As for the specifics of the Montek-Praful argument, there are faults on both sides. The Planning Commission is a creature of state-planning days when thinking big for consumer services or products was just not on, the tendency being to plan for shortages. From airports to LPG cylinders, the idea was, people should queue for everything. Ahluwalia is not a policymaker in that mould, but his commission is wrong in questioning the civil aviation ministry’s big plans for the Chennai and Kolkata airports.

India must build for the medium term, and in the medium term passenger air traffic is going to be huge. The ministry for its part has found virtues in public sector involvement in airport modernisation in Chennai and Kolkata. This is in part influenced, as almost everything is in the UPA government, by local-influence peddling by Congress’s partners. All in all, this is a typical Indian government attempt at doing something good, and this complexity is all the more reason liberalisers should work out their differences quietly.

Loud disagreements are already affecting rational discourse on Delhi’s airport. Just like in power, populist arguments that the public sector was better are getting respectable. This is dangerous for reformists. There are changes in Delhi airport — security, immigration, space occupied by IAF — that are crucial for better passenger service but are outside the purview of the private company running the airport. There are also issues the private management can and should tackle — simple things like better transport services from the airport. There may be reasons to take another look at some of the plans. There’s clearly plenty for Ahluwalia and Patel to do, together.