There has been a suggestion from the Planning Commission that the railways should corporatise and privatise some of its activities. What is your stand?
There is a slight misunderstanding in this. We need investment in new lines and gauge conversion. For instance, a total of 28,000 km require gauge conversion out of which we have been able to do only 8,000 km. At the present pace of investment, we will need 25 years to achieve the uniguagestage.

Problem is that private sector is not interested in laying new lines and gauge conversion. These projects give returns only after 8-10 years. This was the reason that the BOLT scheme could not take off. But if infrastructure status brings relief, private sector can become interested.As far as rolling stock is concerned, it is a profit-making proposition. Besides, privatisation in rolling stock has already taken place under the own-your-wagon scheme.

Even the Asian Development Bank has asked the Railways to move out of non-core activities, hive off production units and separate different areas of operation.

We cannot accept ADB conditions offhand. Private sector participation, like in telecommunications, has started in a big way. We have corporatised catering and tourism.

As far as production units are concerned, they are railways' own and their privatisation will help only the private sector and not the railways.

Coaches and engines are being produced cheaply. We import technology, update itfrom time to time and then indigenise. It works out cheap for us. They are captive units with captive market. Some say that we can capture the export market if they are hived off but then we are already doing it.Wagons are already being brought from the private sector. We hardly manufacture 2,000 to 2,5000 wagons ourselves.

What would you say have been the achievements of railways during your tenure?
The most significant achievement was that we created an acceptability about the problems being faced by the railways. All of a sudden if you raise an issue, then you cannot carry your point forward. We have started the reform process in the Railways and hope that it will continue irrespective of which party comes to power.

Can we say that only issues were raised and not much action followed?
The status paper helped to focus on problems and generated debate both within Parliament and outside. We highlighted important issues and exposed bare truth. It answered questions like what israilways, where does it earn from and where it spends. People appreciated our efforts.

The budgetary support rose from 21 to 22 per cent to 28 per cent though in true sense it is not a support but only a long-term investment. We also got infrastructure status for the Railways.

The White Paper prioritised projects. We were able to decide that projects where rate of return is more than 12 to 13 per cent or there is operational requirement, should be given priority. Besides, since railway is basic infrastructure, certain backward areas needed to be developed irrespective of rate of return.

But problems, like cross-subsidisation, raised during the last one year, still exist.

If historically low passenger fares are suddenly raised, there will be resentment. We have to realise that besides being a commercial entity, the Railways has a social obligation. Since Parliament passes a separate budget, certain responsibilities are thrust on us. So last year, we highlighted and raised issues, this time we startedthe process of rationalising the fare structure. Though the freight charges were raised 4 per cent, it was only half of two year's inflation. Plus we took lot of steps to help the industry.

Were there certain things which you wanted to do but could not? What would you do in case you become the railway minister again?
An environment has been created for railway reform. We have tried to clean up the mess the Railways was in. It is immaterial who becomes the railway minister but anybody who comes to power will have to continue the work. If the trend is reversed, it will be railways' loss.

Attention has been diverted because of elections. But we hope to complete the groundwork for further reforms before the elections.

Would you opt for radical privatisation?
Railways welcome private investment in infrastructure. But we have not reached the stage where we can go in for massive privatisation. The moment we privatise, fares will go up. Nobody will like to run trains by incurring losses. Inthis country where a lot of noise is made even if fare is raised by Re 1, the government will be forced to subsidise. So what is the whole point in privatising.