THE railways and horses have a long history in common.

Some say that the width of the railway track is the same as the distance between the wheels of Roman chariots. Whether this is fact or fiction requires greater study but what is definitely a fact is that Pakistan Railways is in dire straits.

One of the most outspoken of our ministers, Saad Rafique, is making a concerted effort to turn it around; fares have been decreased, the number of passengers has increased and freight revenue has shown an upward spike.

Yet in order to make this change sustainable, some very basic things have to be done. It will take more than five years to turn around the railways and definitely more than one man to complete the journey from liability to profitability.

A horse that has spent most of its life pulling a cart is unlikely to do well on the racetrack and, similarly, a racecourse champion is unlikely to do well pulling carts, hence the phrase ‘horses for courses’.

Every now and then there might be a brilliant horse that performs on the track and cart alike, but these are exceptional cases. Rules, procedures, selections and institutions cannot be left at the mercy of the chance of finding that one brilliant horse. The winner on the racetrack is usually a horse bred for the purpose.

Given the proximity and common history, the Indian Railways present a very relevant example for Pakistan Railways. Without going into the merits of Lalu Prasad’s performance as the former minister for Indian Railways, I would like to sum up his success in the words of a former Indian Railways officer who recently visited Pakistan: “His only credit lies in saying yes to all the intelligent plans the Indian Railways officers laid in front of him, which was unfortunately not done by the previous ministers.”

So Mr Rafique does not have to be a rocket scientist to know what needs to be done. But he seems to have fallen at the first frontier and that was the appointment of the chairman of railways. In interactions with the media ever since taking oath as the minister of railways, Mr Rafique was adamant that an experienced officer from within the railways must be appointed as the chairman because that is the best choice.

Yet when the appointment was finally made last month, it turned out to be Najeeb Khawar Awan, an officer from the commerce and trade group who has never served in Pakistan Railways or anything even remotely close. Furthermore, unless given an extension — which in itself would be unjustified — the gentleman will be retiring in a month or so.

What can such arbitrary appointments do but sap the motivation of diligently serving PR officers and render the organisation directionless? With the wrong captain of the ship, the minister cannot have the luxury Lalu Prasad had in simply saying ‘yes’ to the intelligent plans put forth by his bureaucracy.

Interestingly, the appointment of the chairman of the Railways Board was made recently in India, too. Arunendra Kumar was appointed as the chairman of the Railway Board (Ministry of Railways) and ex-officio principal secretary to the government on Oct 16, 2013.

Prior to this appointment, he worked as a member (mechanical) of the Railway Board and before that he was the general manager, South East Central Railway (SECR) (Headquarter: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh). The profile suggests that the last time he thought, worked at or experienced anything other than the railways was before joining the Indian Railways, and that was 35 years ago.

Now, if someone were to say that a generalist like the chairman of the railways having no prior experience is the same as his Indian counterpart, I would be disappointed but not surprised. After all, the fact that over the last 21 years Pakistan Railways has seen 23 chairmen, none of them from Pakistan Railways, is evidence enough that many among the movers and shakers of the government machinery have been thinking likewise.

By contrast, the eligibility criteria for even being considered for appointment as the chairman of the Indian Railway Board includes being a railway officer with a year’s field experience as the general manager of a zone and two years’ residual service.

Then, the inevitable question: what makes even the minister turn back on his commitment to choose the most appropriate and most experienced man for the job? The answer lies in the lack of institutionalisation and the pervasion of oligarchy. Oligarchs stick to power positions and lobby for members of the tribe to hold on to positions of authority, come what may.

Buddha once said: “In the end what matters in life is how gracefully you let go of things not meant for you.” Bureaucrats can be anything but Buddha.

The writer is a civil servant.

syedsaadatwrites@gmail.com