Indian Railways began the new decade on the worst possible note, with two fatal train accidents reported on the morning of January 2. Of course, the two separate incidents, both involving passenger trains, happened in the blinding fog of North India?s plains. But then it would have been reasonable to assume that the railways had the technology to deal with a weather phenomenon that has been presenting itself each year, at the same time, for many decades now. And if the technology does not exist, or does not work, then the least one expects is cancellation of what is likely to be a perilous journey. Coincidentally, I boarded a train from the New Delhi railway station the same morning in blinding fog. Remarkably, given the zero visibility, the train pulled out on time. I might have actually been impressed had I not later realised that we had, in essence, travelled on the rail equivalent of a wing and prayer.
Mamata Banerjee will lay the blame on her predecessor. Lalu Prasad, according to a white paper released by Mamata?s ministry, did little to enhance the railways? fortune (and therefore safety, service etc) other than an exercise in creative accounting. Given the chance, Lalu will undoubtedly point to Mamata?s largely absentee tenure as railways minister.
Let?s even give both Lalu and Mamata their due. It is easy to disagree with Mamata when she says Lalu did nothing in his tenure. Just two crucial decisions?to increase freight load and to reduce turnaround time of trains?enhanced the profitability of the railways. Obviously, the boom in economic growth helped the cause. But to use this to take away all credit from Lalu is unfair. Even Mamata?s absenteeism can be forgiven. If Lalu?s great strength as Railways minister was to give autonomy to his officials, there is no reason to assume that Mamata?s officials cannot deliver for her.
But the plain truth of the matter is that despite the reasonable success of the last decade, the railways continue to remain shabby.
Safety is the most basic goal for anyone in the transportation business. But early evidence from 2010 already indicates how far the railways lag in the latest signalling and communications technologies?if the drivers of the ill-fated trains could not see the signals, they could surely have been informed by other means.
Customer service should be the next priority. Unfortunately, there has been little improvement even in the last decade. To return to the personal, I have travelled on the same Shatabdi Express frequently since 2005. This is apparently the flagship train (along with the Rajdhanis) of Indian Railways, but the rolling stock, at least two decades old, has steadily deteriorated. Even in executive class, the seats are stained, the floors caked in dirt and the bathrooms filthy. There has been no improvement in five years, most of which were the ?Golden Years?. If this is the state of a premier train, one only shudders to think of the state of the rest. And let?s not even discuss speed?though given the lax safety standards, slower is probably better than fast!
The fundamental problem, of course, is that the railways have no competition, so there is no incentive to improve. And the political leadership in India, used to viewing railways as a source of patronage?just count the number of aspirants for the post of railways minister each time it becomes vacant?will never have the kind of corporate vision needed to transform the behemoth.
Unfortunately, the rather limited turnaround of the 2000s may perversely have ruled out the kind of grand change that may have happened if the railways had indeed gone bankrupt. Of course, a monopoly can always find ways to present a profit, but a monopoly profit doesn?t translate into investment in safety and services for consumers.
If the railways are to make real progress this decade (not just monopoly profit), someone has to unveil a grand vision. Privatisation is the obvious solution, but this too will need some creative thinking.
Ideally, Indian Railways needs to be broken down into five or six separate entities and each of those then needs to be privatised. This will ensure a competitive setup. We already have a zonal system (by region) that could form the basis of division. So, Northern and Southern Railways, for example, would then, as separate firms, offer competing services for inter-sector trains?passengers and indeed users of freight will choose the one that is best. Also, if each of the separate firms is listed in stock markets, an element of market discipline will also be enforced on their performance.
There will obviously be a need for an independent regulator to ensure that each company adheres to safety standards. The regulator will also have to ensure that each of the separate entities allows all others use of all tracks. It will also have to ensure that no anti-competitive practices develop within regional entities. All this may seem complicated, but it is a standard and doable practice in a market economy.
Let?s face it. We cannot aspire to be a major economic power by 2020 if rail services continue to be of the standards of the 1960s.
?dhiraj.nayyar@expressindia.com
