It is a sad thing for Indian politics that the chance meeting was hailed for being friendly. In the West, political opposites always enjoy cordial social relations even as they fight each other tooth and nail. To that extent, it is a good sign that these two met and got along. Indeed the fact Rahul Gandhi had not met Advani before shows that he still has some advantage as a total newcomer to politics with no baggage. People know that he has little choice but to be in the political business. If he had the freedom he would probably do something less fraught with risks and more pleasant. But tough luck; he has to train to be prime minister of India. So at least we know he has no careerist agenda in politics; his is a chore to be performed.

Rahul Gandhi has tentatively tried to poke the Congress Party system he is about to inherit and see if it can be improved. His strictures on Congress membership were well taken. The whole system needs to be brought into post-Independence India if not the 21st century. The khadi fixation, the pretence to Gandhian morality and the risibly low membership fee need to be jettisoned. What the Congress needs is 21st century methods of recruitment and some semblance of inner-party democracy rather than be wrapped up in khadi and the hypocrisy of prohibition. The real test would be, if he tries out something sensible, whether other parties will welcome it or fall back on even greater hypocrisy to block him.

At the other end of the age spectrum, Advani has also been trying to get his party away from a hoary old ideology of Pakistan-hating. His perfectly sensible and, one may add, historically accurate, remarks on Jinnah brought the world down on him. Petty jealousy was, of course, one reason motivating his critics but one must not underestimate the sheer stupidity of some of these chaddiwalas. They read little and think hardly ever at all. This became clear in the Ram Sethu quarrel when the RSS/VHP mob was surprised to find that 70 years ago, Ramaswamy Naicker had penned a devastating critique of the Ramayana. Even when either of the two Tamil Nadu parties were allies of the BJP, no one seems to have bothered to ask what the ideology of the Dravidian reform movement has been all these years. But then what can you expect of a parivar which gets its Ramayana from Ramanand Sagar and not Valmiki?

But just as Rahul Gandhi has no choice but to slog it out in politics, Indian democracy has, alas, little choice at present but to rely on the only two national parties — Congress and BJP — to look after the national interest. The Left, which once had a national reach, has proved that it is more obsessed with anti-Americanism than with India’s national interest. Now that it has also shown that it can be as thuggish as the Shiv Sena and surrender to Muslim fundamentalism, one may stop treating it with even a smidgen of respect. Post-Nandigram and post-Taslima, the decks are clearer. One can rethink coalition politics.

So the airport meeting raises the old issue yet again. Is there scope for cooperation between the only two national parties India has got? If things go on as they are now, their legislative strength in the Lok Sabha will shrink further after the next election. Together they have been just securing a bare majority in Lok Sabha. Neither is capable of ruling on its own. Multi-party coalitions are expensive not only due to economic populism but also due to dysfunctional passivity in the face of problems as we saw in the case of NDA once the Tehelka scandal broke, and now with the UPA with its multiple problems such as the oil price rise not being passed on, no labour market reforms, indecision on FDI for retail trade, delay on full capital convertibility, rampant corruption in every Gandhi/Nehru Yojana so far devised, and so on.

India and even Bharat deserves better. It could grow at 12 per cent to 15 per cent if it had a government that can deliver. It is up to the Rahul Gandhi generation to assure modern methods of governance which can bring 21st century efficiency to creaking colonial administrative structures. It is up to the Advani generation to see that futile dwelling on pre-Partition quarrels is not just foolish but costly.

Maybe it is a dream to think of a formal coalition. But can we at least have — how to put it — a Common Minimum Understanding between the two parties as to the basics necessary for security, economic growth and efficiency of delivery? Equity will come better from sound economics and efficient delivery than from political reservation schemes or irresponsible subsidies. But that would need a stable majority in Lok Sabha, not necessarily in office together (though that would be perfect) but at least on major policy issues.

When can we have another meeting in Delhi airport’s VIP lounge between the two? I am sure we can always ensure to give them plenty of time to talk, now that flights are constantly being delayed!

The writer is Professor Emeritus at the LSE and member, House of Lords

m.desai@lsc.ac.uk