Transforming railway sector

Relevance: Mains: G.S paper III: Economy

Why in news?

• The Railway Minister, has recently announced the policy decision of “restructuring” of the organisation.

Aim of restructuring:

• The stated aim is to end “departmentalism” — unification of services will “expedite decision making”, “create a coherent vision” and “promote rational decision-making”.
  • It is an unusual admission — that hitherto decision-making in the Railways was incoherent and irrational — and this coming after he has been the minister for over two years.
  • Restructuring of the Railways has been on the agenda for decades.
  • Committees — Prakash Tandon 1994, Rakesh Mohan 2001, Sam Pitroda 2012 and Bibek Debroy 2015 — have done this exercise in past.
  • Is it just the familiar family ghost that visits the corridors of Railway Board with indeterminate periodicity and with the predictable outcome of nothing?

Administrative problem:

• The size of the Railway Board is proposed to be reduced from the present eight to five.
  • The decision that posts of some 27 general managers would be raised to the “apex” level (secretary?) and hence at par with the board members is doubly problematic.
  • The IAS lobby agree to create so many secretary-level posts for Railway officers — unless they are given the top positions.
  • The panel of secretaries may well make such a recommendation, but will the finance ministry should agree.
  • It is claimed that Railway officers have welcomed the decision. How could they, when they do not even know what is in store for them? They were certainly not consulted. Of course, that was not even necessary because democracy gives the right to the elected — even to be dictatorial!
  • The Railway Board is the governing body and the general managers are subordinate to the board.
  • An uncomfortable member can easily be shunted to some remote corner as GM.
  • In the present set-up, the minister can do nothing to an unyielding member except to suffer in silence, and at worst, sabotage his foreign trips and post-retirement aspirations.

Abolishing departmentalism:

• However, departmentalism is just a word and means nothing for the rail users, or for the national economy.
  • Every large organisation is bound to have many departments. Even after the merging of cadres, departments will continue to exist, they would continue to quarrel, and it is the minister’s job to settle these disputes. He cannot remain a bystander, passing judgements.
  • The minister should also understand that the problem is not departments but the composition of the same, and their role in the Railway organisation.

Conclusion:

• This should be seen from the perspective of the national economy rather than as an issue pertaining to the Railways in isolation.
  • If the restructuring is done with such national priorities in mind it can be a game changer, not only for the Indian Railways, but for India as a nation.
  • Or else, it may only create a bigger mess than it imagines it is solving.