Was the Doha Round of trade talks destined to collapse? That's the question everyone is asking after the key trade talks among six key World Trade Organisation members to liberalise global trade collapsed in Geneva on Monday, leading to a complete suspension of all further discussions.

This now brings in a cloud of uncertainty over the very prospects of achieving a global trade pact any time soon.

The latest attempt to revive the stalled talks --- involving Australia, Brazil, European Union, Japan and US, besides India --- after the failure of the mini-ministerial meet earlier in July came a cropper basically because of refusal by the developed nations to make substantial cuts in farm subsidies.

Expectedly, for the Indian Inc, eagerly waiting to conquer the world once the trade barriers fall, this was a frustrating piece of news. Apex industry chambers like FICCI, Assocham and CII all lambasted the developed countries for piling up unreasonable demands on the developing countries, which, they say were too unfair to be conceded.

For instance, the industry says the developed countries' demands on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) and agriculture were unfair to the infant industries of the developing countries like India and the millions of subsistence farmers.

Under no circumstances, can the Indian industry agree for dilution of the special products window of protection for the poor farmers and the formula for reduction in tariff under NAMA cannot treat the rich and poor on the same footing, they say.

Cutting subsidies was a key objective of the WTO's stalled Doha Round of trade liberalisation negotiations. Subsidies -- particularly those paid to farmers in rich countries -- were a sensitive topic contributing to the deadlock in the talks, with the developing countries demanding that the US, in particular, and the European Union slash agricultural aid.

Interestingly, even as the trade talks headed towards a deadlock thanks to the rigid stand of the developed world, the World Trade Organisation unveiled a report that said governments worldwide spent more than US $300 billion on subsidies in 2005, with a vast share of it going to the 21 developed countries. On top of it, few of the members -- read the developed world -- actually didn't even notify the WTO of their subsidies, even though they are obliged to.

Much of the deadlock surrounding the Doha Round centres around farm trade, particularly US farm subsidies and EU duties on agricultural imports. Any talk of flexibility is tempered by a common refrain: It is up to others to make a move if they want to get something in return.

All through this round, it seemed the developed nations were only keen to gain market access for their products in the developing countries while they themselves were not willing to concede even an inch in terms of providing access to other countries --- read the developing and least developed countries

This effectively means developing countries like India opening their markets for subsidised agricultural products of the developed nations. On the non-agricultural front too, the developing countries have a certain obligation to protect their own industries and cannot reduce duties on manufactured products without any domestic safeguards.

The fact that an intransigent US played spoilsport to a large extent was evident from what India's industry minister Kamal Nath said after the collapse of the negotiations. "Unfortunately," he said: "one member is unable to make any effective reduction in trade-distorting subsidies, but at the same time is insisting that developing countries open up their markets to provide access to their subsidised products."

The failure of the Geneva meeting has now jeopardised the Doha Round. Which in turn threatens the very prospects of a new global trade pact as the special powers enjoyed by the US President to get a trade pact passed in US Congress expires in mid-2007. Without the world's largest trading nation, a global trade pact would have little meaning.