Continued from here

The root cause with several nations such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or even Pakistan, is that they are still kingdoms, and have not transformed themselves into modern democratic nations. There remains no way to govern them apart from a totalitarian and dictatorial government. [The fact that Pakistan is a kingdom, not a nation unequivocally explains why Pakistan’s history has been marred with coups and why the nation goes into tizzies of instability every time a ‘democratic’ government rules it.]

The problem with kingdoms is that kingdoms cannot be multipolar, they exist because there is supremacy of one and only one force at any time - as Jean Bodin's concept of absolute sovereign commands. If that force is not a monarch or military dictator, there ensues a war between various factions to become that 'one force' which would govern the kingdom.

One of the reasons why Pakistan has seen so many bloody coups is that it was not gifted with the vision of ‘secular’ multiculturalism which is the only way for a diverse society to function without conflict. The two nation theory is not incorrect just because it talks of existence of two nations based on religion; it is more incorrect because it limits itself to just ‘two nations’. The Pathans, Punjabis, Sindhis, Pukhtuns, and now even the Muhajirs are each a ‘sub-nation’ in themselves, but left alone they will keep fighting among themselves for the want of a territory.

Similarly, the Shias and Sunni's of Iran-Iraq-Syria are two sub-nations each within the same geographical boundaries of these nations; so are the Arabs and Jews in Israel-Palestine. Unlike the Christian unity which bonds the whole of West, East has several such 'pseudo-nations' each juxtaposed over complex geographical boundaries. Each one of these 'nations' (mistakenly) seeks a territory for themselves just like Jinnah and his followers sought a Pakistan for the 'Muslim nation' within India.

However, even they are unaware that a territory is not what they seek - they seek an identity - they seek a system which recognizes that they while being a part of a larger Pakistan or Israel, are still a unique civil society in themselves with their own unique cultural and historical heritage. This story is not entirely unique to Pakistan or Israel - it holds true for many other multicultural nations where different communities are in a perpetual struggle for identities. It applies to Iraq's Shia and Sunni majority-minority combine and to Israel-Palestine's Jew-Arab populace, it applies to Lebanon which is "a mosaic of closely interrelated cultures" [reference], it even applies to North and South Korea!

This may seem like a simplification, but it should not deter us from trying out the Indian model as a solution to end the strife which has been depriving mankind of galloping ahead at a rapid pace towards being a happy race. The governance systems can differ but replicating the principles of multiculturalism and secularism; using the governance quirks of federalism and shared identity can help the multicultural East to replicate the prosperity of the West.

The Indian constitution is a living experiment, and a successful one at that, as to how a federal system of governance can be used to create such a multicultural and secular system which empowers every faction and every community while not resting power into any one of them at the same time.

Concluded.

This post is a part of the series Problems of Middle East and the Indian model as a solution

Continued from here 
The consolidation the territorial boundaries was only half the job done – what was in the hands of the provisional government in 1947-49 was just a kingdom and not a Nation. The forging of a nation from this kingdom required visionary wisdom and unflinching determination to principle of ‘multi-cultural’ nationalism.

Operationally, the issue of sub-nationalities was resolved by instituting a pseudo-federal governance system. ‘Pseudo’ because unlike an ideal federal system, the ‘union’ or whole was not made up of the smaller ‘states’.

Upholding the original territories (some of them governed by Royalties) and ‘combining’ them to form the nation would have been disastrous.

It would have meant allowing each state to have its own territorial borders, and a deluge of pacts and negotiations to freeze them – which would have broken down time and again, sinking the region into perpetual strife.

Instead, the first step was, to consolidate all military power with the Union and entrusting it with protection of the borders with neighbouring countries. In effect this meant that the sub-nationalities that composed India had to give up their ‘sovereignty’ in favour of a ‘shared sovereignty’ of the Union.

Notably, ‘shared sovereignty’ would be an oxymoron as per Jean Bodin, yet was the only way to maintain (minority) rights for each sub-nationality, while continuing to forge a single nation out of them.

The next step was designing a constitution that would allow peoples to maintain their communities and yet not create a ‘divide’ between them. One of the systemic features introduced by the constitution was the clerical task of dividing responsibilities between the ‘State governments’ and the ‘Union government’.

This mundane looking step was a leap towards providing ‘cultural’ security to different sections and subsections while keeping the territorial tendencies of the communities at bay. So while a state could decide what language students would learn within their boundaries - they could not decide ‘what’ those boundaries would be.

The division of responsibilities was done very astutely leaving all functions of a ‘Civil Society’ to local governments and awarding all territorial responsibilities not only for the national borders but even state borders to the Union as a whole.

Foreign Relations and Military Development thus automatically became a Union subject ruling out possibility any foreign intervention in deciding intra-union territorial disputes.

Another major quirk of the Indian system was that the Union government was elected directly by the people and thus was in not affected by the ‘loyalties’ or allegiances of the ‘state governments’ towards it.
This averted all possibilities of allowing a ‘state’ to rebel against the Union because even the people of the state had voted to bring about the government against whom the rebellion would be directed. Article 360 which empowers the Union Government to dismiss a State Government is the explicit manifestation of these principles.

While this all might seem too obvious, it was not so and a living example of the failure to invent and implement such careful systemic balances, is the neighbouring country of Pakistan.

Given that Pakistan was created on the basis of the two-nation theory, there was no way any other cultural subsections could be accepted in the Pakistani polity. Since Pakistan was now ‘one’ nation – how could it have many others within itself? The nonchalant acceptance of the two-nation theory resulted in Pakistan continuing to remain a kingdom which could never forge into becoming a nation.

Coming back to the Indian constitution – it delivered satisfactory results for the people. People were now guaranteed a peaceful existence wherein they could practice their own culture and customs – while not harming the others’.

The Federal system has today matured with the intermingling of the peoples – so that now you have Tamilians of Delhi, Marathis of MP, Saurashtrians of Karnataka and Marwadis of Bengal, Punjabis of Assam - all practicing their customs irrespective of their locations - but voting for state governments in their respective states and for the Union government as a whole.

What this effectively means is that the sub-nationalities that the different ‘states’ originally represented, have now been deconstructed and converted into cultural communities, which not only can coexist in the same space, also intermingle and create new sub-cultures .
They are fast approaching a stage where they will no more need territorial boundaries for their fortification; as a result every state is fast becoming a microcosm of the Union itself and India is fast becoming a nation of many minorities and a single majority – a majority of multiculturalists.

The nature of the Union too has been transformed. Coalition politics has brought upon the regional political parties getting a stake in the Union ministries. It is notable here that a similar arrangement - where ministers are apportioned in accord with party strengths in the assembly rather than the ‘winner-take-all’ approach - has been formally adopted in Northern Ireland as a part of the Good Friday accord with the Irish republic.

This is one scenario where the Indian constitution did not invent a systemic change but did provide a strong base for its voluntary evolution.

[There have been however, lapses in proper implementation of the constitution at some places which have led to many problems like the resurgence of casteist and communal mafia, remnants of territorial struggles. But these must be seen strictly as failures in implementation than design of the system.]

During the Raj, the British did make some efforts to unify the whole mass in some ways (like establishing railway and postal systems), primarily to suit their commercial needs, but the basic fabric remained as divided till 1947 as it was in 1857.

In words of Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India under the British Raj,”The political system of India is neither feudalism nor federation. It is embodied in no constitution and bears no resemblance to a league.” In fact, before leaving, the British gashed a new divide within the subcontinent - the ‘two nation theory’.

If the partition was an injury, several more potential wounds lay ahead of independent India in 1947. With the region left in a fragmented mess of erstwhile royalties, ethnic territories and tribal ghettos - India was far from being a Nation State.

The biggest problem that confronted the makers and visionaries of the new India was - How to create a system that would satisfy aspirations of each individual in this diverse universe of identities and heritage? How to unify the many minorities without breaking the country into small parts?

The answer lay in deconstructing Bodinean sovereignty and creation of a unique Union of many minorities and no majority.

Many allege that the Indian constitution is a copy of the British and American systems; if at all there is truth in the allegation, it’s the most intelligent and well customised copy ever made.

While the vision and goals eschewed by the Indian constitution are remarkably similar if not exactly the same to those of the western world but never had any of the Western Democracies, to face such a complex concoction of communities as in India.

The amount of diversity that the makers of the European Union find difficult to handle even today was faced by the makers of the Indian Union 50 years ago.
The promise of the Indian constitution lay in its two aspects – respect for diversity and vision of integrity. The leaders of the provisional government of 1947 realized that India would go back to being a land of small territories warring amongst each other if the two nation theory was allowed to fork into a multi-nation theory.

After all India of 1947 ideally did have multiple nations in it. The mild sympathy that separatist organizations like the LTTE get from few supporters by appealing for Tamil Sub nationalism, or political parties like Shiv Sena get for Marathi Sub Nationalism are evidences that sub-national sentiments could have ran much higher in 1947, had they not been controlled.

It was the vision and mettle of leaders like Vallabh Bhai Patel that averted the break-up of the subcontinent further into splinters of micro-nationalities.

Here’s what Wikipedia says on India’s Political Integration:

“The Instruments of Accession were limited, transferring control of only three matters to India, and would by themselves have produced a rather loose federation, with significant differences in administration and governance across the various states. Full political integration, in contrast, would require a process whereby the political actors in the various states were "persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations, and political activities towards a new center," namely, the Republic of India.
“This was not an easy task. Whilst some princely states such as Mysore had legislative systems of governance that were based on a broad franchise and not significantly different from those of British India, in others, political decision-making took place in small, limited aristocratic circles and governance was, as a result, at best paternalistic and at worst the result of courtly intrigue.
“Having secured the accession of the princely states, the Government of India between 1948 and 1950 turned to the task of welding the states and the former British provinces into one polity under a single republican constitution.
“Older historians such as Lumby, take the view that the princely states could not have survived as independent entities after the transfer of power, and that their demise was inevitable. They therefore view successful integration of all princely states into India was a triumph for the Government of India and Lord Mountbatten, and as a tribute to the sagacity of the majority of princes, who jointly achieved in a few months what the Empire had attempted, unsuccessfully, to do for over a century - unite all of India under one rule”

Continued

This post is a part of the series Problems of Middle East and the Indian model as a solution

Continued from here

With similar culture and past India has developed a vibrant democracy which functions without conflict (bombings in Syria, Iraq, Egypt or Lebanon are no comparison to the problems of Naxalism or Communal tensions we see in India), with a unfettered record of elections and democratically elected governments, and with an unprecedented record of development.

So, what makes India tick which most other Eastern nations experimenting with democracy lack? The answer may lie in this column by Sidin Vadukut which explains how the Indian delegation to help resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict in 1947 proposed setting up of a federal republic instead of the two-nation Israel-Gaza-West Bank state that struggles in conflict today. I quote:

India, Iran and Yugoslavia, instead, proposed a minority plan that would avoid partition: “An independent federal State of Palestine shall be created following a transitional period not exceeding three years. The independent Federal State of Palestine shall comprise an Arab state and a Jewish state.” The proposal goes on to describe how this structure—at first glance somewhat similar to the Indian Centre-State system—would work.

What was not implemented in Israel in the November of '47, was however implemented a few months later in India itself - a federal democratic republic, which housed multiple ethnic groups, cultures, religions and sects.

Unlike the popular perception in the West – the term India or Indians do not refer to one single group of people’s like the English or French. The term Indian is as broad as the term ‘European’ representing an ethnic class composed of several sub communities. In fact, the term ethnic class is also incorrect because over 500 years of immigration and invasions have resulted in India being home to several ethnic groups.

More interestingly the Indian ethnic tribe is divided into several overlapping sections like nationality, religion, linguistic community, regional communities, and caste/sub-castes. Unlike Europe where nationality, linguistic identity and community overlap almost exactly, among Indians they do not.

In fact the most evident distinction, nationality, transcends over linguistic and communal identities. Sri Lankans can be Tamil, so can be Indian nationals, Pakistanis can be Punjabi, Sindhi, etc, so would be Indian nationals. Bangladeshis are Bengalis, so are many Indian nationals!

Even within the Indian nationality people can be classified into religious and sectarian sections like Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and several small tribal sects. Then come linguistic distinctions – Hindi, Marathi, Bengali, Punjabi, Oriya, Assamese, Kannads, Malayali, Telugu, Kashmiris, Dogris and so on. And finally each of these is also marred by the age-old caste distinctions and economic classification. All these sections co-exist creating a complex mesh of sensitivities, variety, cultural orientations and beliefs.

The biggest achievement of the Indian constitution has been its use of Federal government structure to resolve 'ethnic' differences. While the US may claim to be the first to have used the federal structure, the makers of the Indian constitution used it most effectively to combine a divided people into one nation.

How did the Indian constitution's use the Federal government model to melt divided identities into a united nationality?

Read on for more

This post is a part of the series Problems of Middle East and the Indian model as a solution

Israel and Gaza Image Credit: Amir Farshad Ebrahimi via flickr

Since the past 3 decades, the US has tried (unsuccessfully) to spread, its model of capitalist democracy to the rest of the world. Most of Europe is already subservient to the the US interests; in several cases the interests of the West, which includes US and Europe both, are common - for example Oil interests in Middle East. But, economic interests aside, the US has failed utterly in its political goal of establishing 'US style' democracies in Afghanistan first, and then Iraq. And while these two new wars were waged, settled and then sizzled again, the Israel-Palestine conflict shows no signals of subsiding.

Many people here might be running a SoHo and might have faced the problem of either restricting access to certain websites or simply to channelize all internet traffic through a common internet pipe. When a friend of mine - a non-tech entrepreneur - asked me on how he can achieve this, I went into writing him an email (with multiple embedded links) explaining how to use a Proxy Server to achieve the above. Below is a reproduction for everyone to use:

If you are using a NetGear router, the router itself might have the setting for restricting users from accessing certain sites - check this http://www.netgear.com/lpc or this link http://documentation.netgear.com/wndr3300/enu/202-10301-01/pdfs/Content.pdf - Page 3-1 Blocking Access to Internet Sites

If your router does not have these features then use the method below:

Task 1: Install a Proxy Server on your server machine or any other powerful machine

1. Download CCproxy from this link http://www.youngzsoft.net/ccproxy/proxy-server-download.htm 
2. Install CCProxy with Admin account on a server or any powerful PC you choose as the Gateway PC 
3. Run CCproxy and configure it - read the PDF manual to block specific file types (like exe) or block specific sites (Download manual from here: http://www.youngzsoft.net/ccproxy/download/ccproxy8.0.pdf) 

Task 2

1. Option 1 - Change your Router's setting to only allow the Server to access the internet and disable all other PCs from accessing internet. This will need to be done on the Router's settings and the method will depend on which router you use. For NetGear - check this link http://documentation.netgear.com/wndr3300/enu/202-10301-01/pdfs/Content.pdf - Page 3-3 Blocking Access to Internet Services 
2. Option 2 - Add password to Administrator/Default account on user PC and create Standard user accounts for users to use. 
1. To add password to Admin/ default account - read this http://www.wikihow.com/Set-Administrator-Password 
2. To create Standard user accounts, read this: 
• For Windows 7: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee623984(v=ws.10).aspx 
• For Windows XP: https://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/ua_user_add.mspx?mfr=true (For Step 4, Choose Limited User option) 

Task 3: (Only if you choose Option 2 in Task 2 above) Disable IE settings changes to Standard users.

2013 has possibly been the busiest year of my life till date; it was busy as hell and the hangover still persists.

The year started with a Baby Shower in mid January, after which Divya went to her parent's place - beginning a persistent nomadic life for me for more than 6 months. I would dash through the week, managing groceries, maids and bills and run off to either Indore or Pune over weekends to spend alternate weekends with Divya or my parents. If there were weekends when I would be in Mumbai, there would be enough office work piled over to catch up.

I spent several train and bus journeys working on my laptop sitting in awkward positions, and being the source of the dim (and for my co-passengers - irritating -) light emanating from my laptop screen. I have been on con-calls at all kinds of odd places - the hospital, highway Dhabas, on way to Mumbai-Pune expressway and Food Plaza on the expressway near Lonavla. Also spent several Monday's coming back from work and going straight to the bed.

To cut the story short - along the way Navyaa was born, adding a few joyous sleepless Saturday nights as well, when I was at Indore and she wouldn't sleep the whole night. Both me and Divya would try till wee hours of the morning, finally giving up and handing over the baton to Divya's mother.

Sometime in June, it seemed that this "travel" rush would end when Divya would return to Mumbai; but the ship's course suddenly went into a reroute. We fixed Abhi's marriage on the very next day of Navyaa's naming ceremony and the circle started again - trips to Pune helping my parents plan for the wedding. And so it went all the way till the marriage in December.

The last 3 months have been tiring, and more so trying - while the preparation of marriage was midway - I lost my beloved grandmother. I was her eldest grandson, and probably the most loved; she meant a lot to me - in more ways than being a grandmother. This was my first close personal loss and made me realize the importance of spiritual awakening in life. Truth to be told, I realized that I am far away from being what the Gita calls [Chapter 12, Verse 13-14] - "समदुःखसुखः क्षमी" - "alike in grief and joy".

---

While my life took these several turns, almost like a bus crossing a circuitous route filled with ghats - public life in India has also seen a lot of change, not necessarily in 2013, but definitely in the past 3 years. 2013 in particular saw the retirement of Sachin Tendulkar, the man who has defined so much for India since the 90s, a man whose career graph can also be said to be analogous to that of the Indian economy.

The past few years have seen a lot of icons of the last 50 years pass away - Bollywood legends like Rajesh Khanna, Dev Anand, Yash Chopra; parallel music icons maestros like Manna Dey, Jagjit Singh; the world lost Nelson Mandela this year. It is as if, the first few years of the 2010 decade are trying to wake us up to the fact that the new millennium is already 10% over and its time for the old guard to retire and a new guard to take over.

This is not all - we saw the rise of people's movements across the globe from Syria to Egypt to Turkey; even a communist, authoritarian and centrally controlled China saw public outburst against Bo Xilai turning him from a modern day warlord to a corrupt criminal. There was groundswell in America as well for Barack Obama, as was the public outburst in UK against Gordon Brown. India saw the rise of public protests over apathy of politicians towards key issues like women's safety and widespread corruption - a groundswell which led to the formation of the 'Aam Aadmi Party' (AAP), which is poised to turn tables in the next general election in 2014 in the world's largest democracy.

---

These two threads of my personal life and developments in public life have been intertwining in my mind in the last few days and there's a voice which calls out ....

the days of trying are over, take control, your time is here;
the days of taking comfort in being an apprentice are over;
the old guard is no more there to guide you,
beware life is uncharted territory now;
the world is your playground now,
but it is no more a child's play;
Rise up to the occasion, or fade into oblivion,
Shut up and live a life of silent comfort
or have your say and save the day.

2014 clearly looks to me as a watershed - I hope, it will mark a point where a whole generation will mature to take control and another will fade away into past, yet, taking solace in the knowledge that the world is now entrusted into better hands!

Amen.

As we approach 2014, the din of election rhetoric grows louder - the media and general public discourse alike get influenced by what the politicians put forward and portray. In such an atmosphere, while it is imperative that the real issues should boil to the surface, to the contrary, personality clashes and rhetorical debates will take center stage. One such debate being pushed to forth by the BJP is the comparison's between their PM candidate Narendra Modi and Congress (not yet announced) probable candidate Rahul Gandhi.

There are those who accept this contest as one of personalities, and even try to justify the ideological bankruptcy of Rahul Gandhi as his style of leadership; however most commentators concede [1, 2, 3] that Modi triumphs Gandhi in most sphere's of personality comparisons. Gandhi on his part has tried hard to break the jinx on him; he tried to instill internal democracy within the party, spoke several times against the party's decisions supporting/abetting/condoning corruption, and tried creating a industry friendly image. However, all his efforts - especially the ones aimed towards setting a stand against corruption - are likely to backfire.

The malaise within the Congress party is neither Rahul Gandhi or his mother, nor are their socialist ideals, and neither is the purported "dynastic politics". In fact, 'dynastic politics' is not a cause but a symptom of all that is wrong within the Congress party. The malaise within the Congress came to the fore during the 1996 crisis, when Sitaram Kesri's interventions brought the Congress party to near demise. This malaise is the triumvirate of corruption, opportunism and muscle politics.

Several layers below the national leadership, but starting, in some cases, at the very second rung of leadership lie the powerful satraps of the Congress party, whose very existence thrives on the muscle power they exude in their regions of influence. When I say muscle, I don't necessarily refer to goons and thugs - it transcends beyond goons to strong influences in local bodies, legal systems and police force. Many Congress (and ex-Congress) leaders own their constituencies so much so that, all systems - from Police Force to courts to the Municipalities run on their whims. Those who dare to go against the local satrap are sidelined from all angles.

The reason the Congress party needs "dynastic" leaders like Sonia or Rahul is so that these satraps can continue to run their clandestine empires under the garb of politics. The reason why a Narsimha Rao or even a Kesri was a threat to these satraps was that these 'homegrown" leaders tried to establish their own supremacy within the party, thus challenging these local satraps, and in turn trying to expose their rotten ways.

The reason why these satraps are happy to anoint Rahul Gandhi as a future PM, the reason why they are happy for Sonia to run her Socialist agenda through the NAC is that (a) it keeps the masses happy (b) it keeps Rahul and Sonia feel in-charge of the party agenda. In return for this support, these satraps get the power to misuse government agencies and bodies to fund their businesses, provide them a legal cover and give them the political power to keep their opposition at bay; all this with anonymity provided by the "leadership" of Sonia and Rahul.

In essence, Rahul is his own nemessis - the fact that he is the chosen one - reflects a deeper malaise within the ranks of his party. And if he lifts his head against corruption, especially the condoning of it by his party, he upsets the unique power sharing agreement of acceptance of his own leadership in return for continuance of status-quo (on issues of Lokpal, Reforms etc.). He thus upsets the equilibrium which, more than corruption itself or Modi's (so called) charisma, is likely to become the biggest reason for Rahul Gandhi's fall.

While I don't admire Rahul, I sure feel empathy for him, because there is loss for him on both sides - if he embraces the current ways of functioning of the Congress and its feudal set up - he will fail to impress the populace and hence lose. If he goes against the flow, challenges the corrupt within his party outright, he risks losing support of some crucial king makers on the party, even risks another potential split in the party; and thus is more likely to lose.

However, if Rahul is indeed sincere about changing the Congress, he needs to accept defeat and in spite of it challenge the corrupt within his party - this will result in more than half of his current second line leadership and several state leaders alienated or even legally implicated. They are likely to break away and form regional parties like the NCP; and further weaken the Congress. But is is only once these satraps are removed, their powers taken, legal charges against them chased, proved and many put behind bars - this might take 10 years - that a new Congress party can emerge. A party which has a more sincere leadership, filled more with the likes of Tharoor, Jairam Ramesh and Ajay Maken.

It may even be a Congress which will not anoint him as a Prime Ministerial candidate (a position he looks disinterested in) or even as a Party President; but it will surely be a party which will allow him and his mother appropriate relevance through implementation of the Socialist schemes which they want to implement on the lines of his father and great grandfather's ideals.

But it's unlikely that Rahul Gandhi will wait 10 years, it is also unlikely that he will be allowed to risk the alienation of so many national leaders; and it is equally unlikely that the Congress will win the next Lok Sabha elections.

1. As I have argued in past, in addition to the current network, India needs a parallel high speed railroad network connecting major hubs and based on completely new technology. This will help take the load off the current network from long distance point-to-point services. It will also make traffic between long distances faster and hence, the journey, more bearable.
2. Modernization: Railways need modernization in almost everything, from signaling systems to tracks (read: train speeds) to toilets. Where will the money for this come from? Let's face that fares are going to rise, whether due to modernization or due to hidden costs of not modernizing; for example cost of accidents or the cost of spare part inventories, or increasing cost of cleaning staff employed by Railways. It is a choice of what route to take in using the revenue that comes from fares.
3. Privatization: Already large set of services in railways is actually in private hands. Catering for example is in hands of IRCTC which in turn hands over contracts to private contractors. Then why not explore the option of privatizing some trains altogether? Just like the government dis-invests its stake in certain public sector units, why can't the railway dis-invest certain trains, like the premium ones - Rajdhani, Duronto, Shatabdi? This can bring in some disinvestment money to railways which can be used in modernization and also help bring some world class amenities to Indian trains such as on board WiFi, working lounges, premium dining cars etc.
4. That thought brings me to my last point - Indian Railways needs to get into premium services which will not only add pleasure and comfort to rail travel, but help railways make more money which can be used to fund the deficit from running subsidized services. Such premium services can range from adding an AC coach to local trains to adding a dedicated dining and working lounges to long distance trains or simply adding a slick Coffee Shop to select coaches in intercity trains.