On May 7, 2002, Railway Minister Nitish Kumar said he would introduce a White Paper on Rail Safety in Parliament.
It somewhat restrained frayed tempers among Opposition members of Parliament, who were disenchanted with the government's tall claims about the Indian Railways.
But when Kumar, on April 8, 2003, tabled the white paper, the Opposition said it was hogwash. And that appears true -- even a cursory glance shows there is scarce evidence of any corrective action taken by the railways.
Emphasis has been laid on what needs to be done, rather than what has been, with the inescapable conclusion that Kumar's earlier assertion of baring all involved in train accidents was a mere ploy for time, and nothing more.
For instance, the white paper says: 'Of the 120,000 bridges, no alarm needs to be raised about the adequacy of safety parameters despite over 51,000 of them being of 19th century vintage.'
He says a 'distressed bridge' is not a dangerous or an unsafe bridge, but merely a tired one, which can be rejuvenated by necessary inputs. And that most of the 527 distressed bridges (as on April 14, 2002) are likely to be 'rehabilitated soon'.
The white paper speaks about the creation of a non-lapsable Special Railway Safety Fund of Rs 170 billion. 'Higher allocation to safety projects in the coming years may reasonably be expected when the SRSF comes into operation.'
An 82-page document, the white paper is replete with declarations and platitudes. It furthers Kumar's theory of sabotage, which he said was responsible for the September 13, 2002, rail accident in which 16 coaches of the Rajdhani Express from Kolkata to New Delhi plummeted down a 95-year-old bridge near Gaya town in Bihar.
The tragedy killed 100 people and injured double that number.
Though Kumar screamed hanky-panky, Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani said the bridge collapsed due to lack of maintenance.
That has not deterred Kumar from claiming sabotage again.
The government has not made public the inquiry committee reports of train accidents. The white paper says: inquiry reports are selectively made public by the Commission of Railway Safety after all related and probable prosecution cases are concluded. The Commission recommends whether a particular accident report is to be published or not.
The explanation is that the Commission is a quasi-judicial body, which is apprehensive of being pulled up by the courts. So, the white paper says, inquiry committee reports do not necessarily see the light of the day.
Ironically, the document takes pride in saying: 'The ministry of railways has recently recommended to the ministry of civil aviation for publication of all inquiry reports of the Commission to introduce complete transparency and build up public trust.'
Apart from sabotage, thefts and vandalism of railway property, hazardous working conditions of the railway staff, encroachments near the railway tracks and defecation on the railway tracks are cited as reasons contributing to railway disasters.
The white paper says the railways pay a heavy price for adverse law-and-order situations. The reference here is to the fact that, since the railway network spans the country, the railways cannot be held responsible for accidents as a result of sabotage, which average around 15 every year.
In other words, as law-and-order is a state subject, each state government should be responsible for the accident that occurs within its boundaries, rather than question the railways' infrastructure.
The Kunzru Committee in 1962, the Wanchoo Committee in 1968, the Sikri Committee in 1978 and the Khanna Committee in 1998 had emphasised the dire need for railway safety. But the railways will have to travel many more miles before that recommendation is implemented.
