Recently I felt the need to undertake a journey on the railroad. While booking my tickets on the newly upgraded IRCTC app, I noticed a line written at the very bottom of the e-ticket, evidently left there in the hope of arresting the ticket purchaser’s attention, and thereby to enhance his awareness of matters concerning India’s economy, especially related to subsidies, by sharing tidbits about the country’s macroeconomic management. It read thus:

"Are you aware that 43% of your fare is borne by the common citizens of this country?"

I became curious, for I hadn’t come across this bit of trivia on another ticket which I had bought from the same app only a couple of weeks ago. Evidently it was a rather novel idea that someone in the Railway Ministry or the advertising agencies affiliated with the IRCTC had struck upon, and so clearly it had been a very recent addition on the ticket’s otherwise boring layout. Now, I was vaguely aware that a big chunk of the fare is subsidized by the exchequer, but I wasn't really on top of the exact figure of the percentage. No doubt this was a rather effective way of sensitizing the public, a query framed in the right way to vet curiosity and placed very cleverly at the right spot, too, somewhere which would not be easily missed by the customers of the IRCTC, a public sector undertaking subsidiary of the great Indian Railways: India’s national popular carrier, so to say. But this set me thinking: why, after all, do we need subsidies on train tickets? Is it because Indian Railways still remains the primary option for a large number of Indian citizens who travel the length and breadth of the country for purposes of work, to make pilgrimages and increasingly, for hopes of getting better healthcare in either New Delhi or in the Southern states, and, as a consequence, no government, however prone to reform, could not really dare to lift the subsidies on train tickets altogether, for fear of losing its share of votes from the economically middle and lower classes?

Funnily enough, the two backbones of Indian economy – of any country’s economy for that matter – i.e. healthcare and education, are on their way to full privatization whereas several big industries, telecommunication (in part) and most importantly transport remain under government control, and, as a result, are heavily dependent on subsidies. Why can't we lift subsidies from these sectors and fully allocate them to healthcare and education? My argument relies chiefly on the observation that good education and sound healthcare go on to produce more number of healthy children, and, consequently, healthy citizens. (This is based on the empirically supported premise that well-educated women, if we take them to be prospective mothers, would take better care of themselves, would do better in family planning, and, right from the time of conception, take good care of their charges too.) Together, better health and better professional training beget better chances of employability, which in turn empowers individuals to take charge of several things, chief of which would be their lifestyle. That helps ensure a steady supply of good, nutritious food on the table, and as a result, good health again. The circle of a healthy and good life thus comes a full circle. At least, the possibility for an individual to boast of good health and good vocation is increased.

Another set of plausible arguments that may go in favour of scrapping subsidies altogether from train tickets is that, on one hand, the price gap between economy flight tickets and train tickets (from 3AC onwards) is rapidly decreasing, while one the other hand roadways are becoming a more viable and safe option as India keeps getting world-class highways and lanes. In fact, the main reason behind the gradual narrowing of the gap that exists between economy-class air tickets and upper class train tickets is nothing but a rather slow process of scrapping subsidies on the latter. Even as flying gets cheaper in this country, prices of train tickets are less likely to fall. Indian Railways does not seem to look upon air carriers as a force to contend with in the travel and transport market. At least not as yet. So why not expedite the already existing process of lifting subsidies? This is a question worth asking, especially at a moment when the government seeks new ways of doing away with oil subsidies.

The Indian State’s experiment with education and healthcare in the last two decades, by way of letting privatization run amok in these two sectors has been doomed since the very beginning. This is because a State which espouses liberalism in the matters of the market must precisely recognise the sectors where competition is going to produce desirable outcomes, and where competitiveness breeds all sorts of corruption. I say ‘desirable’, by which term is implied desirability in the long run. If the State is honest enough about steering its economy toward a truly prosperous shore, it cannot afford to let the unpredictable, frivolous and random forces of the market dictate and shape these two backbones of any country’s economy, viz. education and healthcare. In fact, one of the dominant views held by even the staunchest supporters of free market economy among economists worth their salt is that economic prosperity as well as an all-round well-being of a people (taking into consideration such dynamic and effective measures as happiness index), which largely depend on an efficient management of the education and healthcare sectors, must never be subjected to unbridled market forces. These market forces and many of its shadowy agents, whose priorities lie within their own limited coteries and who are focused on only short term gratifications, can never be trusted with the building of sound human resources reserve. That goal can only be conceived by the State itself, which should, according to the codes of dharma, must fulfil its obligation towards its subjects. The welfare – and probably the only real and worthwhile kind of welfare – of the subjects of the State is ensured when they are given equal opportunities for obtaining world-class education and training (and not equality of outcome via dubious and resentment-breeding means like caste-based reservations), and at the same time they be given access to good food and healthcare services. That is compatible with dharma.   

Are we really going to mind the subsidy-less increased prices of train tickets if we are already empowered by fine education/training (which could enable us to earn enough to afford those tickets) and, after all, if we do not have to bother ourselves with the worry of finding that renowned, dependable and yet distant hospital in Chennai or New Delhi, because an AIIMS-class affordable healthcare services may be available at our doorstep? Proper allocation of funds could do the trick. Why not dare to imagine that all subsidies, that have hitherto been channelized to various goods and services, be henceforth diverted exclusively to education and healthcare – to make both of these affordable – and ensuring those who provide these services, viz. teachers and doctors/nurses respectively be paid their dues, so that  neither indulge in rampant corruption the way they lately have been, marring their noble professions, degrading the nobility of those almost sacred duties in the eyes of both their wards (students/patients) and employers? After all, that has been the dharmic view of samaja or society, in which funds from the wealthy would be (wilfully) allocated to these two kinds of professionals, so that they do not have to worry about food or shelter and may devote all their attention to teaching or healing.

If we are ever to contemplate on a resurgence of dharma, then that will have to be accompanied by a similar resurgence in artha and kama (material prosperity and gratification) which, by the way, have never been incompatible with dharma. On the contrary, dharma is supposed to be the fundamental basis on which all the other purushartha-s are founded. Therefore an honest pursuit of artha, or dharmic management of the country’s economy, could bring about real and long-term prosperity for its people that would be more sustainable than any other run-of-the-mill macroeconomic model, because it would take care of the most fundamental human needs of education and healthcare and leave the prepared, strong individual to compete in a world which will anyway be the same brutal place that it always has been.