A sense of deja vu

In 1927-28, the Indian Road Development Committee, chaired by M R Jayakar, had implicitly thought of a multi-layered network of roads, main roads and feeder roads

To understand the way road development evolved, one should read the 1908 Imperial Gazetteer. “On the other hand, the necessity of maintaining a right of way and providing security to life and property on frequented routes was never lost sight of; and the Mughal emperors, in particular, concerned themselves to mark out and guard the routes most used by the caravans which carried traders and goods from one end of India to another…The roads were generally guarded at intervals by posts (chaukis); between the chaukis the tracks were marked out by stones, pillars, or avenues of trees. The zamindars through whose lands the roads ran provided watchmen (chaukidars) and were allowed to levy a small toll on the passing traffic. The amalguzars, or magistrates, were responsible for all goods stolen within their jurisdiction. The security thus given was probably fairly efficient; for when, towards the close of the eighteenth century, Jonathan Duncan, then Resident at Benares, abolished the chauki fees on the roads leading to Benares, the merchants at first objected on the ground that they would prefer to go on paying rather than run the risk of being robbed.” The zamindars had responsibilities that were more than safety and security. “In the Bengal Presidency the duty of opening and maintaining local roads was imposed on the zamindars; and, under Regulations VII of 1822 and IX of 1833, a cess of 1 per cent, on all temporarily settled estates was levied, in order to form a “road fund” to defray the necessary expenses. Any surplus accruing from this fund, after the supply of local needs, was applied to the improvement of main roads.” Thus, the idea of a road cess isn’t that new.

Illustration by Binay Sinha

The road development responsibility had layers in it. “The reports made by the Bengal Board to the Governor-General from 1841 to 1849 show clearly the chaotic conditions under which the provision and maintenance of the principal roads were then carried out. The actual work was effected by the Provincial authorities through their own officers; and funds were supplied, sometimes directly by the Supreme Government, sometimes by the Local Government, and on occasion partly by Government and partly by the zamindars and traders directly interested, sometimes even by donations from the great nobles and Rajas whose territories were traversed by the roads in question.” Even when there was a shift in responsibility towards the government, there was quite a bit of decentralisation.

“Another great factor in stimulating the construction and upkeep of roads has been the extension of local self-government… The number of municipalities which are responsible for the upkeep of roads within their limits was largely increased between 1860 and 1870, and their powers were considerably enhanced in pursuance of the policy of local control over local affairs initiated by Lord Mayo in 1870-1 and developed by Lord Ripon in 1881-4. As a result, too, of these latter measures, most Provinces of British India are now provided with District and Sub-District boards, whose primary duty it is to apply the funds at their disposal from the land-cess and other sources of local income to the maintenance and improvement of local communications. Accordingly, just as the substitution of Provincial Public Works Departments for the old Military Boards, and the financial decentralisation effected by Lord Mayo and Lord Lytton1, enabled the Government of India to transfer most of the responsibility for road work to the Local Governments, so the extension of local self-government carried the process of decentralization a step farther, and enabled the Provincial Governments to delegate a large portion of their functions in this respect to District boards. In each case the extension of local control was accompanied by considerable improvement in local communications.”

The details may differ. But even then, there was a classification of roads. “With the constitution of a suitable organization to look after the business of road-building and maintenance, a methodical classification of existing and future roads became necessary, and all roads are now classed as follows: Class I. Metalled. (a) With bridges or ferries, and drained throughout. (b) Partially bridged and drained. Class II. Unmetalled. (a) With bridges or ferries, and drained throughout. (b) Partially bridged and drained. Class III. Banked and surfaced, but not drained. Class IV. Banked, but not surfaced: partially bridged and drained. Class V. Cleared, and partially bridged and drained. Class VI. Cleared only. Most of the Class I (a) roads, and some of the others, have avenues of trees planted along them; and although it is no longer necessary to build chaukidari huts on the main routes, it is usual to provide rest-houses and sarais for travelers along all roads on which the amount of traffic justifies the expenditure.” 

In 1927-28, there was an Indian Road Development Committee, chaired by M R Jayakar. The Jayakar Committee’s recommendations led to the setting up (in 1934) of the Indian Roads Congress (IRC), the apex body of highways engineers. In 1943, a conference of the chief engineers of all the States was held in Nagpur and this led to the Nagpur Plan, for road development between 1943 and 1963. The Jayakar Committee had implicitly thought of a multi-layered network of roads, main roads and feeder roads. The Nagpur Plan endorsed this and made the implicit classification explicit — (a) National Highways; (b) State Highways; (c) major district roads; (d) minor district roads; and (e) village roads. There is a sense of déjà vu.

The author is chairman, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. Views are personal.