Sound indeed may be the administrative and economic factors behind the decision to junk the 92-year-old practice of a separate Railway budget. Yet, from a parliamentary perspective the merger with the General budget could “rob” the apex legislature of one of its most passionate debates. The government has promised an exhaustive discussion in Parliament along with functional autonomy for what still remains the nation&’s premier transportation system, but it will require as Herculean a performance from Mr Suresh Prabhu to keep the debate pitched at its traditional level as injecting commercial efficiency into the “iron horse”. The Railway budget, even more than the higly authoritative Economic Survey, had come to be seen as offering an insight into what was in store in the General budget, and the debate served as a curtain-raiser on the subsequent transaction of national financial business.

The process of de-mystifying the budgetary processes has been long advocated: the debates in Parliament have been a casualty. The re-scheduling of the presentation of the General budget has also contributed to the “event” losing its flair — no longer are the galleries filled with celebrities, many suitably attired to rush to the cocktail circuit and proudly declare “I was there…”

Perhaps the greatest value of the railway debate — which is in risk of losing its flavour — was that it reconfirmed the social role of the “permanent way” in the lives of ordinary citizens. The intense participation both in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha left neither the minister, nor the officials in their “box”, in any doubt of the importance of their job — and sometimes brought out how poorly they were executing it. It is true that only a handful of speakers actually scrutinised the functioning of the system and the focus was on demands for new trains, new lines, more stoppages, improved ticketing facilities, augmented water supply, improved food etc — still the fact that members often sat late to make their demands confirmed that those who had elected them expected them to make “their case”. Some ministers also relished the occasion: Madhavrao Scindia was at his elegant height, Lalu Prasad&’s earthy brand of humour flowed in abundance and Mamata Banerjee was ever ready for a scrap. Frequently there were calls to battle stations as members alleged their regions were victims of political discrimination, and accused ministers of pampering their constituencies — Malda being a classic case.

Angry scenes were often witnessed and many a minister actually lost his/her “cool”. And one poor fellow was “axed” by his party when he proposed an increase in passenger fares. In theory much of that could continue, in reality Parliament may be deprived of an animated annual fiesta. “Efficiency” might prove a killjoy.