The commerce secretary has also mentioned increasing protectionism, following (and for food, preceding) the financial crisis. While this is true, most of this is WTO-compatible and a successful DWP isnt likely to eliminate it. The London G-20 communique recognises it as fait accompli. It cannot be denied that India has been under pressure from developed countries like the US and from the WTO to become more flexible. This means the nitty-gritties, including SSAsomething the mini-ministerial cannot avoid. Or else, the mini-ministerial serves no purpose, even though it was promised by Anand Sharma at the Bali Cairns Group meeting in June. With agriculture liberalisation ambitions having been lowered, the so-called rainbow coalition India is trying to push also has limited relevance. Nama, services, domestic agricultural support and agro export subsidies arent the stumbling blocks, since differing positions can be adjusted by lowering ambitions. While India, China, Brazil (to a lesser extent, South Africa and Argentina) hold together, in SSA, it is India and China versus the rest. Of the two, China doesnt have a hard position. Therefore, reading between the lines, has India, in an attempt to be more flexible, yielded ground on SSA Why else has this meeting changed from the proposed G-20 conclave to a mini-ministerial A little more transparency and public debate on Indias negotiating position would be welcome.