The union government on Wednesday said it was making all efforts to seek the release of six Indian hostages on board an Egyptian cargo ship which was hijacked by Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden.

Maintaining that the shipping ministry is the nodal authority in all cases involving Indians taken hostage by pirates, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said the Director General of Shipping was pursuing all such cases.

"Owner of MV Suez, owned by an Egyptian company, had promised to take action to free hostages but nothing was done.

The DG Shipping continues his efforts," Rao tweeted in the micro blogging website Twitter.

The Panama-flagged vessel was captured by the pirates on August 2 last year.

The ship's crew includes four Pakistanis, six Indians, four Sri Lankans and 11 Egyptians.

The Somali pirates have reportedly demanded USD 4 million for release of the six Indians. The pirates on board the hijacked ship told Times Now that they were giving a week-long deadline for meeting their demand.

"Our demand is ransom money. We want USD 4 million.

Last time we called the company we demanded the ransom. He (owner) told us he did not want the ship or the crew. One week is the maximum time. I will not say what we are going to do next as we do not like talking to the media...", one of the pirates said.

"Indian sailors are being tortured by the Somali pirates," Ravindra Gula, one of the Indian sailors, said.

Another sailor N K Sharma, said he was appealing to the government to intervene and negotiate their release.

Gula's wife said, "There has been no substantial action taken by the Indian government yet".

A report from Islamabad on Sunday quoting a statement by leading Pakistani human rights activist Ansar Burney had said that the pirates had demanded a ransom of over USD 2 million for release of four Pakistani sailors.

Related report:

Death to hijackers tricky: Parl panel

A parliamentary standing committee has recommended that the death penalty to the hijackers should be slapped only on those causing death of hostages or security men and not on anybody declared a hijacker.

In its report tabled in both the houses on Tuesday, the committee warned that the capital punishment to all hijackers is a tricky business and may prevent any negotiations to save lives of passengers.

"If the death penalty was a forgone conclusion for the offence of hijacking, opportunities for any negotiation or settlement to save lives of the passengers may be foreclosed," it argued even while endorsing the proposed amendment in the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 to provide for the capital punishment not only to hijackers but also conspirators and abettors so that all involved directly or indirectly get the same punishment as the hijackers.

"What about the safety of passengers and crew when the hijackers are sure that they will get death penalty for their offence? Whether the death penalty would really be deterrence to those who do it as suicide mission," the committee asked.

COMPENSATION

It also recommended another amendment in the act to provide for compensation to the victims. It did not agree with the civil aviation ministry that the compensation is to be separately dealt with as in case of other victims of illegal acts.

Pointing out that compensation under civil law is time-taking as it involves a lot of litigation and procedures, the committee said: "When we have a standalone legislation for hijacking, it should be appropriate to include all the aspects related or incidental to the act of hijacking in this legislation itself. The compensation, no doubt, should be an integral part of it."

ROAD HIJACKING

It also recommended another similar legislation to deal with those hijacking buses, cars, trains, etc. for ransom or for any other objectives for the harshest punishment to the offenders and compensation to the victims.

The committee noted that taking control forcibly of such modes of transport is not covered under any specific law, except the criminal laws while compensation to the victims of such hijacking is not provided in any law.

It also expressed reservation on definition of the hijacking limited to the aircraft movement from door closure to door opening and wanted it expanded to also cover situations like forced entry into aircraft and its takeover when it is on the taxiway at the airport with or without passengers or when pre-flight checking of the aircraft is in progress.