Indian Railways’ dismal safety record shows lack of leadership and vision.
Union Railway Minister Mallikarjun Kharge recently told a conference
of general managers of all zonal railways and production units that
safety of passengers would continue to be the topmost priority of the
Indian Railways. Just days before his statement nine people were charred
to death near Mumbai in a fire on the Bandra-Dehradun Express and three
weeks previous to that 26 people were burnt to death in Andhra Pradesh
in a fire on the Bangalore-Nanded Express. It was noted in both cases
that just the presence of automatic fire alarm systems would have saved
lives in both cases. And barely a week before the minister’s statement,
in two separate incidents in the Mumbai suburban rail network, a
16-year-old passenger lost both her hands and a 31-year-old lost both
his legs, after they slipped in the dangerous high gap between the
station platform and the train footboard. Accidents on the railways
invariably bring on a sense of déjà vu and a corroboration of the
observation of the High Level Safety Review Committee (the Kakodkar
Committee) appointed by the Ministry of Railways in 2012: “within the
railway system everybody is supposed to look after safety but in
reality…(it is) nobody’s baby.”
Successive Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports on the
railways’ corporate safety plan (Phase I: 2003-2008) have painted a
rather dismal picture. The reports noted a continuing use of overage
locomotives, incomplete safety works at level crossings, lack of
modernisation of signalling equipment, inadequate maintenance of assets
and a failure to make recruitment to the crucial staff positions dealing
with safety. More importantly, in 2012 the CAG said that the railways
had been unable to produce a reliable safety system even though it had
been carrying out field trials of the anti-collision devices (ACDs)
since 2001 and had spent Rs 158 crore on them. The performance
efficiency during the trial runs of the ACDs and the train protection
and warning systems (TPWS) was below par.
Human failure has been found to account for 86% of train accidents in
India, but as on 1 April 2012, there were as many as 1,49,271 vacancies
in the safety category posts. The minister blandly said the process to
fill them was on but the informal ban on recruitment means that little
progress takes place in making the railways fully staffed in this
important area. While the number of new trains has increased,
recruitment has not kept pace either with the additional workload or the
retirement of existing staff. In fact, a section of expert opinion says
that instead of the “obsession” with ACDs, safety factors could be
better ensured by hiring adequate operational personnel like guards,
drivers, stationmasters, signalling staff and gangmen who are the eyes
and ears of the system.
The lack of quick coordination of police and medical emergency
services is an important reason for the high fatalities in accidents
that take place at railway stations and in urban centres. Thus, there
was not even a stretcher available at the busy and important railway
station (Ghatkopar) on the Mumbai suburban network where the 16-year-old
student lost her hands. Media reports frequently detail the inordinate
delays that cost victims of rail accidents their limbs and lives due to
lack of basic facilities such as stretchers, first-aid material and
trained staff who can act quickly to rush them to the nearest medical
facility.
The various committees appointed to look into rail safety have made
recommendations across categories. These range from suggestions to
replenish the capital and development funds, decentralise the
hierarchical structure and functioning of the railways, modernise the
recruitment process, introduce training, refresher and reskilling
courses, post a member for safety on the Railway Board, and set up an
independent authority for rail safety. The excuse for not following
these suggestions invariably turns on a lack of funds. Railway finances
are indeed in indifferent shape, but it is scandalous that poor safety
can be attributed to a lack of resources. The blame then falls on
“populism” that is said to keep passenger rates low. There is indeed a
mismatch between passenger and freight tariffs, as there will always be
in a developing economy. But the railways should be aware that they
themselves have contributed to deteriorating finances because of their
inability to prevent the loss of high-value long-distance freight
traffic to roads. Halting the modal shift would require substantial
outlays to ensure more reliable goods services. It is time the railways
realise that improving the existing services and ensuring the safety of
passengers are truly the most popular service they can undertake.
