A new world trade deal by year 2005 - that's what the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has collectively agreed upon through its ministerial meetings of 142 countries in Doha. So the question is: what will India gain from this new trade deal? Or, more precisely, will India be able to increase its share of world trade? (Currently, India's share of the world trade is less than one per cent.).

To begin with, India's agenda at Doha, which is largely reflective of that of the developing countries, was two-pronged. One was to get the implementation of benefits promised during the previous Uruguay going; the second was ensuring no new issues. Now, blocking a new round is also on the agenda.

But, according to B K Keayla, secretary general, Centre for Study of Global Trade, on both these accounts India has failed miserably. There is no commitment by the rich countries that developing countries will have greater access to their textiles and garments markets. Nor is there an initiative to show that the mantra of antidumping is not conjured up at will to keep the goods of developing countries at bay.

Commenting on the fate of the second priority on India's agenda, W R Vardarajan, secretary of the Centre for Indian Trade Union (CITU), said, "We have certainly given much more, and what has been offered (in return) is almost negligible. Gauged from this angle, the Doha round of ministerial talks has been a definite setback for the developing countries."

We will also find that the very reasons for which the Seattle talks had broken down two years ago have now all been sanctioned. In the essence, developed countries have been able to push forth their agenda successfully by giving out very nominal concessions. In fact, Professor Noam Chomsky, philosopher and peace activist, stated that it was precisely to prevent a repeat of the opposition that rocked the Seattle talks that Doha, the capital of Qatar, where dissent is unknown, was chosen as the venue.

That there was a decisive victory for the rich countries is proved by the fact that the Doha round has decided that controversial issues previously not included within the WTO would now become part of trade negotiations. The critical inclusions are environment, investment and competition. It is a development that the developing countries are suspicious of: they consider the inclusion of such non-trade issues as nothing but a ploy to deny the Third World countries their legitimate right to trade.

Elaborating on this aspect, Jayati Ghosh, economist at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, says, "Once investments become part of the WTO, the government will have no control over the FDI (foreign direct investment) flows inside the country. In such a scenario, 'hot' money flowing in and creating a situation like that of the East Asian crisis of 1997 cannot be ruled out."

This is not the only worrying part. According to Ghosh, the independent measure that Malaysia took to handle the currency crisis at that time - basically blocking foreign account convertibility - will not be available to governments once investment becomes part of trade negotiations.

How is the Indian industry responding to this mess at Doha? T G Keshwani, corporate consultant of the PHD Chamber of Commerce, has no doubt that if the proposed issues of investments and competition get endorsed as part of trade negotiations, then Indian domestic industry would undoubtedly be hurt. Keshwani is of the view that unless and until India achieves a level playing field with the rich countries in terms of infrastructure (roads, power, transport), Indian companies can never compete with multinational corporations (MNCs). The fact is that because of the natural advantage in good infrastructure, the MNC's enjoy cost effectiveness, something that Indian companies cannot keep pace with under the prevailing domestic conditions.

Even when it comes to agriculture, where some concession is made, there is no guarantee that the European Union (EU) will oblige as required. The critical question, Keayla says, is: how much is the EU willing to cut its subsidies? It seems a tough task, given that EU farmers form an important constituency with their hugely vocal money power.

The only redeeming feature from a Third World perspective is that patents have been waived for medicines required in national emergencies. But, then, the critical question here, according to Vardarajan, is precisely who will decide if there is an emergency. There have been instances when in spite of millions suffering from AIDS, the South African government was prevented from declaring an emergency, under pressure from giant pharmaceutical MNCs. This disposition was overturned when four people died of anthrax in the United States and the whole nation was declared under emergency.

Ghosh, however, feels that if another development at Doha is to be considered - the inclusion of China as a member of the WTO - then there is a chance of a fair future for developing countries in global trading. If, as expected, China throws its weight behind the common agenda of developing countries, the balance of power could shift in our favour. In real terms, it could mean that controversial issues such as competition and investments might be negotiated in fair terms favourable to southern nations.