच का सम्बन्ध ऐसा ही हैं जैसा की सागर और भूभाग का। विश्वास सागर के जैसा विशाल और अथाह है। जबकि ज्ञान भूभाग के समान संक्षित, सीमित और बिखरा है। जैसे प्रत्येक भूखंड भी किसी तरल सागर के ऊपर तारित है, वैसे ही जो कुछ ज्ञान उपलब्ध है, उसके भी गर्भ में कुछ विश्वास और मान्यताएं ही हैं। इस प्रकार विश्वास परम आवश्यक और सर्वव्यापी है।
    मगर मानव जीवन का सत्य यह है की भगवान ने मानव को भूखंड पर जीवन यापन करने के लिए ही बनाया है, सागर में नहीं। बस, यही सम्बन्ध मनुष्य का विश्वास और ज्ञान के साथ भी है। चिंतन और निर्णय हमें ज्ञान के आधार पर ही लेने होते हैं, विश्वास के आधार पर नहीं। भले ही ज्ञान सीमित है। संक्षित है। और भले ही उस ज्ञान के केंद्र में भी कुछ विश्वास और मान्यताएं होती हों।
    जैसे आदि काल के नाविक सागर की यात्राएं बिना आगे का मार्ग को जाने, किसी नयी भूमि की तलाश में खतरों से झूझते हुए किया करते थे, और जैसा की आज भी अंतरिक्ष अनुसंधान में हो रहा है, ...-
    ...- मानव जीवन का एक उद्देश्य निरंतर ज्ञान की तलाश करते रेहाना है....
   क्योंकि केवल विश्वास के आधार पर जीवन बसर करने के लिए इंसान बना ही नहीं है।

तुलना: सामान्य परीक्षा पद्धति बनाम जहाज़रानी महानिदेशालय की व्यवस्था

(हिंदी अनुवाद :)

सामान्य परीक्षा पद्धति जो की किसी भी शिक्षा बोर्ड तथा विश्वविद्यालय में प्रयोग करी जाती हैं, उसमें कुछ निम्नलिखित विशेषतायें रहती है जो की सुनिश्चित करती है की निष्पक्षता कायम रहे और  कही किसी प्रकार के द्वेष/ वैमनस्य भाव अथवा मोह को सक्रिय होने का स्थान न मिले।
   वह विशेष विधियां जो की परीक्षक के अंदर विद्यमान संभावित द्वेष/ वैमनस्य भाव अथवा पक्षपात को सक्रिय होने पर भी विशेष परीक्षार्थी अथवा उनके समूह को चिन्हित करने में बाधा करते हैं :-
   1) परीक्षा के नियम प्रत्येक परीक्षार्थी को एक विशेष संख्या, हॉल टिकट नंबर , की नई पहचान देती है।ऐसा करने से यह निश्चित हो जाता है की उसकी पहचान को गोपनीय बना दिया गया है।
2) उत्तर पुस्तिका नियमों में यह कहा गया है की कोई भी परीक्षार्थी अपनी उत्तर पुस्तिका में किसी भी रूप में अपनी पहचान सदृश्य नहीं कर सकता है। ऐसा करने से पहचान सम्बंधित गोपनीयता को बल मिलता है।
3) इसके उपरांत उत्तर पुस्तिकाओं को दूसरे स्तर पर गोपनीय संख्या दे दिए जाते हैं, जो की अक्सर omr पहचान संख्या किसी कंप्यूटर इत्यादि से दिए जाते हैं। अब उत्तर पुस्तिकाओं को चिन्हित कर सकना अत्यंत मुश्किल हो जाता है।

वह विशेष विधियां जो की सुनिश्चित करती है की परीक्षक कोई शिथिल जांच कार्य न करे, या फिर छात्रों को फेल करने की लय न बना लें इस मोह में आकर कि चूंकि उत्तर पुस्तिकाओं की जांच की उन्हें कीमत दी जाती है, तो वह जितनी अधिक पुस्तिकाओं को फेल करेंगे उतने अधिक छात्र अपनी पुस्तिकाएं वापस जांच के लिए याचना करेंगे और फिर परीक्षक को उतना अधिक धन लाभ मिलेगा :-
4)  अ) काफी सरे बोर्ड अथवा विश्वविद्यालय कुछ नियमों द्वारा यह नियंत्रित करते हैं की परीक्षक किसी भी उत्तर पुस्तिका में कितने अंक काट सकता है असामान्य कारणों से ,जैसे की अस्पष्ट हस्तलेखन , मात्रा त्रुटि, ग्रामर सम्बंधित त्रुटि, गन्दा कार्य, इत्यादि।
  ब) कुछ दूसरे बोर्ड और विश्वविद्यालय में जांचकर्ताओं को कुछ एक नमूना जांच पुस्तिकाओं के समान्तर जांच करने की हिदायत दी जाती है। नमूना उत्तर पुस्तिका में एक उचित उत्तर के सभी कीमती बिन्दूओं को सपष्ट कर दिया जाता है। और इसके उपरांत बाकी सभी अवर परीक्षकों को हिदायत दे दी जाती है की वह कितने सारे कीमती बिन्दूओं पर कितने अंक नामांकित कर सकते हैं।
   स) कुछ एक बोर्ड और विश्वविद्यालयों में परीक्षक जांचकर्ताओं के ऊपर कुछ वरिष्ठ  निरीक्षक बैठा दिए जाते हैं जो की जांच की हुई पुस्तिकाओं की अनर्गल नमूना जांच करके देखते है की अवर जांचकर्ताओं ने उचित कार्य किया है या नहीं।

5) द्वितीय याचना का विकल्प :- इन सब के अलावा, परिणाम घोषणा के उपरांत प्रत्येक परीक्षार्थी को उसकी संतुष्टि के लिए विकल्प दिया जाता है की वह जांच करी हुई उत्तर पुस्तिका की फोटोकॉपी प्राप्त कर सके और फिर पुनः अंक गणना अथवा पुनःमूल्यांकन के लिए याचना कर सके। यह वह कदम है जो की भेदभाव की शंकाओं को दूर करते हुए प्रत्येक परीक्षार्थी को परिणाम के प्रति पूर्ण संतुष्टि दिलाता है।

छात्र वर्ग अक्सर करके बहोत संवेदनशील व्यक्ति गण होते हैं। परीक्षा के परिणामों में छोटी सी गलती अक्सर बेहद दुखद परिणाम देते हैं, जैसे की आत्महत्या । कॉलेज और शिक्षा से विमुख हो जाना एक अक्सर देखा गया असर है जो किसी कल्याणकारी राज्य के लिए चिंता का विषय होता है।

मगर लगता है कि जहाज़रानी प्रशासन में अधिकारी लोग अपने जनकल्याणकारी उत्तरदायित्वों का संज्ञान लेने और निभा सकने में असक्षम लोग हैं। बल्कि वह लोग जनकल्याण निर्णयों को उस पक्ष की और अधिक देखते हैं जिनको की साधारणतः जनकल्याण का विरोधी माना जाता है। उन्होंने परीक्षार्थी मूल्यांकन प्रणाली के भीतर एक ऐसी व्यवस्था रच डाली है (नौकायान कंपनी द्वारा जारी समुंद्रिय कार्यानुभव प्रमाणपत्र) जो की उपर्लिखित निष्पक्षता और द्वेष/वैमनस्य से विमुक्तता के कोई भी गुण नहीं रखती है। यानि, जहाजरानी विभाग में यह आसानी से संभव हो गया है कि किसी भी परीक्षार्थी का कैरियर विनाशक मूल्यांकन कर दिया जाये कुछ हलके-फुल्के शिक्षण कारणों को बिनाह बता करके; और जिसमे किसी विशेष चिन्हित किये हुए परीक्षार्थी से भेदभाव, द्वेष, वैमनस्य को बिना रोकटोक सक्रीय होने का स्थान हो, जहाँ किसी भी प्रकार की मूल्यांकन कि द्वितीय याचना के लिए कोई व्यवस्था न हो।
     दुखद यह है की जहाजरानी विभाग के अधिकारी अपनी इस त्रुटि को बारबार हो रही शिकायतों के बावजूद इस प्रकार की कुव्यवस्था का जहाज़श्रमिकों के शोषण से सम्बन्ध को पहचान भी नहीं कर सक रहे हैं।
   
       संयोग से एक अन्य विधि जो की पहले से ही प्रयोग में है वह परीक्षार्थी गुणवत्ता व्यवस्था के उस प्रश्न का उत्तर देती है, जिस प्रश्न को प्रेरक बता करके उपर्युक्त समुंद्रिय कार्यानुभव प्रमाणपत्र जहाजरानी प्रशासन अधिकारीयों ने अनिवार्य बनाया है। इसलिए कभी कभी अचरज होता है कि विकल्प होने के बावज़ूद एक ऐसी त्रुटिपूर्ण व्यवस्था को किस अन्य वजह से खारिज नहीं किया जा रहा है। ऐतिहासिक दृष्टि से इस त्रुटिपूर्ण व्यवस्था का आरम्भ ऐसे नहीं हुआ था जैसे हम इसे आज देख रहे हैं। आरम्भ में इस व्यवस्था का उद्देश्य सीमित होते हुए मात्र यह था कि परीक्षार्थियों द्वारा जहाज़रानी महानिदेशालय में दावा में प्रस्तुत  समुंद्रिय कार्यानुभव प्रमाणपत्र जो की जहाज कैप्टन द्वारा जारी होता है, उसकी वास्तविकता पुनःप्रमाण की कंपनी से बंधी कड़ी निर्मित कर सकें। उस समय कंपनी द्वारा जारी प्रमाणपत्र का उद्देश्य मात्र इतना ही था। परीक्षार्थी गुणवत्ता प्रबंधन नाम पर इसका योगदान स्वीकृत था ही नहीं। मेरे विचारों से यह दूसरा गुणवत्ता वाला उद्देश्य समयकाल में किसी नासमझी वश चलन में निकल पड़ा है। अधिकारी लोग अधिकांशत निजी शिपिंग कंपनी के पूर्व नुमाइंदे रहे हैं जहाँ "sacking" की श्रमिक अनुशासन संस्कृति के चलते इन्हें जनकल्याणकारी निर्णयों और नियमों से परिचय कम रहा है। अब क्योंकि महानिदेशालय में अधिकारीयों का आभाव रहा है, इसलिए ऐसे व्यक्तियों को उनके वैधानिक ज्ञान की समस्त जांच किये बिना ही नियुक्त कर लिया गया था। बाद में जब शिपिंग कंपनियों ने कुछ परीक्षार्थियों को यह कार्यानुभव प्रमाणपत्र कुछ वैमनस्य कारणों से जारी नहीं किया तब शिकायत होने पर इन अधिकारीयों को यह संज्ञान ही समझ में नहीं आया की इसका श्रमिक शोषण कानूनों से क्या उलंघन हो रहा है। अतः उन्होंने शिकायत पर कार्यवाही करने के बजाये उस उलंघन को पारित कर दिया और फिर बाद में उसे परीक्षार्थी गुणवत्ता प्रबंधन से जोड़ कर के न्यायोचित करना आरम्भ कर दिया।
     
     वह दूसरी मूल व्यवस्था जो की परीक्षार्थी गुणवत्ता के उस प्रश्न का उत्तर उचित और वैधानिक विधि से करती है, वह कुछ इस प्रकार है :-- शिपिंग कंपनियों द्वारा अक्सर कर जहाज़ कर्मी अधिकारीयों की गुणवत्ता पर शिकायतें महानिदेशालय में प्राप्त होती रही है। गुणवत्ता के इस प्रश्न के समाधान में महानिदेशालय अधिकारीयों ने एक व्यवस्था डाली जिसमे वह परिक्षार्थी के मौखिक परिक्षण में इन शिपिंग कंपनियो के नुमाइंदों को आमंत्रित करना आरम्भ किया। मौखिक परिक्षण सम्पूर्ण व्यवस्था में एक बाद का कदम है , जिसमे किसी भेदभाव/पक्षपात की आशंका तो है मगर बहोत कम और आम स्वीकृति की मात्रा में। ऐसा इसलिए क्योंकि मौखिक परीक्षा में परीक्षार्थी और महानिदेशालय दोनों की ओर से तमाम सयोंग सम्भावनाओं पर नियंत्रण कम है। इसलिए परीक्षार्थियों में मौखिक परीक्षा में अनुत्तीर्ण होने पर भी भेदभाव या पक्षपात की आशंकाओं का आरोप करीबन शून्य है। इस परीक्षा में अनुतीर्ण होने पर परीक्षार्थी के कैरियर पर अधिक प्रभाव नहीं पढता है। और यदि किसी परीक्षार्थी के भावुक दृष्टि से उसके साथ एक बार कुछ भेदभाव या पक्षपात हो भी जाए तो स्थिति पर प्रत्येक पक्ष का नियंत्रण कम होते यह उम्मीद बंधी रहती है की अगली बार किस्मत शायद उसका साथ दे देगी।
    तो इस प्रकार परीक्षार्थी गुणवत्ता का वह प्रश्न उत्तरित हो जाता है, जिसको अधिकारी गण प्रेरक बता करके कंपनी से जारी समुंद्रिय कार्यानुभव प्रमाणपत्र को अनिवार्य करते रहे हैं।

        पुराने युग में किसी भी व्यवसायिक सेवा क्षेत्र में नए लोग वही आते थे जो शायद अपने पारिवारिक जुड़ाव के चलते उस व्यवसाय के गुण और कौशल सीख लेते थे। अन्यथा वह किसी पुराने सगे संबंधी अथवा दुनियादारी के पितामह के चलते यह कौशल सीख पाते थे। तत्कालीन व्यवस्था के दोषों के समझने के बाद ही इंसान ने क्रमबद्ध अध्ययन पद्धति का समाज में शिलान्यास किया। वर्तमान की परीक्षा व्यवस्था उसी क्रमबद्ध अध्ययन पद्धति का अंश है। क्रमबद्ध अध्ययन पद्धति में भेदभाव, पक्षपात, वैमनस्य इत्यादि से निपटे के लिए कड़े कदम रखे गए जिससे की व्यवसायिक कौशल पारिवारिक धरोहर न बनी रह जाये। इसमें परीक्षार्थी का मूल्यांकन ताथयिक आधार पर होता है , जैसे की "क्या उसने उस कार्य को सीखने हेतु उस कार्य पर अपने हाथ आज़मा लिये है : हाँ अथवा ना ? ",  बजाये किसी व्यक्तिनिष्ठ आधार के , जैसे की " क्या उसने आपकी संतुष्टि के मुताबिक कार्य सीख लिया है  -- आप संतुष्ट है या नहीं ?"।  क्रमबद्ध अध्ययन पद्धति में परीक्षार्थियों का व्यक्तिनिष्ठ मूल्यांकन लिखित परीक्षा विधि से किया जाता हैं, जिस विधि के चारित्रिक गुण लेख के आरम्भ में दर्ज़ है जो की भेदभाव, पक्षपात, वैमनस्य का निवारण प्रदान करते हैं।
        जहाज़रानी प्रशासन अधिकारीयों को न जाने क्यों इन सब बिन्दूओं पर सामान्य ज्ञान क्यों  कम पड़ गया है जो कि उन्होंने श्रमिक शोषण वाली एक विधि को तमाम शिकायतों के बाद भी ज़ारी कर रखा है।    

Comparison : standard examination procedure of any university versus the DG Shipping

In a general system as practised in any university at random, the following features ensure that fairplay is not dismissed while a student is being evaluated, by any reason of prejudice or favoritism

Processes which ensure that prejudices and favoritism of the Examiner towards any candidate do not have a room to become active :--
1) The rules of the examination provide for a specially coded hall-ticket number to every candidate. This ensures that each candidate's identity is concealed so to prevent prejudices of the Examiner to become active.

2) Candidate are told not to reveal their identity in any form on the answer sheet. It enhances the above process.

3) The answer-sheets are given secondary coding, preferably by OMR computer. This puts a double-lock on the identity information, such that the Examiner has no means to detect the identity or even the hall ticket information.

Processes which ensure that the Examiners are not inclined to fail the candidates for monetary gains of incentive income through answer sheet evaluation

4) Different universities and different school boards follow different system to achieve this. It remains imperative on every institution that their teachers themselves do not suffer from lethargy of answer sheet evaluation, or that they do not turn their sincere duty into a source of income.
   a) Some boards/university provide guidelines on how many marks should be deductible for reason such as poor handwriting, spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, untidy work, et al.
   b) A sample evaluation is done for some answer sheets by group of senior teachers who are later to be made incharge Examiner. They mark the Value points for the subjective answers, and the junior Examiners mark or evaluate the answers based on the presence of these value points.
    c) An auditor Examiner does audit of the random samples from the lot so to ensure that lethargy of the Examiners body does not impact the fate of the students.

5) As a double safeguard, many boards and university provide for system of re-evaluation and re-verification, so that the candidate is satisfied to his heart regarding not being given a fair treatment. Towards this, candidates have scope to seek a photocopy of his evaluated answer sheet. This is one very critical measure, which rules out almost all the claims of an unfair treatment.

Students are often times very sensitive people. A slight mistake , no matter on whose account, often leads to morbid outcome as suicide. Dropping out from the college is another such outcome of concern for any welfare state.

However, the authorities within Shipping Administration seem terribly incompetent in regard to their decision-making vis-a-vis burdens of a welfare state. Indeed , they seem to judge the weight of welfare activities higher on the sides which are otherwise seen as antagonist to public welfare policies. Within the candidate evaluation and exam quality management, they have created system (ISSUANCE OF SEA TIME LETTER BY SHIPPING COMPANY) which are completely deprived of the above mentioned features of a fair evaluation system. That is, it is possible to do a career damaging evaluation based on a few loose elements of learning, and with full scope of prejudices/favoritism to work, and without giving any room for second appeal such as re-evaluation or re-verification.
  More importantly, the authorities are repeatedly failing to see the exploitative nature of this system within the seaboard labour environment, despite recurring complains and appeals.
      Incidentally, there is already another method in place and in practice as well which sufficiently fills up for whatever objective the shipping administration calls as the reason for adopting the exploitative exam quality management system. It is therefore intriguing as to what is causing this system to be in place despite so many wrongs in it. Historical insight of the advent of seatime letter issuance system reveals that it has emerged due to flaws in the judicially sound decision making. The original purpose was restricted to securing the Evidencing chain-link. The so-called secondary purpose of exam quality management is an ex-post-facto explanation of a mistaken decision where no one within the administration had sound knowledge as to what is wrong if a shipping company is refusing seatime letter as a revengeful action to a bona fide seaboard employee.
     The authentic system which fills up for the exam quality management is as follows--- The shipping companies have regularly raised objections on the quality of seafarers coming out from the shipping competency exams. To answer to their sorrows, the shipping administration has adopted a system wherein they regularly invite the representative of shipping companies to oral examination process. Oral Examination is later step in the examination system, which has safeguards against unfair evaluation albeit slightly loose. Almost no candidate is known to have lost career or even to suffer long term or short term exploitative work conditions on board ships due to the participation of their company representative. More over, the panel allocation is done at random, and many more uncontrolled ,unregulated factors work which keep all the parties convinced about there being no unfair play .
    In the light of this measure, the 'seatime letter issuance' mechanism for exam quality management remains a burden and perhaps an evidence of judicial incompetence of the people in authority. Many of the people within the shipping administration are arriving from work background of private shipping companies wherein "sacking" is a culture. In a "sacking" episode, the labour laws are regularly and without slightest consciousness, violated; hence there is a culture of lacking awareness on the labour laws front.
    In the days of yore, the recruitment to any profession was either through a familial transmission of the skill and knowledge, or through patronage (power to appoint someone directly, likely by nepotism and favoritism). Shortcoming realized in that system lead to the evolution of the STRUCTURED LEARNING system. In Structured Learning system, candidate is evaluated on factual grounds as "whether he has acquired the learning of the task by doing it hands-on : Yes/no" , instead of being evaluated on subjective ground as " peer is satisfied or unsatisfied as to his learning?". In a structured learning system, the subjective evaluation of candidate is filled up by the written examination process which has abovementioned features of safeguarding against prejudices and favoritism.

   All types of skill learning should always be proven on whether someone can do the task or not, and not whether someone else is satisfied or dissatisfied by him doing the task in a certain way .

       Indeed, the shipping authorities should have realized that their actions have an effect of undoing the structured learning system as well, which they themselves keep commending all the while.

Helmet wearing should not be compulsory

I am personally of the opinion that Helmet-wearing should not have been made compulsory.
    Madras High Court in one of its judgement has made helmet-wearing compulsory.
I am not much in knowledge of what debate, deliberations and critical points were argued in the honourable court which have led to such a judgement. Through this piece of writing I wish to express my reasoning on why helmet wearing should not be made compulsory.
    We all realize that in India one of the biggest killers of citizens' life is road accidents. Therefore one of the urgent burdens on the government is to take remedial actions to ensure the Right to life of every person, as envisaged in the Art21.
    But the question is where exactly does compulsory helmet-wearing order settle in the pursuit of Art21 duties by our Government ?
   A bad, corrupt government has a habit of shifting the blame of its failure onto the very citizens. Therefore, where the municipal bodies fail to achieve the cleanliness, which may be because of extreme corruption causing pilferage of funds which, in turn, causing failure to provide equipment, lack of expenses to achieve public awareness and education ,et al,  a bad government body would rather seek to shift the blame on the most widely known and therefore most easily digested factor -- the hugeness of human population in India.
   This is a common trend by successive governments, while each of them has been equally bad and suffering from graft,  to assign the causes of policy implementation failures back on the vast population of citizens. Because population vastness is already seen as a root cause, therefore it will find a acceptance by the members of public free from all scrutiny, and therefore saving from expose the corrupt misdoings.
   Helmet-wearing order is, perhaps, one more such a case in point. I dare say thag even a simplest of mind should be able to observe that helmet-wearing does NOT contribute at all in PREVENTING any road accidents; it only helps in reducing the death toll should an accident have already happened.
    The burden of a government is to PREVENT THE ACCIDENTS from their very occurrence, not about snatching the choices of a free citizens. In pursuit of its Art21 responsibilities, we would rather expect decisions and court judgements on safer construction of roads, pedestrian crossing and cross over bridges, road lighting, pits, ditches and sunk holes free road margins, but instead what we see  creating powers for robbing of the free choices of the members of public.
   Can anyone answer as to how much is the percentage of motor bike related incidents in the vast yearly road casualty; and how many of it had the scope for mitigation of loss of life if a helmet was on ? Can a comparison data be produced against those where casualty has happened even with a helmet on ? Can someone mathematically show the effectiveness of helmets in life-saving to be sufficiently high as to prove through a technical reasoning why helmets-wearing should be made compulsory ?
     We know that such technical answer are missing from public space, and possibly because there are no answers.
    Need it be pointed that lorries and motor cars related incidents do not have roles of helmets in them for the obvious reason.
  Then, one needs to question as to what scientific data has led to making helmet wearing compulsory ?
   Perhaps nothing, but power politics game by the civic authorities against the civil society.
   Infact, one of the counter claim on technical grounds has been that helmets tend to reduce the available faculty of human senses , particularly the audibility, and the peripheral vision where eyes have ability to detect objects in motions.
   It can and should be alleged that compulsory helmet-wearing is rather a vicious, vengeful exercise by the authorities to discourage the people from questioning the causes of failures. Additionally, given the amount of corruption, the 'power' so created to stop and inspect a citizen is only going to help the private pockets.
   The civic authorities having failed to put in place all the known and recognized road safety measures, have  played over a mitigating measure, that too, which  essentially has bearing to save life only in a fraction of the total annual tally which our country sees.
    Helmets are undeniably an essential safety gear, but to make them be worn, the force should come through increased personal liabilties on having chosen to not to wear them. Increasing the life insurance premiums is the best available democratic method, not the creation of a police state by empowering the state to inspect a citizen and then to collect fines from an act where no 'wrong' has occured with respect to injury to any person's life, property or dignity.

Summary of why helmet-wearing should not be compulsory:--

it is good to have such a rule...infact i too don't challenge the purposefulness of a helmet.
Question of *making compulsory* deamnds examination on certain other aspects--
1) the role of the state in collecting the fines for failing to do something which does not injure the life,property or dignity of anyone. In short, there is no "wrong"(as understdd in Tort laws), forget about crime.
2) What the government write or omits to write in a law book, (An Act) needs a public scrutiny, i.e. judicial review. There may be no law on pedastrians to cross the road necessarily from a zebra crossing. There may be no law on  *making compulsory*  the construction of crossing bridges.
4) Thus , governments may write such laws where it see scope of making revenue, and wil never write laws which makes something compulsory on themselves.
3) India is plagued with corruption. and Bad governments.
4) Therefore, mechanism to force citizen to wear a helmet should be DEMOCRATIC in its manner, not a police state menthod.
5) premium Insurance or any other means which may increase laibility on the defaulting citizen should be preferred

Proving Discrimination

Unfairness and Discrimination is not proven, because it can never be proven. The claim of unfair treatment and discrimination can settle only by way of finding an acceptance. When the differences caused due to Discrimination become too prominent to provide any tenable explanation to conscientious mind, it is then that the acceptance happens. Infact arrongant and psychopathic denialists can drag the battle of logically evidencing a claim of discrimination for an unending time frame. The claim can find settlement only if conscience is developed enough in the judges.

Is the national shipping administration in India making policies unduly favouring the ship-manning corporates ?

The shipping administration in India houses itself in a rented glitzy complex in a suburb location of Mumbai, which is quite unnatural for a public service department to spend its funds on, supposedly earned by way of fee collection for expenses incurred during discharge of certain public welfare duties.
    But then ours is an age of Dysotpia where money, which was conventionally thought as the root of all evil, walks higher than all the voices of reason.
   Therefore, we the people have now started accepting it to be perfectly normal when our shipping administration during discharge its public duty  demands from the candidates an irrationally high fee for appearing in the licensing competency  examination , which is markedly disproportionate to the actual cost incurred in organising those examination. It makes one to question himself with disbelief as to what is it that makes the examination expenses per candidate so exorbitant ?-- the A4 size ordinary printed question papers; or the answer sheet with all its security features; the chairs, tables, electricity bill ; how exactly is the cost being apportioned ? 
   Obviously then, we witness with a numbness of our conscience the extravagant spending of money which is earned also through as much irrationality. Maybe, next time we should see the shipping administration renting in a presidential palace, or the Taj Mahal.
     This is the first glimpse of a department where arbitrary personal reactions guide the policy making more than the principles of public welfare.
     Fear is that the realisation of a numbing conscience inferred from this first glimpse might have caught our brains a little too late. The profit-oriented line of thought which is being practised inside the house seems to have already reached into the international organization where each country is represented through its national shipping administration. Therefore, we, now have certain international agreements in place which are way too much unexplained on why only a specific class of professional, the seafarers, should be compelled through public laws to return to blackboards to re-learn those basic lessons, which are already mandated to be practised provenly at very frequent time intervals throughout their career . Many people are realizing, albeit too late, that the cost benefits acquired through such unexplained public legislations are reaching into the hands of ship manning corporates in India who have started mushrooming their own training centres. Needless to say that the certification of these centres is carried out by the shipping administration itself. Thus, arguably a private profit motive is being served through a seemingly public safety policy.
      In the land of Dystopia, even the public service agencies worked on those principles which are profits-motived much like private businesses. Therefore it is so casual now that the costs on public services are derived basis the market demands and supply, instead of striving to keep it minimal in view of heavy taxation that every citizen has to suffer.
      In the course of its duties, the administration is very regularly being noticed for pronouncing the decisions and the policies which are incongruent with its own views as applied elsewhere. Thus, at one place we see them showing extreme urgency in asking every seafaring personnel to undergo re-learning at a stipulated time interval on a reasoning that technology changes is driving such a law, yet at another occasion the administration advises that the harbour administrations in India need not put their seagoing field-staff to acquire such training , this on the reasons of cost related worries assumed by itself.
    Where Aam Aadmi's pockets are burnt , the administration takes no worries, but where corporates have to bear the cost, the "Gold Standards" for identifying the necessity of a training change !!!

         Arguments have a nature to fly randomly. Every legal maxim comes in pairs, and therefore it has its limitations of application and remission. It becomes critical, then, that the arguments are aligned uniformly in same direction to avoid mutual contradiction, and a principled line-of-thought should guide the policy making process.  Or else, the mutually inconsistent, self-contradictory decisions will become a commonplace. Unfortunately, in shipping administration the persons in authority are neither able to feel the self-contradictions, nor are reasoned enough to home onto its root cause. Instantaneous reactive behaviour guides their decisions.

       The seafaring industry in India is mainly composed of ship manning agents who work for some foreign ship owners. The agents work through Ship manning Companies who are involved in giving employment to the large seafaring professionals which India produces. The seafaring related troubles come within the purview of Labour laws, where labour  exploitation is an umbrella descriptive for most of the civil issues. The unlawful intentions of these agents, which they so regularly require in order to fulfil operational demands of their foreign principles, could be best served if the policies are such as to help them escape labour exploitation liabilities. Whereas the international legislation are gearing up the seafarers with more rights to protect themselves against exploitation, to our great misfortune our national shipping administration has created certain rules wherein the justice delivery system has been punctured, perhaps to let the ship-manning corporates escape the liabilities of labour exploitation of its young, legally and judicially unawakended seafaring people. The national shipping administration has drawn a big puncture in the justice-delivery by making mandatory for seafarers to produce certain documents for appearing in their licensing examination obtained from their ship-manning employers, the granting or refusal of which is negligibly regulated. As a consequence, come what strength of maritime labour legislation to guard against exploitation, the ship-manning companies now enjoy a punctured justice delivery system wherein they can escape the liabilities with minimal efforts ; they have seemingly well-meaning mechanism to orient the seafarers into cultural subservience and exploitation without having to face the music of authorities.

     One is forced to contemplate as to what brain standards, what intellect is running our national shipping administration. Not knowing the laws is although wrong, but it may still find acceptance from certain quarters on the reasoning that the bulkiness of the legislative acts maybe too much for human capacity. Yet, people at higher decision-making ranks must necessarily be sound in their judicial knowledge. What we are suffering at the hands of shipping authorities is a case of lacking judicious decision making. Judicious decision-making skills require a vast scope of knowledge base, practically from all fields of learning , say the human resource management, the finances , the history , the geography, the political science theories which undermine various legislation, and so. Perhaps, in the first place persons in our shipping administration are  themselves in need to learn certain subjects and to obtain training on judicious decision-making before they be given authority to write learning and training needs for the vast seafaring community of India.