As a general principle, if you are sure about facts and arguments, be precise. If you are unsure, be vague. In this letter, on other matters, the railway federations and associations (RFAs) quote specific paragraphs, but not on RPF. The committee had an interim report (end-March) and a final report (mid-June). Paragraph 3.2 of the interim report stated, "For the GRP, this Committee feels that since IR has no control over GRP, State governments should be persuaded to bear the entire cost, not just 50%... It is also worth mentioning that there are instances of RPF functions already being outsourced... There is no reason to burden IR with the costs of maintaining a RPF or RPSF. This Committee thus advocates the delinking of RPF from the IR system. This is not necessarily a recommendation for dismantling the RPF, per se, but to considerably downsize and bring in private security for protection of Railway property... So far as IR is concerned, given the task of ensuring security on a train, the general manager (GM) of the zone should be free to use private security agencies or even the RPF, on contractual terms."
Thus, as this quote shows, the letter represents both suppressio veri and suggestion falsi. No one had said anything about RPF being discontinued, and I challenge the RFAs to cite a paragraph and prove me wrong. In fact, two points were being made. First, delink RPF from Indian Railways (IR) and make it something like Central Industrial Security Force. Second, give the GM the right to decide whether some elements of railway security can be outsourced to other than RPF.
In the final report, in paragraph 2.2, a couple of sentences were taken out, the ones about delinking RPF from IR. Why? Why was there an interim report? The interim report was meant to obtain feedback, including from within the IR system. There is a long list of people from within the IR system who were consulted, before the interim report became a final one. That list is appended to the final report, so RFAs cannot feign ignorance - assuming they have read the final report. Therefore, the committee members were aware of this "cardinal principle" of change management and the assertion in the RFA letter is patently false. I have mentioned excision. The only sentence added in the final report was about choice of security being given not only to GMs, but also divisional railway managers (DRMs).
Outsiders are always unaware and ignorant. Let me now quote from Standing Order No. 88, signed by the director-general, RPF, Railway Board, on 15 May 2009 (No. 2003/Sec(E)/PO-2/5). "There is tremendous burden on the personnel of the Force and it is felt desirable to identify non-core areas of railway security which may be handed over to outside agencies so that RPF can utilise available resources to the best possible extent for the core areas of railway security which cannot be handed over to any non-government agency." As non-core areas of railway security, the order mentions railway hospitals, cycle/motor cycle stands, railway colonies, railway stores, railway stadiums, GM/DRM offices/residences, other railway offices etc. "These above mentioned activities may be outsourced to private security agencies." There is an additional list, including stations, where the order recommends use of home guards. Since processes are prescribed for engaging private security guards and private security agencies, including finalisation of tender documents, in 2009, this was evidently regarded as non-controversial and fait accompli. This is indeed what the committee has also recommended, nothing more and nothing less.
Hence, some questions arise. First, do RFAs not know about this history? If they don't, or conveniently suffer from amnesia, shouldn't it be a "cardinal principle" to become aware? How can supposed outsiders know more than insiders? Second, if they didn't protest in 2009, why is there a hue and cry about it now? Third, if RFAs know about this history and buy the logic (which explains the lack of protest in 2009), isn't signing of such a letter a betrayal of trust of not just the country, but the IR system too?
I have picked RPF, but I can write a similar piece on each item that figures in the RFA letter. It seems to me that the RFAs have quite a bit of explaining to do. The committee has been transparent and some reciprocity is expected.
The writer, a member of the National Institution for Transforming India, was head of the Railway Reform Committee. The views are his own.