A direct result and enduring legacy of the British colonial era in the subcontinent, India’s railways have emerged as a symbol of independent India. A sprawling feat of infrastructure, this system comprises the fourth-largest railways network in the world (and the second largest under single management); further, due to government intervention and massive subsidies, it has succeeded in maintaining fares low enough as to be accessible for nearly all of India’s populace, whether for short daily commutes or cross-country journeys.

Due to the railway system’s centrality in the Indian economy and society, the Ministry of Railways – and its mammoth budget – has become one of the most politicized and lucrative of government berths. Several of the country’s most powerful politicians have used their time as railways minister to consolidate their power and shore up their populist credentials. At the same time – and particularly due to staggering number of people who ride Indian trains regularly, some 13 million a day – safety remains a significant concern. Although the system’s overall safety record has improved somewhat in recent years, the 177 crashes that took place in 2008-09 continue to be blamed largely on misappropriation of Ministry of Railways funds and an inability to adequately deal with maintenance of the massive, rusting railways system.

The first railway line in the subcontinent, running 21 miles from Bombay to Thane, was inaugurated under the British colonial government in 1853. In the years that immediately followed, the network expanded rapidly, both in size and in terms of the territory it covered: an eastern line was created in 1854, a southern line in 1856, a northern line in 1859. A quarter century after that first train went into operation, by 1880 the Indian rail network comprised some 9,000 miles, ferrying both passengers and goods around the country.

The freight aspect of this new rail system was particularly important. For the first century of rail expansion in India, after all, the motivation, vision, orders and money (if not the labor, which of course was local) for its creation and construction came from London. Following on the mercantilism of the East India Company, the reason for the British colonial project in India was almost purely financial – one of resource extraction from the broad swath of the country, primarily. Indeed, the rail project went forward under the auspices of the Court of Directors of the East India Company, back in London. But even as resource extraction began picking up speed, the only way to make full use of this wealth was to be able to move it around within India and, finally, out of the country, both as export to other countries as raw products as well as to bring this produce back to Britain for processing. The jewel of the Indian railway system, then, was a specific – and successful – attempt at firmly enmeshing the economies of these two countries.

Over the following decades many entities, both public and private, joined the scrum of attempts to crisscross the vast subcontinent with rail tracks, though there was little oversight of these various efforts. World War I led Britain’s priorities to be turned elsewhere, and by the time the war came to an end India’s rail network had fallen into severe dilapidation. As such, in 1920 a committee of the East India Company recommended that the entire system be brought under the management of a single entity, a responsibility that the government itself shouldered. It was also at this time that the decision was made to separate the railways budget from the rest of the national annual budget, a decision evidently taken to ameliorate the fact that the railways were taking up some 70% of the national budget at the time. This unique practice remains in effect today, although currently the railways budget comprises only about 15% of the national budget.

Although a few private companies remained involved in the railways sector, a similar process played itself out during World War II. Once again, efforts and national priorities shifted elsewhere, this time not only leading to the deterioration of India’s railway network but even the outright cannibalization of significant parts of it, with large amounts of infrastructure physically transported to the Middle East in support of the war effort. With the end of the war, once again the government moved to intervene in the sector, taking over most of the remaining private entities involved in the railways.

With independence and the departure of the British in 1947, the new state of India maintained control over the country’s railway network and put down the groundwork for today’s system. Following partition, however, significant chunks of the system were also now in territory belonging to the newfound state of Pakistan (including East Pakistan, which eventually became Bangladesh). Due to the enmity that grew up between the neighbors of South Asia during subsequent decades, several of the critical – newly cross-border – arteries of the railway system were severed.

Although widely seen as a catastrophe for local communities and economies, many of these lines remain severed even today. While in recent years some notable actions have been taken to restart some of these lines, for the most part these efforts remain less utilitarian than symbolic. Nonetheless, the new pan-regional focus that has been on display in the Indian government in recent years has led to the Ministry of Railways playing an increasingly visible role – not only due to its work within India, but also through its diplomatic efforts at fostering better relations with India’s neighbors.

The official motto of Indian Railways is “Lifeline to the nation.” The Ministry of Railways is responsible for the more than 67,500 miles of train tracks in the country, as well as the 11,000 trains that run on those tracks every day through nearly 7,100 stations, servicing some six billions riders per year and 1.54 million employees. The Minister of Railways oversees two Ministers of State for Railways, who in turn oversee the Railway Board. This latter body breaks down into sections that oversee electrical, engineering, mechanical, traffic and financial, as well as health and security, issues.

Attached Bodies or Autonomous Bodies

Indian Railways

This is the public institutional name for the Indian government’s official monopoly over the country’s railways system. Indian Railways is actually split into 16 separate zones, each of which operates (under a general manager) semi-autonomously. Collectively, these bodies as well as a series of production unites are organized under the Railway Board.

Railway Board

This is the apex body for India’s railways system, reporting directly to the Indian Parliament through the Ministry of Railways. Today’s Railway Board remains a direct descendent of a body that the British originally set up in 1905, and has been criticized at times for having changed little in structure since that time. The Railway Board is made up of seven members, tasked with overseeing electrical, mechanical, engineering, traffic and financial issues, as well as staff welfare.

Indian Railways operated at a loss for decades, a situation that only changed in the mid-2000s – a turnaround credited to the controversial railways minister at the time, the former chief minister of Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav. In fact, profits again dipped in recent years, with the sector going back into the red in 2009-10. Part of the difficulty is the populist pricing structure used by Indian Railways, with prices for lower-class berths having long stayed unnaturally low. Due to the politicized nature of Indian Railways, both freight and passenger costs have remained constant for years, regardless of fluctuating inflation rates.

As the largest public-sector employer in the country, a significant percentage of Indian Railways’ budget goes to simple labor costs. Likewise, as an extremely resource-intensive industry, much of the sector’s budget is also eaten up by physical infrastructural needs, including the monumental task of upkeep. Beyond this, however, the importance and centrality of the railways in Indian society has, over the years, allowed the Ministry of Railways to expand its reach beyond logical niches.

A potent recent example is the 2011-12 railways budget proffered by then-Minister Mamata Banerjee. The 2011-12 railways budget was the largest ever, albeit coming on the back of gross revenues of some INR 1.06 trillion (USD 21.56 billion) for the previous year. In addition to a record INR 596.7 billion (USD $12.1 billion) allocated for rail upgrades, 68 new trains and an astounding 1,300 km of new tracks (against a post-independence average of 180 km per year), Banerjee also announced some seemingly odd new ventures: a bridge manufacturer in Kashmir, a software center in West Bengal (her state), and the construction of 10,000 centers for the poor. In so doing, Banerjee’s Ministry of Railways also doubled its annual borrowing to around INR 205.9 billion.

It is important to note that just months after unveiling this budget, Banerjee’s party won a historic election in West Bengal, toppling three decades of rule by the Communist Party of India (Marxist). In so doing, Banerjee also followed in the footsteps of many previous railways ministers: using the Ministry of Railways as a springboard to higher office.

Questionable Safety Record

Almost certainly the most regular public controversy surrounding Indian Railways is over its safety record. While safety has improved significantly since the 1960s, and while the rate of accidents per mile of railroad track is relatively low, the number of people injured and killed per year remains extremely high. In part, of course, this is due the very large number of people who use Indian Railways trains on a regular basis. Public outrage is fed, however, by the perception of extreme politicization within the Ministry of Railways, with money meant for critical infrastructure being diverted to populist or pet projects meant to shore up a politician’s credentials or vote banks. One way or another, India’s railways system has long been perpetually strapped for necessary funding, disallowing a timely upgradation of various associated technologies and safety equipment. As such, human causes leading to major accidents – including collisions – have remained quite high.

In addition, in more recent years India’s system of railway tracks have become increasingly targeted by the country’s Maoist insurgents (the Naxalites), particularly in the center and east of India. While train carriages themselves have rarely been attacked, tracks have at times been tampered with, leading to accidents. In turn, this has embroiled the Ministry of Railways in the long-raging public debate over how and the extent to which the government should react to the Maoist rebels. The latter state that they are fighting in favor of social justice and economic equitability, and hence the Naxalite rebellion has for decades led to sharp divisions within Indian society over the judiciousness of the Maoist claims.

India’s Patchy Railway Safety Record (by Soutik Biswas, BBC)

Inadequate Safety Measures Behind Rail Disasters in India (by K Ratnayake, International Committee of the Fourth International)

A Poor Track Record (by Amulya Gopalakrishnan, Frontline magazine)

Long History of Corruption

Closely linked to public frustration with the Indian Railways safety record is anger and allegations over corruption within the Ministry of Railways. While corruption within politics has for decades been a central bugbear for the Indian public (a situation that came to a head, again, over the course of 2011), the Ministry of Railways has long been singled out for special attention in this regard. For nearly a century, after all, the ministry has had one of the largest single allocations in the Indian budget, thus easily lubricating its positioning as one of the most lucrative of government postings, in both economic and political terms. As noted earlier, the ministry has also long been seen as an important stepping stone to higher political office, with the public perception being that this is due to the minister’s ability to lavish special projects – if not outright cash – on certain interests and communities, ostensibly in return for political favors. While many Indians see political corruption as too pervasive to do anything about, the fact that diverted funding from the Ministry of Railways might have a direct impact on public safety has left an indelible stain on the ministry, ensuring that the issue of railways-related corruption has remained a central topic of civic conversation through the years.

Railways Most Corrupt Government Organization, Says CVC Annual Report (by Aman Sharma, India Today)

Curbing Corruption in the Indian Railways (by K. Balakesari, ASCI Journal of Management)

The Proof of the Pudding (by Abdul Khaliq, Tehelka)

Should the Railroads be Privatized?

Undoubtedly the most important, and longstanding, debate surrounding India’s railways system is over its potential commercialization. This is perhaps to be expected, given Indian Railways positioning as one of the most expansive monopolies in the world. Although the discussion over privatization (including over what are known as public-private partnerships) has become increasingly polarized since the early-1990s liberalization of the Indian economy, with regards to the railways sector the issue has been clouded due to the politicization that has long characterized the Ministry of Railways.

Pro Privatization

One side in this debate suggests that privatization would do much to do away with much of the bloated inefficiency that has long dogged Indian Railways. This side is bolstered by a slew of international reports (including by McKinsey) suggesting that a massive percentage of Indian Railways’ budget – some USD $45 billion – is being wasted due to various inefficiencies, and that fully half of this could be recovered through infrastructural fixes. Some on this side suggest that the private sector, motivated by market forces, would be more likely to focus on dealing with the longstanding concerns over corruption and poor safety. But a more widespread focus of this side of the privatization debate focuses not on passenger traffic but rather on freight trains, a sector that many see as ripe for massive expansion. To date, however, the Ministry of Railways is criticized for blocking attempts at entry by private entities into the freight market.

Anti-privatization

The other side in the privatization debate sees any increase in the private sector’s involvement in the railways system with significant suspicion. Many on this side see any such attempt as another in a growing line of moves by large-scale business interests to usurp independent India’s egalitarian socialist roots. Pointing to the experience of privatization of state services in other countries, many on this side of the debate forecast that doing so will have disastrous effects for the country’s still-massive and still-struggling poor. Further, in the wake of the global economic crisis of 2008, some warn that creating a quasi-state structure such as a privatized Indian Railways would allow for a similar situation as with some major banks around the world: allowing some investors to make significant money while still assuming a state-backed safety network in case of failure.

While the state continues to own and manage India’s vast rail system, this debate continues to rage.

For a topic as emotive – for all sides – as the state and future of Indian Railways, the suggested reforms are understandably vast and often contradictory. These range from the simple and sensible (putting a halt to the tradition of having a separate rail budget, for instance) to the idealistic (following China’s model of high-speed ‘bullet’ trains, not to mention its staggering rate of track construction). To deal with some of the freight-related criticisms outlined earlier, two major freight-only railway lines are currently under construction. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has weighed in on the need for “major” reforms within the sector, in part seeming to support a less populist pricing structure.

More drastic suggestions for restructuring would do away with the Ministry of Railways entirely, breaking it instead into multiple companies, both private and public-private partnerships. For many, the debate over how to reform the railways sector bears a striking resemblance to the debate over the direction in which India’s entire development should proceed: toward the sleek, impersonal efficiency of the private sector, or staying within the lumbering old-school socialism of state control.

Dinesh Trivedi

Dinesh Trivedi was the union cabinet minister of railways until March 2012. Concurrently, he was the general-secretary of the All-India Trinamool Congress, the party of Mamata Banerjee, the previous union minister of railways and the chief minister of West Bengal. For several years prior to Banerjee’s victory to become West Bengal chief minister, Trivedi had been Banerjee’s most important official in New Delhi; when she won, he was given the railways portfolio.

Like Banerjee, Trivedi too is from West Bengal, representing Barrackpore in the Lok Sabha, the lower house. He has a bachelor’s degree in communications, as well as a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from the University of Texas; he was first elected to the Rajya Sabha, the upper house, in 1990. For the two years prior to his appointment as railways minister, Trivedi was union cabinet minister of state for state, health and family welfare. Trivedi is seen as a shrewd, outspoken political operator willing to take on populist causes. Known for filing public-interest petitions, he even offered to resign from his previous post in support of activist Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement. As a politician whose career trajectory has fed off of Mamata Banerjee’s success, he is now in the interesting position of having made a reached a significant level within the Indian government, but remaining significantly associated with a mercurial figure such as Banerjee.

Official Biography

Mamata Banerjee

The founder of the All India Trinamool Congress, a splinter of the Indian National Congress, Banerjee has experienced a steeply pitched career climb. Two years after the Trinamool’s creation, she and her new party joined the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, at which point she was first allotted the Ministry of Railways. She split from the NDA in 2001 but, following critical parliamentary elections in 2009, in which her party made strong gains, she was again given the railways portfolio. Less than two years later, however, the Trinamool’s showing in the 2011 national elections made her chief minister of West Bengal, a historic turn of events that brought an end to three decades of rule by the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

Lalu Prasad Yadav

For many, Yadav epitomized the archetypal railways minister. An irrepressible chief minister of Bihar at a time when it was one of the poorest and most violent states in India (1990-97), he eventually was forced to step down from that position due to allegations of corruption – following which, for seven years, his wife was at the helm of state affairs. Surprising many, however, Yadav’s tenure at the Ministry of Railways, from 2004 to 2009, was characterized an impressive though contested turnaround in the ministry’s finances, ostensibly putting it in the black for the first time ever. Since then, however, the ministry’s finances have again dipped, while accusations have surfaced that Yadav did not actually do as much in this regard as he and his supporters claimed.