Bibek Debroy: A platform sin

There is a story about Sir Charles James Napier. He was sent to Sindh (Scinde) to quell a rebellion. Instead of doing only that, he proceeded to annex Sindh. Since this exceeded his brief and he had transgressed, he sent a dispatch to his superior officer and this stated, "peccavi". In Latin, "peccavi" means "I have sinned" and hence there was a pun, "I have Scinde". This is a good pun and a lovely anecdote, but factually false. You can trace it back to Catherine Winkworth, who submitted the pun to Punch in 1844. She thought of the pun, not Napier. We can remember Sindh for another sin, if that's the word to use. In India, railways were initially built by private companies. After several mergers, in 1870, we had the Scinde, Punjab and Delhi Railways. After more mergers, in 1886, this would become North Western State Railway. The government was concerned with overcrowding on railway platforms and initially, only passengers were allowed on platforms. Those who accompanied passengers complained.

Therefore, on August 7, 1883, the government of India addressed a letter to the Bombay government. This said, "At present, as a rule, only those natives who have railway tickets are admitted on to the platform, and it has been represented that considerable inconvenience is caused by the custom generally in force, which prevents native gentlemen from being present on the platform to meet a friend or relative coming by train or to accompany him it (sic) on his departure. The Government of India fully recognised the necessity of preventing the undue crowding of railway platforms, but it is thought that the grievance complained of might be to a great extent remedied, without inconvenience to railway working, by the adoption, at the principal stations, of a system lately introduced by the Sind, Punjab and Delhi Railways at Lahore of issuing platform tickets at a small charge which might be fixed experimentally at one or two pice for each ticket." We thus know that Scinde, (Sind) Punjab and Delhi Railways were the first railways to introduce platform tickets, in Lahore. This wasn't the end of the matter, as it wasn't clear that railway authorities could bar non-ticket holders from entering platforms - tickets including platform tickets. The matter was clarified through a government of India circular dated December 20, 1883. "His Excellency, the Governor General is pleased to rule that, in future, when the Railway Authorities desire to exclude all but ticket holders from railway platforms, the intention shall be duly notified in the railway timetables, and a printed notice to that effect specifying the place where such tickets are obtainable and their cost, shall be drawn up with reference to Section 3C and 41 of the Indian Railways Act No. IV of 1879 and pasted up in a conspicuous place outside the station."

Platform tickets came to be institutionalised in this way. Do they serve much purpose? Every year, Indian Railways (IR) makes about Rs 90 crore through sales of platform tickets. Sure, Centre for Railway Information Systems (Cris) has a mobile app and railway wallet (through Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation or IRCTC) now. Using the app, Utsonmobile (unreserved ticket system on mobile), introduced in the Delhi Division on a pilot basis, you can also buy platform e-tickets, bypassing queues. South Western Railway has experimented with allowing vendors to sell mobile-based platform tickets, retaining 10 per cent of the revenue. However, in general, despite such innovations, there is the nuisance of queueing up to get hard copy platform tickets. While cost isn't a major issue, a platform ticket costs Rs 10. Instead of buying a platform ticket, I can follow the law by buying an unreserved second class ticket of Rs 3 (Rs 4 if it is suburban) to the next station. With porous entry and exit into most stations (think of peak suburban rush in Kolkata or Mumbai), can one even enforce the requirement of possessing a platform ticket? Historically, we have equated entry into stations with entry into platforms. As more and more stations are modernised, and this becomes easier for greenfield ones, why do non-passengers have to enter platforms? In the process of modernisation, food stalls and waiting areas should be moved away from platforms. In how many countries do you hang around and wait for trains on platforms? You wait in the waiting area, where your friends and relatives can also accompany you, but not on platforms. If you are old and disabled, IR will make arrangements, as they already do (and don't publicise it) and as the airlines do.

Most countries don't have platform tickets anymore. Depending on the country, most of them scrapped the practice in the second half of the 20th century. In the 19th century, trains didn't have vestibules. Ticket inspectors had to check tickets at the doors to coaches, at the time of entry. Odd though it may seem today, since trains were slow, inspectors sometimes also moved alongside a moving train, checking tickets. Therefore, you didn't want too many people milling around on platforms and restricted entry through platform tickets. This is hardly a consideration today. That Rs 90 crore is not a good enough reason.

The writer is a member of the National Institution for Transforming India Aayog. The views are personal