Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

It gives me great pleasure to be with you this morning.  An invitation from my good friends, Dr. Abid Hussain and Shri Hiten Bhaya, is always difficult to resist.  I also could not let this opportunity pass when a subject of great relevance and importance is being deliberated upon by such a galaxy of distinguished representatives from so many countries.  I had the good fortune of working in some of these countries as a representative of India and I cherish fond memories of my close association with them.  I extend my warm welcome to all of you, particularly to our friends from abroad, who have come all the way to attend this conference.

We are meeting at a time when the role of government in the economic ordering of society is undergoing, almost everywhere, change and redefinition.  There is now a consensus emerging that the quantum of government interventions must reduce, while their quality must improve and that the State must concentrate its resources and energies in vital areas of social infrastructure and human development, while allowing maximum freedom to private enterprise and entrepreneurs in the fields of industry, commerce and trade.  In the developing countries also, irrespective of political ideology, there is now a growing consensus that competition is the most powerful instrument for inducing efficiency in economic activities.

I do not, however, subscribe to the view that the old ideas of social justice have become irrelevant in this new context either in the developing or in the developed countries.  Issues of equity and distributive justice are fundamental to our societies.  What has changed is our thinking on the role of the State in ensuring these.  To my mind there is no role for the State and, for that matter, for the free enterprise, that is fixed and immutable for all stages of economic development and for all time.  Their role is bound to change, at least in emphasis, depending on the technological and economic stage, and on the state of consciousness and the needs and demands of the people.  There are objective situations in which the State has no alternative but to assume strategic responsibility for economic development, and thereafter leave it mainly to private enterprise and free market forces to perform the job.  Mere public ownership and management would not make the economy productive and efficient, nor is there any guarantee that private enterprise per se would produce such results.  Growth is essential to meet basic needs. 

Countries that underemphasized growth found themselves in course of time, caught in a trap.  Similarly, countries that had a blind pre-occupation with growth also found themselves under great strain.  Jawaharlal Nehru judiciously chose what he called the path of mixed economy to stimulate overall economic development in the conditions prevailing in India at the time.  He realised that the imperatives of efficiency that are manifest in a market economy need to be wedded to the concerns of equity that are inherent in a socialist framework.  To-day all economies are, perhaps, mixed economies of one kind or another, though the proportions of the mixture may vary from case to case.

In the emerging economic climate, the role of the State is being redefined.  It is felt that it should provide an enabling and facilitative environment in which growth can take place unhindered.  But, to my mind, this role should not be just passive and restricted to formulating a set of rules and regulations to ensure that competition is free and fair.  In many areas, the State should not just be an umpire, but should also be an active player and participant.  With the advance of democracy people expect the State to be not just an onlooker but an instrument for promoting their welfare or facilitating the promotion of their welfare.  Education, health, nutrition, creation of infrastructure like roads and railways, are areas where private investment has, in my view, a limited albeit an important role, and where the State has to play even a more positive role than before.  Transport is one of the areas of infrastructure where increased public investment is called for.

Transport planners have tended to focus almost exclusively on the modern segment.  But there is a large traditional sector, rural as well as semi-urban, where technological improvements have by-passed the people.  For instance in India only about sixty per cent of the villages have all-weather roads.  There is no other agency except that of the government that can ensure that this basic facility will reach all the villages, even though we have now decided to allow private enterprise to take on the work of building roadways.  Transportation in the rural areas are still predominantly dependent on the old bullock cart.  They need bullocks and carts for their economic survival.  No wonder Mahatma Gandhi once said "If I had the power I would build new roads that would benefit both man and beast".  But technological advancement has unfortunately by-passed this sector.  Though people made various experiments in a technologically improved bullock cart no one has succeeded in developing one that is applicable to village conditions and acceptable to the people.  Perhaps the urban bias prevalent in planning everywhere is responsible for this neglect.  Manufacturers have fixed their sights on the automobile.  I may add that the bulk of the advanced and sophisticated technological developments in the world to-day is geared to the ever multiplying wants of the affluent elite.

Equally important is the need to strengthen the public transport systems rather than making investments in personalised transport only.  I have no doubt that as our countries urbanise faster, which is inevitable, the need for providing effective public transport systems will become more critical.  This issue, I feel, needs to be addressed on an urgent basis.  In addition, the State will have to play an activist role to extend transport networks to backward regions.  Transport systems tend to get concentrated in a few areas reflecting perhaps lop-sided distribution of growth within our countries.  Transport creates its own demand for economic activity.  It stimulates new investment.  Our country, and I believe most Asian countries, will hum with economic activity only when the countryside and backward regions are opened up through road and rail transport.  In a vast country like India rail transport is  most important and it is only the State that can develop it rapidly.  When we talk about economic liberalization and opening up let us recognize that it is only a far-flung and closely knit network of transport system that can enable the opening up in an effective sense.

While we plead for a widespread system of transport we must not be oblivious of the environmental implications of the development of this sector.  It is said that transport constitutes the arteries of a nation.  Let us not block the arteries by pollution and environmental degradation.  Since transport sector is highly energy intensive, it must be recognized that vehicular pollution is causing a grave threat to environment.  Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, had once lamented the deterioration of environment that he saw when he travelled on a road in the forest areas of the Chamba valley in Himachal Pradesh.  In a letter to the Chief Ministers he wrote on 5th August, 1954, "It is essential that the interior of these mountains should be opened out by roads and I am pressing for it all the time.  But at the back of my mind there is a feeling of sadness at the motor car or lorry coming, puffing and hooting, and somehow desecrating the virgin forest, and perhaps interfering also in other ways with the charm of this mountain country".

To prevent pollution and deterioration of environment through the burgeoning development of the transport sector we have to incorporate into our modern means of transport environment-friendly technologies now available in the world.  We have to assign sufficient funds for necessary R & D activities and the developed world has the responsibility to transfer such technologies under an international assistance scheme.

The present is the age of regional co-operation.  A major characteristic of all regional co-operation efforts is the desire to promote intra-regional trade.  It is in this context that I wish to take this opportunity to underscore the importance of maintaining the momentum of building intra-country transport linkages.  It is my conviction that countries of the Asia-Pacific region must enlarge the area of trade and co-operation among themselves.  Within our own region, namely SAARC, the volume of intra-country trade is woefully low.  There are numerous possibilities for co-operation in the areas of commodity flows, energy, water resources, transpaort and science and technology that can be effectively exploited for the benefit of all.

It is now well recognised that development of balanced regional transport linkages is essential for facilitating economic growth.  This has all the greater importance for land-locked countries.  The fuller benefits of the infrastructure facilities, however, cannot be realised unless parallel measures are also taken to improve trade and transit logistics.  There is need to take a broader approach taking into account both physical as well as policy and institutional measures to develop integrated transport services.

Regional co-operation ought not to be seen in terms of government-to-government contacts alone.  As liberalisation proceeds further, I believe non-government organisations will assume a greater role and responsibility and act as effective bridgeheads between the realm of ideas and the world of action.  NGOs can be more flexible and innovative in doing this.  The Asian Institute of Transport Development, I feel, is a commendable initiative outside the government sector.  I am sure it will be able to sustain itself as a catalyst for regional co-operation, as a mechanism for exchange of ideas and experience  and also as a lever for bringing peoples of various countries together transcending political and other barriers.  I am glad that Shri K.L. Thapar, Director of the Institute, has taken a most important initiative and made a major contribution towards this end.

I remember a study conducted under the auspices of the Brookings Institution, USA in 1969 on Transport and Communications in India.  The author of the study Mr. Wilfred Owen had suggested the setting up of a Centre for Transport and Development which would be affiliated to the U.N.  He concluded :

"In view of the totality of the transport system and its pervasive influence on development, the absence of an appropriate transport programme is inconsistent with the objectives of international co-operation and development.  For it is now abundantly clear that transport cannot be looked upon merely as an isolated problem, but is an integral part of other efforts to narrow the gap between rich countries and poor."

This Conference has brought together policy-makers and specialists from so many countries, eager to exchange their knowledge and experience for the common good.  I am sure the deliberations of the conference would help in focussing on the basic issues in the transport sector for contributing to balanced and sustainable development.  I wish the conference all success.

Thank you