THIS ARTICLE APPEARED IN TIMES OF INDIA OP-ED OF 28TH DECEMBER 2019
The recent decisions on railway
reforms including the one to merge eight different cadres of officers into one
vertical are a belated yet a bold move and in the right direction, if handled
well. Bold because different governments at different points in time appointed
different committees to look into issues related to reforming the railways and several
ideas emerged, yet no government bit the bullet. Bold also because while most
of the committees spoke about merger on functional lines, but only one, the Debroy committee gave a
specific recommendation, that of merger of cadres into two verticals – one
technical and one non-technical.
Indian Railways is a solid
institution by itself. It has survived and regularly reinvented itself over the
last 167 years of its existence. Running over 22000 trains a day passing over
7000 stations and piloted by a workforce of over thirteen lakhs, the gigantic
railway system of our nation, the largest organization in the planet despite
being a fine symbol of deliverance, can and also needs to do much better. Improvement in services and expansion of
infrastructure, both need to fast keep pace with the aspirations of a nation on
the move.
The recent decision is a continuation
of the transformational reforms being actively pursued on the railways since
the last two years and need to be viewed in the above context.
Railway officers are often
accused of rabid departmentalism. It is true that railway is organized on departmental
lines with each department having a cadre of its own. While having departmental
bias in an organization that has more than one department is but natural and
acceptable but only to the extent where departmental priorities and loyalties do
not overshadow those of the organization.
On the other hand there is also a
need to appreciate that railways being primarily a technical organization needs
specially qualified and trained personnel in officers cadres for manning
various facets of its operational necessities.
Efficiently meeting the gamut of specialized requirements without its
constituents losing sight of the bigger picture is indeed the need of the hour.
And we have a scenario where the
vast majority of officers of all cadres spend their lives within the confines
of the department itself without being able to appreciate the bigger picture of
the railways. Only those limited number of officers who occupy Divisional
Railway Manager and then General Manager level positions, are exposed to the
working of the entire railway system, and that too for brief periods. The proposed merger logically should address
this anomaly.
The fundamental issue with the
railways is not the multiplicity of departments. Different departments are
needed for focussed and specialized attention to technical and other issues
like HR and Finance. The problem however lies in having officers generally
remaining confined to one particular department throughout the career perhaps
on the earlier premise that even at higher levels, the technical and
specialized content vastly override the managerial one. Staying lifelong in one
department may strengthen technical expertise but not managerial and leadership
qualities while also resulting in a narrow constricted vision even at higher
levels where awareness of the bigger picture, openness to new ideas and
thoughts and leadership qualities are required.
Railways had been mulling over
reforming itself since the last two and a half decades. A number of committees
set up by different governments in the past, namely the Prakash Tandon
Committee of 1994, Rakesh Mohan committee of 2002, Sam Pitroda committee of
2012, Sreedharan committee of 2014 and the Debroy committee of 2015, talked
about the pressing need to reform the railway structures and processes
including possible merger of cadres. They also recommended elevating the
Chairman Railway Board from the present status of first amongst equals to a
clearly defined Chief Executive Officer, and also about reorganizing the Board
on functional lines.
The scenario where this largest
organization on planet earth did not have a clearly identified Chief Executive
Officer would now change thereby changing the tenor of the organization.
And a board drawn on functional
lines, not departmental would ensure that while the Board members remain
focussed towards functional responsibilities, they also have a much better
appreciation of the overall picture that helps them to perform better in the
assigned role.
While the carving out of the
railway budget from the general budget in 1924 was a clear indication of the then
government’s resolve to run railways on commercial lines, however over the
decades babugiri caught up in right earnest and brought the organization to a
stage where railwaymen always found themselves tied in knots even for
performing simple activities, till large
scale simplifications and delegations of 2018 kicked in. Inability of the
officers of different cadres to align themselves with the organizational
objectives simply because of the lack of awareness of the bigger picture
resulted in a complex web of knots.
Merger of cadres is necessary for
eliminating departmental bias and encouraging a hitherto unexplored open
thought process. It would also open the
gates for achieving excellence and encouraging innovation, provided the
exercise is handled well, and definitely not like the ill-fated merger of Air
India and Indian Airlines, merger that pushed the merged Air India into the
abyss.
Mergers are all about amalgamation
of seniority groups, in this case about amalgamation of eight different
seniority groups into one, an exercise easier said than done. It is also about
affecting the aspirations of individuals, most of them bright in the case of
railways, aspirations that if not handled well would lead to grouses that can
last the entire service career and in the process seriously dent the
organization. This is what happened at Air India and we are still suffering.
While the intent is good, the
proof of the pudding shall always be in the eating. The implementation of these
decisions especially the one relating to merger of cadres would have to be taken
forward very carefully in an extremely mature manner duly taking sensitivities
and job requirements into full consideration. The framing of guidelines and rules for implementing the merger should
be finalized through a consultative process and not rushed through. And the
CEO should be given a fixed term of atleast three years for effectively implementing
measures for improvements and growth.
Change we must for change should
be the only constant in the twenty first century. However every major change leads
to concerns, apprehensions and fear among the constituents and therefore often
attracts resistance in the initial stages. These would need to be handled with
sensitivity. We also need to ensure that
the change ushered results in achieving the desired objectives without getting
derailed.
No comments:
Post a Comment