India has a clearly stated interest in keeping these forums distinct from each other. It has styled IBSA as the democratic forum where an inter-continental grouping speaks for a wider constituency. The hidden sub-text here is clearly that the three democracies，each with a claim to speak for its wider continent，would have greater credibility in any direct engagement with the western powers that largely dictate global economic affairs. India is also unconvinced that BRIC would be a suitable vehicle for its larger geopolitical ambitions，simply because of the presence of China. Though the 16-point statement adopted at the first BRIC summit did make the appropriate noises about U.N. reform and ceremonially bow towards India’s ambitions to be seated at the high table，it stopped short of explicitly endorsing India’s case for permanent membership in the U.N. Security Council. China evidently believes that a permanent berth is not something that can be granted as long as India has unfinished business with itself and Pakistan.

When asked after the April conclaves if this multiplicity of inter-regional groupings could operate with enhanced efficacy if some were to write themselves out of business and the others were to define clear membership norms，Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was quite categorical about the need for each to maintain a separate existence：“IBSA has a personality of its own. It is three separate continents，three democracies. BRIC is a conception devised by Goldman Sachs. We are trying to put life into it”.^[1]

What purpose though is being sought through these multiple forums？The WTO has receded from public attention since theHong Kong ministerial meeting produced an agreement that was the most modest of all time in terms of ambition，since it stayed deliberately clear of every member country’s deepest sensitivities. Since then，the WTO has missed one biennial deadline to hold a ministerial conference，its highest deliberative forum and seemingly roused itself into holding one in its headquarters city of Geneva in December 2009，only in order to be in formal compliance with an important commitment to its membership. It was made clear then that the conference would not be a negotiating forum，but merely an occasion to review progress and reaffirm faltering commitments.

In September 2009，India hosted a meeting of the WTO’s heavy-hitters，in a signal of solidarity with the aims of free trade as also a symbolic gesture of the developing countries’ willingness to assert their status as stakeholders in the multilateral trade negotiations.

Expectedly，the WTO talks have made little progress since proposals drawn up in July 2008 in the three most contentious areas of agriculture，non-agricultural market access （NAMA，or industrial tariffs，in simpler language） and services，led to a sputtering start to the negotiations over a year later. It has been an arduous process getting the balance right in a negotiating process where nothing is agreed until everything is. The industrialised countries are tenacious in holding out on subsidies and other measures of support for agriculture，while India and the developing world are ruling out any further tariff cuts on industrial goods till substantive progress is achieved in improving agricultural market access. As long as the stalemate persists-and the chances now are that it will，since the global economic recession has energised protectionist voices-the unity of the IBSA forum will hold. Unless，that is，any one member chooses to strike a deal on the side.

The proposals on agriculture submitted byIndia and other countries at Cancun，were remarkable in seeking to harmonise the interests of developing country exporters and large peasant economies that have a strong defensive interest in protecting their markets. India counted itself quite decisively in the second category，whereas Brazil unequivocally was in the first. The common element that bonded the two and brought South Africa in as a player on the same team，was the relatively diversified industrial base that these countries have built up，which endows them with a strong interest in holding out on the NAMA negotiations till they get what they want in agriculture. That the unity forged in Cancun has，despite a potential divergence，lasted right till the Hong Kong conference and beyond，speaks of a determination to ensure that the errors of the Uruguay Round are not repeated.

Expectedly，very little came out of the September 2009 mini-ministerial inDelhi. The most recent news-flash from the WTO is that eleven panels have been set up with five countries （or trading blocs） participating，to consider how to cut through the logjam，particularly in relation to the three areas of agriculture，NAMA and services trade. India is one of the five，along with the E.U.，the U.S.，Brazil and China.^[2]India’s alliance with Brazil within the WTO arena will