The family of a 23-year-old sailor who was killed in a US raid on an oil tanker near the Strait of Hormuz have called for an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.
Aditya Sharma, a student on the observation deck, was among three Indian crew members who died after the US military struck the aircraft carrier. The Palau-flagged oil tanker MT Setibelo in the Gulf of Oman on June 10. The US military forces said, in a statement, that the ship was violating the US blockade by trying to transport oil from Iran.
“We want to know what Aditya was doing near the engine at night when the attack happened, and whether there were any attempts to rescue him or not,” his family said.
Read also | Who put my son in danger? Father of Himachal sailor demands investigation
Aditya’s grandfather, Ashok, wants an investigation into his grandson’s death. “We want to know that when the captain was warned not to proceed, in what capacity he took the ship forward. We demand an investigation,” he told PTI.
His uncle, Sanjeev Sharma, said the family spent several anxious hours trying to locate Aditya after learning he was missing.
“I received a call from my brother around 9 pm on Wednesday that Aditya was missing. I immediately rushed to my brother’s house in Jalandhar (Punjab). Throughout the night, we tried to coordinate with the company to find out Aditya’s whereabouts. It was only around 1:30 am that we learned that he was no more,” Sanjeev told PTI.
The Family Appeals Authority will be reinstated
The family also appealed to the Centre The Himachal Pradesh government is returning Aditya’s body to his home in Hamirpur district so that his last rites can be performed.
“We are trying to get our son’s body so that we can perform the last rites,” Sanjeev said.
Read also | ‘Be prepared to respond’: India on high alert, monitoring Hormuz after 3 sailors killed in US raid
Last message before death
According to family members, Aditya spoke to them days before the attack and described tensions in the area after another ship was targeted.
His father, Rajesh Sharma, said the last text message from his son came about an hour ago Strike on Settebello.
“On Wednesday, we waited for his call all day. Later, around 9 pm, we received information that the ship had been attacked and three crew members were missing. We also want to know who is responsible for this. We just want to see him again,” he told HT.
Family members said Aditya initially planned to return home in May, but extended his stay on the ship by a month.
Allegations of harassment on board
Rajesh Sharma also alleged that his son faced harassment from a senior officer on board the ship.
In X, he claimed that Aditya reported “exploitation by senior officers” and tried to leave the ship in April.
He wrote: “My son reported exploitation to a senior ship official and wants to leave this ship in April. We have all the recordkeeping. A complaint was filed. But the senior crew forced him to drop the complaint and then exploited him in a hell-like environment, forcing him to work 20 hours every day. We have all the recordkeeping.”
According to the family, Aditya’s original six-month contract was due to expire on May 24, but he remained on board to complete part of his mandatory training period.
Read also | MT Marivex, Settebello and MT Jalveer: US strikes about 3 ships with Indian crew near Oman
Company, ship manager responds
Amar TL, crew assistant at World Maritime Energy Private Limited, through which Aditya was working on the ship, said the company was awaiting the captain’s official statement.
“We understand the difficult situation the family is going through right now. We are a crewed agency, and according to the information available to us, no one was forced to do anything. There was no mistake on our part. We are also waiting for the captain’s official statement,” he said.
IOS Marine, based in the United Arab Emirates, and the ship’s manager, MT Settebello, called for an independent international investigation into the incident.
The company said: “To our knowledge and based on the information available to us, no warning call, message or communication was successfully launched with the vessel prior to the action taken against it.”
(With inputs from Office)
