REWIND

New Delhi, 15 February 2024

POLL BODY, PRESSURES & INDEPENDENCE

By Inder Jit

(Released on 10 February 1990) 

India has once again proved its claim to being the world’s biggest democracy. Nearly 300 million people exercised their franchise recently and brought about a smooth change of Government. The country is again poised to hold elections in eight States and one Union Territory --- this time to the Assemblies. Outwardly, the electoral system has worked well. Inwardly, however, it is sick and leaves much to be desired. Happily, the Prime Minister, Mr V.P. Singh, convened on January 9 an all-party meeting for consultation on electoral reforms. Subsequently, a 12-member Committee came to be constituted to go into all aspects of electoral reforms and submit its report to the Government expeditiously for required legislative and other action. Most of the maladies of our electoral system are well known so also the available remedies. But of crucial importance to free and fair elections and to the future of our democracy is the need to ensure the Election Commission’s vital independence which, most sadly, has come to face mounting threat from India’s rulers during the past seven years and more. 

Not many are aware that the former Government, headed by Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, wanted the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr R.V.S. Peri Sastri, time and again to so hold various elections and by-elections as would load the dice in favour of the Congress-I. The powers that be, for instance, wanted the Presidential poll to precede the election to the Haryana Assembly in 1987. But Mr Peri Sastri refused to compromise with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The Haryana poll, which swept Mr Devi Lal and his Lok Dal to power, was held on June 17 and the Presidential poll on July 13. On June 16, 1988, the ruling Congress-I demanded a repoll in the Lok Sabha by- election from Faridabad following widespread violence and booth capturing. The CEC again declined to oblige. Instead, he ordered a repoll in 161 polling stations. Matters again worsened over the revision of the electoral rolls in Assam. The CEC was even accused of siding with the AGP in his interpretation of the Assam Accord. But he refused to be bullied by the Government. 

Various pressures were thereafter mounted on Mr Peri Sastri to force him to resign. But these too failed. A new strategy was then forged for a “take over” of the Election Commission. On October 9 last, a Presidential notification was issued out of the blue clearing the way for a three-member Election Commission. A week later, Mr. S.S. Dhanoa, a retired IAS official, and Mr V.S. Seigell, a retired IB official, were sworn in as the Commissioners. All the formalities were completed in record time, notwithstanding the Government’s earlier opposition to the proposal. On December 16, 1988, Mr Gandhi himself turned down in the Rajya Sabha a demand for a multi-member Election Commission and stated: “This demand means that some Opposition members have no faith in the single-member Commission”. Again, the appointment of the two Commissioners was justified on the ground of an increase in the work-load following reduction in the voting age to 18 years. Yet, the additional workload had already been handled by Mr Peri Sastri and the rolls revised earlier --- by the end of August. 

Some of Mr. Gandhi’s aides expected Mr. Peri Sastri to quit in disgust. Not one of the names suggested by him for additional appointment as Commissioners was accepted by the Government. (One name suggested was that of the senior-most among the Chief Electoral Officers in the State.) Worse, Mr Peri Sastri was reduced to a minority in the Commission. However, he kept his cool and decided to face the new challenge. This came barely a day later. Early on October 17, the Government decided on its own to hold the General Election on November 22 and even made its decision public. This was wholly improper as the decision is the prerogative of the Election Commission. Expectedly, Mr. Peri Sastri was livid and refused to ditto the formal announcement. However, he decided to overlook the impropriety in the larger interest of democracy and a timely poll. (Remember, there was repeated talk then about the possibility of the Rajiv Government somehow postponing the poll by a year or more but the CEC eventually made the announcement only after he was able to sound the Opposition leaders and secure their acceptance of the dates.) 

The fat was again in the fire before the day was out. The Government, I learn, wanted the Election Commission to announce its programme for the general election on October 17 itself and simultaneously make the required recommendation to the President for issuance of the formal notification for the general election. This was intended to give the Opposition leaders even less time to put their act together and ensure a one-to-one fight against the Congress-I. This was viewed by the CEC as grossly unfair and improper. He, therefore, declined, leading to a fresh crisis. (Even the Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary was constrained to call on Mr Peri Sastri during the course of the drama-packed day.) In fact, things came to such a pass that some of Mr. Gandhi's top advisers explored at one stage the possibility of summoning Parliament to oust Mr Peri Sastri. (The CEC can be removed only in like manner as a Supreme Court Judge.) Fortunately, good sense prevailed at the highest level. Mr Peri Sastri was allowed to have his way. The President was able to issue the poll notification only on October 22. 

Not just that. Information available to me before I left for Darjeeling on October 28 to contest the Lok Sabha poll shows that the decision to go in for a three-member Election Commission was mainly calculated to put maximum spokes in the Janata Dal’s wheel. The Janata Dal, it may be recalled, had claimed the poll symbol of the erstwhile Janata Party, namely, a farmer with a haldar, following its birth through the merger of the Janata Party and the Lok Dal. But this claim was disputed by Dr Subramanian Swamy on behalf of the Janata Party and by Mr. R.N. Kushwaha on behalf of the Lok Dal. Both Mr Dhanoa and Mr Seigell wanted the Janata Dal denied recognition as a national party and allotment of any reserve symbo1, pending a final decision on the dispute. But Mr Peri Shatri was able to ensure fair play prior to the poll by handling the matter deftly. The Janata Dal as well as the Janata Party and the Lok Dal were allotted reserve symbols in an interim order with the consent of all the three parties. The Janata Dal would surely not have bagged as many seats had it been forced to fight the po1l on free (and confusing) symbols from constituency to constituency! 

One question arises. What can be done to ensure the independence of the Election Commission? Or, as the respected Dr H.N. Kuzru put it to Dr Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly: Can something be done to “provide such safeguards as will give general satisfaction that our electoral machinery will be free not only from provincial political influences but also from the central political influences.” The Jayaprakash Narayan Committee on Electoral Reforms as also the earlier Joint Parliamentary Committee on Amendments to Election Law favoured a multi-member Election Commission. The idea is no doubt sound in theory. But, as Mr. S.L. Shakdhar, formerly Chief Election Commissioner, told me in his time: “The proposal is not practicable. I could not have ordered a repoll in Garhwal promptly and thereby prevented the place from going up in smoke if I was not a one-man Commission.” Mr Peri Sastri’s view is no different. In fact, the recent three-member Commission proved to be a near disaster, hamstringing speedy action time and again. 

How does one ensure that the one-man Commission will be fair and impartial? We have had among our CECs Dr. S.L. Shakdher and Mr. Peri Sastri on the one hand and Mr R.K. Trivedi on the other. (Remember, Mr. Trivedi was rewarded with a Governorship for his good work!) Various suggestions have been made over the years. The BJP President, Mr L.K. Advani, would like the Chief Election Commissioner barred from being appointed to any office of profit after retirement. Some want the CEC to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India and to senior Chief Justices of the State High Courts. Others want the CEC to be chosen by the President, the Vice President and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha--- or by the Government in consultation with the Opposition. However, we need to remember one basic truth: a process of consultation does not guarantee anything, specially in our feudal environment. A formal ban on the CEC from holding any office on retirement is highly desirable and should help. Ultimately, we must think in terms of an arrangement which would enable him to get what he needs most: moral authority. 

Fortunately, the Election Commission has reportedly came forward with a suggestion, described as “the ideal arrangement”. The Chief Election Commissioner, it is proposed, should come to be chosen on the basis of his professional expertise, experience and seniority like the Chief Justice of India in accordance with established convention. Such an arrangement, we are told, could be evolved by establishing another all-India cadre: the Indian Election Service. The Chief Election Commissioner could then be chosen from the service itself --- from among persons designated Chief Electoral Officers and accorded the same status as the Chief Secretary in a state. Even today we have Chief Electoral Officers in the States. They are, however, a part of the administration and open to political pressures both from the State Governments and the Centre. An Indian Election Service, which would essentially be skeleton in character, could provide the answer. The Commission’s proposal merits serious consideration. – INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 14 February 2024

White & Black Papers

POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK?

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

The White and Black Papers released recently by the ruling party and the Congress respectively have tried to find fault with the other. Though such analysis may be useful in understanding the way each government has functioned, one of these studies has shown how they plan to tackle future economic problems. These papers come close on the heels of three important southern States, led by Karnataka, protesting denial of adequate funds only because of their better performance in various sectors compared to northern States. 

The 59-page NDA Paper accused the UPA rule of bringing public finances to a ‘perilous state’ with high levels of fiscal deficit, which a panel headed by noted economist Vijay Kelkar had pointed out. As a result of fiscal mismanagement, the deficit ended up much higher than it was expected, and subsequently ended up borrowing 27% more from the market than what it had budgeted for in 2011-12. 

Regarding the banking crisis, the report said that in September 2013, the ratio of gross NPAs to advances, including restructured loans, climbed to 12.3% largely because of political interference on commercial lending decisions. These observations have been rightly pointed out, specially the improvement of the health of the banks during the NDA regime, though it can’t be denied that interference in bank management continued. This is corroborated in the case of Mehul Choksi and lately Gautam Adani, both of whom are said to be close to the Prime Minister.   

The paper highlighted Modi government’s successes, saying it cleared loans of over Rs 1.9 lakh crore taken during the UPA regime to fund food, fertilizer and oil subsidies with over Rs 1 lakh crore to be paid in the coming years as principal and interest. It pointed to revival of the Indian economy from a state of crisis. “When the NDA government took over the reins in 2014, the economy was in bad shape, nay, crisis. We faced the hydra-headed challenge of fixing an economy mismanaged for a decade, and restoring its fundamentals to sound health,” stated the white paper. Besides, it highlighted how the economy emerged stronger in the past decade under the BJP-led NDA government and is today counted amongst the top five economies of the world. 

The Paper referred to the mismanagement of the economy during the UPA regime and apart from the various scams, it found that over Rs 94,000 crore or 6.4% of the budgeted expenditure for 14 major schemes and rural sector ministries remained unspent over 10 years. Besides, it showed that funds not deployed properly as capital expenditure fell from 31% during 2003-04 to 16% in 2013-14, resulting in a “supply constrained economy”. Additionally, a large part of resources was used for unproductive purposes, involving an estimated outgo of Rs 26,000 crore in 2008-09 and Rs 52,000 crore farm loan waivers as cases in point. 

The overall improvement of the economy has been well highlighted but what has not been said is whether this uptrend has benefitted the poor, the marginalised and the economically weaker sections. Various experts and studies have pointed out that the main beneficiaries of the government’s policies have been the rich and one segment of the middle class or perhaps the entire middle class.  As per the World Bank’s Commission on Global Poverty using the leaked data of the NSS revealed that 320 million rural Indians lived in acute poverty in 2017-18, 50 million over six years earlier. 

It would be appropriate to mention the Oxfam report, released last month, which revealed that the wealthiest 1% of the population possess 40% of the nation’s wealth, while the remaining 50% hold just 3%. Furthermore, the number of billionaires in India has seen a notable rise. The UNDP report indicated that the top 10% of the population commanded 65% of the country’s wealth. Over the past decade the real wages of 35% of the population have experienced a decline. Real wages denote the purchasing power of wages concerning goods and services. India was ranked 139^th on the Global hunger Index. In per capita incomes, India is at the bottom of all the G-20 countries. Parliamentarians questioned whether the real Amrit Kaal would start only when all people get equal healthcare, education and opportunities to grow? 

Thus, the overall scenario is quite grim though India may be the fifth largest economy. This has been revealed in Congress’ Black Paper, which pointed out that “the Modi government’s 10 years in power devastated the country’s economy, aggravated unemployment, destroyed the country’s agricultural sector, abetted crimes against women and committed grave injustices against minorities in the country”. The 54-page Paper said the highest rate of unemployment in 45 years, going from 1 crore in 2012 and 4 crore in 2022, 10 lakh sanctioned central government post still unfilled, despite high unemployment, 33% unemployed amongst graduates and post-graduates and 2 employed persons dying by suicide every year. On inflation, the Congress stated that there has been a steep increase in the prices of essential commodities from 2014 to 2024 – 120% in increase in the cost of LPG, 37% for petrol and 64% for diesel, 59% for mustard oil and 59% for wheat flour and 71% for milk. 

The above findings can’t be denied as social and economic development was mainly geared towards the urban sector and the privileged sections got the maximum benefit. Also, the middle-income sections got their due share but the marginalised and backward sections didn’t notice any perceptible change in their incomes and standard of living. However, in recent years, the Modi government has turned its attention to the rural sector, but real backward areas have yet to be brought into mainstream development. 

It was expected that the paper of the ruling dispensation while criticising the previous UPA regime would have outlined future priorities, specially with regard to the farming community, small traders, those working in unorganized sector, all of whom are a major segment of the population. Though governance may have improved during the Modi government, there is an absolute need for ensuring that welfare measures reach these sections and development is geared in the right direction. 

It goes without saying that more resources are needed for which the wealthy must be imposed a wealth tax, but the government is hesitant. The logic that such tax will not boost investment can’t be accepted as private sector investment in recent years has been quite low despite various government incentives.    

Finally, the development matrix must change, and the present government should be realistic and judicious in allotment of funds to sectors that need them and those that cater to the welfare of the major section of the population. Development must come from below and its spread effect must be uniform, reaching all corners of the country.  ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 13 February 2024

Of The House, For The House

DEPOLITICISE SPEAKER’s OFFICE

By Poonam I Kaushish 

It’s the season of Aya Ram Gaya Ram and prize catches. Specially in Maharashtra and Bihar where the political arena resembles a Spanish bull-ring following three Congress stalwarts ex- Chief Minister Ashok Chavan, Milind Deora and Baba Siddique dumping it. In Patna demise of JD(U)-RJD-Congress Mahagathbandhan Government and resurrection  of old BJP-JD(U) ties with “somersaulting” Nitish again Chief Minister for ninth time. 

Playing Matador to hilt, the new NDA Government enacted an emotion-filled politico-drama Monday by removing Assembly Speaker RJD’s Chaudhary, who refused to step down, via a no-confidence motion prior to its trust vote. Reminiscent of 2022 when the Mahagathbandhan had got rid of BJP’s Assembly Speaker. Justified by Speaker can be removed by an Assembly resolution passed by majority.  

Last month too, Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Narwekar took 18 months to rule Chief Minister Shinde with 40 MLAs was the Shiv Sena and not Thackeray’s faction, but refused to disqualify his 16 legislators, lobbing the ball back to Supreme Court. 

In 2020, Jyotiraditya Scindia led 22 Congress MLAs sent their resignation to Madhya Pradesh Assembly Speaker who accepted their resignations only a day before Supreme Court ordered a floor test which culminated in Kamal Nath’s Government falling. 

In July 2019 Karnataka Assembly Speaker disqualified 11 Congress and three JD(S) MLAs leading to Kumaraswamy’s Government collapse. In 2015-16 BJP had only 11 MLAs and support of 2 Independents in Arunachal but engineered defections by winning over 21 of 47 Congress MLAs in the 60-Member Assembly. The Speaker disqualified 14 MLAs, simultaneously BJP held an extraordinary session wherein rebel Congress-BJP MLAs removed the Speaker. While Gauwhati High Court upheld the disqualification, Supreme Court refused to give a verdict on disqualification but restored Congress Government in July 2016. 

Ditto in Uttarakhand where Speaker disqualified 9 Congress rebel MLAs for voting against the Appropriations Bill despite them not leaving Congress or voting against it in the Assembly. The MLAs joined BJP and upstaged Congress Government in 2016.

The issue is not whether the Speaker’s decision in every case has politics written all over it or if he resigns or is removed. Nor whether a political appointee should continue to be arbitrator in legislators’ defections? Neither that Parties have used Speaker’s post as lollipop to reward and oblige a Party worker thus sounding another death knell of a Constitutional institution. But why Speaker is so important in the Constitutional scheme of things?

Primarily, as he represents the House, its dignity, freedom and liberty. According to Erskine May, “The House has no Constitutional existence without him.” He has to ensure Opposition has its say even as Government has its way and is expected to be above Party politics and not Government’s puppet.

If a Party splits, Speaker decides whether it is a “split” or defection case. His ruling is binding. By this one act he can “destroy” a Party and facilitate another’s rule. His casting vote can swing balance either way. Recall, Chandra Shekhar’s famous split which led to VP Singh’s Government fall. 

Besides, his powers to use or misuse Anti-Defection Act which bestows the power of deciding whether a representative has become subject to disqualification, post their defection on the Speaker offering ample scope to him to exercise discretion and play political favourites, ignoring the letter and spirit of the Act.

Alas, its par for the course when MPs-MLAs-Speaker roles are inter-changed at a drop of a hat. Whereby, ruling Party Ministers, MPs and MLAs accept Speakership only to exploit the office for richer political dividends. Whereby, it is increasingly difficult to keep track of Minister’s becoming Speaker’s and vice versa.

From second Speaker Ayyangar who became Bihar Governor on his term’s expiry to GS Dhillon and Manohar Joshi who switched roles from Ministers to Speakers, Balram Jhakar never concealed his identity as Congressman, Rabi Ray lived up to his Janata Party’s expectation and Shivraj Patil who post Speakership, lost the re-election, but was nominated by Congress to Rajya Sabha and anointed Home Minister. In UPA I Congress Minister Meira Kumar became Lok Sabha Speaker in UPA II. Today eyebrows are not even raised.

The entirety of a Speaker’s decisions can also be an inducement for abuse. Instances of suspension of over 149 Opposition MPs from Parliament in the winter session, almost all DMK MLAs were evicted en masse from the Tamil Nadu Assembly in 2016 while protesting raise crucial questions about our democracy’s health and its democratic character.

Bringing things to such a pass, whereby a Speaker has acquired a larger-than-life image and role and has become the primus entre peri. A demi-God who can do no wrong, and whose actions are unquestionable. Forgotten in the quintessential position, is the Speaker who is essentially servant of the House has fast become its master, thanks to rules of procedure. Highlighting, falling standards in conducting legislative business in Parliament and Assemblies.

Undoubtedly, the Speaker’s position is paradoxical. He contests Parliament or State Assembly election and subsequently for the post on a Party ticket, and yet is expected to conduct himself in a non-partisan manner, all the while being beholden to the Party for a ticket for the next election. Confided a ex-Lok Sabha Speaker: “We are elected on Party tickets with Party funds. How can we claim independence? Moreover, even if we resign on becoming Speaker, we still have to go back to the Party for sponsoring our next election.”

Against this background and in our Aaya Ram Gaya Ram political milieu the Speaker’s job has not only become all important and demanding but is the cynosure of all eyes today as  the issue of having an independent Speaker is vital.

Where does one go from here? Time to look afresh at the Speaker’s powers, depoliticize his office, promote neutrality. One way is follow Britain’s Parliamentary democracy whereby a MP resigns from his Party once elected Speaker and is re-elected unopposed in subsequent elections. Two, Speaker must walk a tight rope, place himself in a judge’s position, not become partisan so as to avoid unconscious bias for or against a particular view thus inspiring confidence in all sections of the House about his integrity and impartiality.

Towards that end he has to play fair and set healthy and gracious conventions for the high Constitutional office he holds which calls for fairness, uprightness and adherence to Constitutional values and conventions. 

Consequently, rules have to be drastically changed to ensure the Speaker’s Constitutional post is respected as it is sacrosanct. Legislators and Governments must desist from reducing his office in to a Constitutional extension of Government. Thereby, converting the post in to a monument like Taj Mahal or Qutab Minar. We know what pigeons do to them.

Remember, a Speaker is an honoured position, a free position and should be occupied always by men of outstanding ability and impartiality as what matters are not men but institutions.  We must recognize a Speaker’s key role in our democracy by adopting the British maxim: Once a Speaker always the Speaker.

Succinctly, the Speaker is of the House, by the House and for the House. Remember, what matters are not men but institutions. One can tit for an individual but not tat on the State. It is imperative our democracy is put back on the rails. ----- INFA

 (Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 12 February 2024

Railway Budget

SELF FUNDER, EARNS PROFITS

By Shivaji Sarkar 

Railways is beyond speed. It connects India. It takes passengers to the farthest, remotest and inaccessible area and immensely contributes to the growth of hinterlands. Its contributions are not for getting lost amid glitz of the infra push, the roads, solar or space achievements. It is much more than speed, coaches and corridors. The Indian Railways remains the driver of the economy as Covid-19 exemplified. The closure of the trains slowed down the economic growth. It tumbled to minus 24 per cent. 

While Prime Minister’s Gati Shakti, which is a transformative approach for economic growth and sustainable development, is a good target to make corridor functioning more efficient. All the same it needs to stress on the trains that connect every station of the country, once served by the trains like the Janata Express. Rail travel still remains affordable, but the cost on the most deprived is increasing. Logically correct, but the nation must take care of the large number of the poor who have just come up the official poverty line, but who as Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, told in Rajya Sabha, need more care and his free food dole for another five years is meant to tend them and handhold them to the next better phase of life. 

Railways is self-funded and having profits too though emphasising less on commuters. Somewhere it gets into oblivion that locally connecting trains are not only needed in metro cities of Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai and Bengaluru but also in all other States whether Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, or southern states of Andhra, Telangana, Odisha or the critical North East. 

Various metro projects have been allocated Rs 23931 crore and Rs 1300 crore for electric buses. But it is observed that these do not cater to the poorer class, even in cities like Delhi. They shun metro for its high fare affecting their mobility. The Delhi-Meerut rapid transit metro runs parallel to Northern Railway suburban-cum-local tracks. It has a high cost and proposed fare as well. But it deprives the highest number of poorer travellers as they lack affordability. The Chennai and Mumbai local trains are more efficiently run than the metros in these cities. Overall losses of metro in all sections are being overlooked. 

As per official figures, 50 per cent of total railway passengers are suburban commuters from the three major cities – Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai. If other hubs all over the country are included, they would form the major chunk of approximately 80 lakh passengers. They despite contributing substantially to the economy, remain the most neglected. In pursuit of speed, the most productive people are being ignored. Their contribution to rail profit is underestimated. Even the running trains generate jobs for thousands of vendors. 

Projects such as the Regional Rapid Transit System (RRTS) need a review. It has also been observed that Kolkata metro of Indian Railways remain the best and most profitable despite high cost of deep tunnelling under the river Hooghly. Unlike most other metros it remains profitable and high ridership as is also the case with the Kolkata suburban railway. 

It is often said that Railways is not making enough money. That’s incorrect. It has earned Rs 2242 crore extra revenue denying concessions to them between March 2020 and March 2023. The financial year 2022-23 alone earned Rs 560 crore from the change in norms making it the most profitable year, according to Centre for Railway Information Systems (CRIS). 

The railways have earned Rs 2800 crore in the last seven years from child travellers, who are made to full fare since April 21, 2016. Earlier, children between 5 and 12 years were offered separate berths at half the travel fare. Fares of suburban travel have also been revised. 

The budget has earmarked a capex of Rs 2.55 lakh crore for the Indian Railways, which is just marginally higher than the Rs 2.4 lakh crore announced in last year’s budget. The Railways needs a bigger push. It should not be for suddenly changing 40,000 coaches to Vande Bharat type structure as this is not needed. The officials have made the planners opt for an inappropriate step. 

The actual total receipt of Indian Railways was Rs 240,176.96 crore in 2022-23, which was estimated to rise to Rs 265,000 crore in 2023-24 (BE) but was found to be Rs 258,600 crore in 2023-24 (RE). As against this, total expenditure has been on the rise, which were Rs 237,659.58 crore in 2022-23 (actual), Rs 262,790 crore in 2023-24 (BE), and Rs 256,600 crore in 2023-24 (RE). Now, the interim budget 2024-25 has estimated it to rise to Rs 279,700 crore. 

The finance minister’s announced budgetary support of Rs 2.55 lakh crore is an illusion. It only rechristens the railways own accounts in finance ministry terms. In other words, it could be said that the Railways is not being given any extra finance. Even its capex is generated by the railways itself. It has one of the highest operating ratio up from 90 per cent in 2013 to 98 per cent in 2025. This means that railways is to spend Rs 98 per every Rs 100 it earns. It reflects in the share market too on the high demand of railway-related company scrip. 

In pursuit of speed, it should neither slow down regular trains, nor cancel local passenger trains or neglect the suburban sector. It is not wise to be left it to be catered by metro or RRTS trains at huge costs. Each metro station construction, security and avoidable paraphernalia costs much more than the railways would have done. 

Lack of integrated rail-led passenger transport vision has added to tremendous cost of less utilised metros as in Lucknow, Kanpur, Jaipur, Bengaluru and other such cities. Metros should be replaced with elevated trams. Any average 150-year-old rail stations serve far better. Rail stations need simple, beautiful and easy access, not a designer one. Most demolitions of old efficient structures of stations must be stopped. Along with that elevated trams with simple access to platforms should be planned for efficient, inexpensive, comfortable city commuting. 

This calls for reorientation and a falsified approach that the Indian Railways needs very high speed. It has evolved with the best and with minimum efforts and expenditure it should be made better. The rural, semi-urban and urban travellers need the attention and the railways must orient it towards them. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)