Today India's eyes are fixed on the potential of a free trade zone in South Asia and of evolving a common market here( which the US is interested in). The thaw between India and Pakistan opens up immense possibilities for the entire region. With Vajpayee's bus journey, India is moving into a new orbit.In contrast, the G-15 party seems to be getting over. That has been clear for some time, even though there was greater seriousness -- and desperation -- evident at Montego Bay than has been the case in the past.

For the last two summits, India sent its Vice President and not the Prime Minis-ter. The heads of state or of government of the Latin American countries did not come to Montego Bay, with the exception of Venezuala, even though the meeting was held in their hemisphere. This was despite the fact that these countries no longer feel they are over the hump. The economic crisis inSouth East Asia, Brazil and Russia is there for all to see.

Malaysia sounded a grim warning when its prime minister spoke of the roaring Asian tigers having been reduced to whimpering kittens, with the sudden withdrawal of foreign capital, which had at one stage transformed them into miracle economies. But Malaysia does not have the economic muscle today to do much more than warn.

There was a time when Mahathir, backed by a booming economy and a stable society, could raise a strong voice on behalf of the developing world. He had even begun to be likened by some to Jawaharlal Nehru. A superficial difference between the two however is that Nehru could tread the middle path, using the balance of power between the two super powers, but Mahathir has to contend with the exigencies of a unipolar world. Though a staunch anti-communist he admitted that the collapse of the Soviet Union had deprived his country and the developing world of the leverage they used to have. The truth is that a blow to the idea of G-15was administered the day a unipolar world came into existence.

G-15, the brainchild of Mahathir, Rajiv Gandhi, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, came into existence in 1989 at the non-aligned summit in Belgrade. The idea, in some ways, was a response to a weakening of the Soviet Union which had become apparent by then. Those who took the lead in launching the group felt that they could safeguard their interests better by forging a forum, comprising the better-off developing countries, which would have an economic push, and not be as unwieldy as G-77. Journalists accompanying Rajiv Gandhi to Belgrade recall how after having boarded the aircraft, they were taken off the plane as some of these leaders decided at the last moment to finalise the launch of G-15 before they left.

But Rajiv's successors did not show the same kind of political will. India is now hosting a meet in August of officials, experts and ministers of the G-15 to coordinate the group's strategy in the runup to the ministerial meeting of the WTOin Seattle.

Though Indian officials tried to give a spin at Montego Bay that India was trying to act as a bridge between conflicting positions in G-15 about the methodology to adopt for a dialogue with the developed nations, its own position on many of the issues is not clear. It is the host country (for the August meet) which normally takes a lead in giving a line. There is nothing new about the need to evolve a mechanism to have a dialogue with the G-7 which was reiterated at Montego Bay. What if they are not, and have not been, interested? It is not that the relevance of a grouping like the G-15 has decreased. The tragedy is that over the years member countries did not support each other with trade and technology tie-ups as they could have. Each nation thought of itself rather than of how to strengthen the organisation.

It was pathetic to have the leader of the Indian business delegation to the Jamaica summit call the trade exhibition by India a "disaster". The team he led was responsible formounting it. Even though the Prime Minister and Commerce Minister R.K. Hegde expressed their unhappiness, the Government gleefully washed its hands of the whole affair, saying it was now the responsibility of the business community.

But it is the government which has to lead if the member countries are to give concessions to each other, or they are to set up joint initiatives on technology exchange, particularly in areas of micro-electronics, aerospace or bio-technology, or encourage exchange programmes between institutes and universities -- all of which should have been done.

The trouble has also been that the G-15 is a disparate group, with nations like Mexico, a member of NAFTA, and Egypt closely linked to the US.

The other problem has been that the grouping has been seen to be opposed to America. The G-7, for instance, is not positioned in relation to others. It works for the mutual benefit of its members, giving each other concessions in trade and industry.

Maybe India should take the initiativeto go in for a more cohesive group of countries, a G-5 or G-7, which is not positioned against anyone but is willing to cooperate in vital areas, and together face the challenges of globalisation. One thing is clear: either we should be serious about the grouping, or call it a day.