It was the second time Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was broaching the subject of the pending Indo-Bangla Land Boundary Agreement with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, hoping for a more positive response in the regional setting of Kathmandu as opposed to New York where he had just left her with a terse "Let's see".

On the margins of the SAARC Summit, though, Modi was far more forthcoming and positive. He told Hasina that his Government was waiting for the Parliamentary Standing Committee to present its report on the issue and promised to take it forward, knowing well that the panel was all set to endorse the deal. Hasina then wanted to know if the report would need fresh scrutiny by the Lower House after it is tabled in the Rajya Sabha. The Indian side explained that no such process is required as the committee comprises members from both Houses. The committee has since presented its report in favour of the agreement, suggesting improvements in the compensation package for displaced people.

In one stroke, Modi had reversed the BJP's stated position and even followed it up with a public declaration during his visit to Guwahati at the end of November. It was the BJP unit of Assam-the state will lose some territory in the land swap deal-which had stood in the way of the party supporting the agreement during UPA rule, forcing the party's then leadership to backtrack after having given a commitment to then PM Manmohan Singh. Today, BJP state unit President Siddhartha Bhattacharya is in a spot, admitting that he has an uphill task ahead.

"It will be very difficult for us to explain to our party workers and to the people of Assam. We had taken a stand prior to the elections but now our Government feels this agreement is important in national interest," Bhattacharya told INDIA TODAY.

The two months between New York and Kathmandu, in many ways, marked the journey of a Prime Minister evolving in his chair, correcting the course on key issues even if it meant aligning himself closer to his predecessor or distancing himself from his own cabinet colleagues. "This can happen when you get to read records, assess the practicalities of the situation. It happened when P.V. Narasimha Rao became PM as well. But perhaps it is a bit above normal this time," says former cabinet secretary Naresh Chandra.

UNTYING THE WTO TANGLE

When the Modi Government, in its first few months in office, decided to block the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over food subsidies, it did not realise that by linking the two issues it would stand isolated at the general council alongside Venezuela and Cuba, a diplomatic nightmare for a reformminded leader like Modi. Every move since then has been aimed at clawing back to the centre of the debate.

The PM's US visit was the start of a series of corrections on this front, which also entailed India moving quietly to streamline its food subsidy as per WTO requirements. So, just before Modi left for the East Asia and G20 Summits in mid-November, India announced its support for the TFA while the US dropped the insistence on the 2017 deadline that was agreed at the Bali ministerial. Between the lines, it appears, India agreed to show credible action on the food subsidy front.

So, on November17, around the time the PM was meeting top leaders at the G20 Summit in Brisbane, his Principal Secretary, Nripendra Misra, shot off a letter to the ministries of commerce, agriculture, food, fertiliser and expenditure, recalling a meeting chaired by the PM to review India's position on the WTO negotiations on food security.

"As per the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, there are agricultural subsidies which are prohibited (Export Subsidies), permitted (Green Box) or regulated (Amber Box). After the agreement reached between India and USA on addressing our food security concerns and the subsequent follow up action that is likely at the WTO, there is a need to study all the support measures that go to our agriculture sector. This quantification is a first step in understanding the extent of support that this sector needs," Misra wrote.

The PM has asked the review to be completed by January 15, just before US President Barack Obama's visit to India, signalling his intent to deliver his end of the deal. Quantifying support to agriculture and classifying it according to WTO parameters is the first step towards meeting the organisation's requirements and its transparency norms-a call that fundamentally overturns the Government's initial instinct but has brought India back into the main fold of the trade debate.

PLANNING OMISSION

An exasperated Modi would be a rare sight but, according to those privy to discussions on the future of the Planning Commission, the PM does betray this sense going by the "ever-changing" contours of fresh proposals and the "never-ending" nature of the debate. But what is clear after his grand August 15 announcement is that the Planning Commission is not going to be reduced to just a think tank as proposed earlier.

Again, in the same time frame from September to November, through several meetings, the PMO has come to the conclusion that the Planning Commission is an effective counterbalance in the governance system, expressing and running the PM's writ, a tool that Modi needs. But with the PM having made a public declaration, the Government is working overtime to find areas where the Commission's powers can be pruned and its functioning more streamlined. Here, some key questions were raised before the PM, which has prompted a change of approach.

First, can the custodian of financial resources also be the last word on resource allocation? Second, who will resolve disputes and differences between ministries in the early stages of making proposals to the Cabinet? And third, which body will negotiate on behalf of states with the Centre in case they have issues and demands? Last is the question of programme evaluation, a part of which is currently being done by the Cabinet Secretariat too.

While the expectation is that the body may shed some of its fund allocation powers, the rest will stay in the new charter. Evaluation too, according to sources, may become a more focused activity to avoid overlap with other arms of the Government. However, the new body may become the platform for Modi's vision of cooperative federalism. Either way, the body is likely to retain much of its importance but could see a revamp by way of removing accumulated flab. At present, there are over 800 employees with 40-odd advisers of joint secretary rank. The suggestion is to cut the overall number by half and reduce the advisers to about a dozen.

PUSHING THE N-DEAL

For years, the BJP opposed the nuclear deal, taking on the Manmohan Singh government on every facet of this complex arrangement, including the civil nuclear liability law which has thwarted commercial prospects in the sector.

Again, the Government is already in serious conversation with the US on ways to work around the liability provisions. An effort is underway to find a solution without amending the law. Besides the US and other foreign suppliers, there is considerable pressure from domestic suppliers who have conveyed to the Government that they would find it difficult to undertake commercial obligations in nuclear facilities under such a strong liability regime. The law provides for the "right to recourse" to the supplier in case of an accident in a nuclear facility.

"It is already a serious problem for the (nuclear) industry. Indian suppliers are saying they will not send quotes unless there's clarity. Our existing programme will suffer. I think there is a fair amount of ambiguity on the interpretation of the (liability) law when it comes to who is the supplier etc. Just some clarity on some of these issues itself could be 50 per cent help. Otherwise, everything will come to a standstill," former Department of Atomic Energy chief Anil Kakodkar told INDIA TODAY.



UNCHAINED AT THE TOP

By all accounts, the PM is a quick learner. For instance, on an issue such as the Land Acquisition Act, he made it clear that even though the party may have supported the UPA's cause then, the law simply had to change if the Government hoped to attract any investment into the country. Since then, BJP ministers have openly changed their stance. The same was the case with the amendment increasing FDI limits in the insurance sector. According to party insiders, these moves also emphasise the gap between Modi and the BJP central leadership when the party was in Opposition. "As Gujarat CM, he was not being consulted and so today, he is not going to consult anyone on what the party may have said earlier," says a senior BJP leader on condition of anonymity.

In many ways, this is also becoming a Modi way of doing things. For quite some time, India had been delaying the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with Australia, triggered also to an extent by Canberra's growing economic relationship with Beijing that recently culminated in a free trade agreement (FTA). For India, this was also a convenient reason to stall the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) plan, which is essentially an overarching arrangement between ASEAN countries and its FTA partners including China. The real reason, insiders said, was to avoid any such open arrangement involving China.

But when Australian PM Tony Abbott asked Modi during his Australia visit whether the two sides could conclude a CECA in a year, the PM said it would be done in six months, much to the surprise of his hosts and his own official retinue. "How can we not agree to the RCEP now? It will be too obvious that we are holding out because of China," remarked an official, but then, it was now the PM's commitment, a call he made without even checking with the commerce ministry.



Follow the writer on Twitter @pranabsamanta