Partly the reason is its own better preparedness and strategy compared to previous meetings, but partly it is also due to the inability of the top trading countries to agree among themselves.

In the past, it used to be the developing countries' lot to be bullied, cajoled and manipulated by the bigger traders who quietly cut deals behind their backs. With a wider conflict of interest between the top traders now, that has changed for the better.

India's changed position was acknowledged by the European Union's new Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy on Wednesday when he told the Indian delegates that ``for a change,'' India was in a very ``coveted position''.

The sentiment was echoed tacitly by the Americans when the Indian Commerce Minister foundhimself next to President Clinton and WTO Diretor-General Mike Moore at today's lunch by Clinton for trade ministers.

This is not the end of the story. Indian politicians' visits to the United States are usually sad stories of utter neglect by the American public and media. Yet consider the utterly different fortunes of Murasoli Maran.

The minister today gave an interview to the prestigious French daily, Le Monde. In line to seek interviews with him are Dow Jones of Wall Street Journal fame, Newsweek, Reuters and the Associated Press.

The last time such media attention was showered on India could only have been in relation to its nuclear tests and CTBT intransigence, neither a flattering form of attention.

If these are purely symbolic representations, consider the substantive issues. Talks on agriculture are stalled, where India is apprehensive of aggressive liberalisation, while Indian concerns about food security are acknowledged.

Investment, an issue where Indiawould much rather not see any talks take place, may have suffered a setback today. While a New Zealand inspired effort to garner support for such talks had some backers, they are now opposed not only by countries such as Zimbabwe but even Singapore and Malaysia which previously had more open minds on this.

Indian complaints that Uruguay Round agreements have not been implemented in a way that would yield full benefits to developing countries are accepted. A working group has been set up to address this and President Clinton devoted a large part of his speech to placating developing countries in various ways though these may prove to be more cosmetic than substantial.

The EU has given in to American demands that a WTO working group should be set up on trade in biotech products, for example genetically modified foods. A WTO working group normally reports on a matter after two years and it can subsequently becomes a subject for WTO legislation.

Here, so far India has not had to say anything. Some EUcountries themselves are opposed, most prominently France and Britain. Also, while the US wants such a group to focus only on market access, the EU says such a group should look at the ``precautionary principle'' or countries' right to restrict imports if it is not known whether such products can be harmful to public health or environment, etc.

India's take on this is that if it really comes to forming a working group, it will demand a working group on technology rather than just on biotechnology, which would then address its long-standing concerns of technology transfer from the developed world.

To cut a long story short, if this round takes off at all, and that is very much an if, India would naturally make both gains and compromises.

But so far it looks better placed and better prepared than it ever has in post-Uruguay Round trade talks. As a top Indian negotiator told this correspondent, India does not have to worry if there is no outcome at this WTO meeting. It is only concerned to make sure thatif there is an outcome, it is not an unfavourable one.