That some production processes in India use child labour is not news. It happens. It is not India?s dirty little secret. And it is not necessarily from a lack of sensitivity to the plight of poor children that it continues. Thousands of children in India are employed in hazardous industries in the country?s vast informal sector, with their prospects of attaining healthy adulthood marred by risks they bear that they are only dimly aware of. As tragic circumstances go, these are amongst the most heart-rending. So much so, in fact, that they make a compelling case for ?fair trade? evangelists who argue that buying products made by such ill-treated children is to encourage the practice and is thus an affront to human dignity. Responding to such sentiments around the world, many Indian exporters have cleaned up their acts. Even the cottage handmade carpet industry, notorious for its use of child labour, has successfully changed the way it operates to suit the demands of customers overseas. This has made many suggest that consumer activism of this sort is a good way to make the world a better place.
There may be some truth in that, and sensitised consumers?as in the case of fur?often do a lot of good. Yet, many of these accusations do little other than turn dubious NGOs into power brokers, and achieve nothing in terms of human development precisely because they fail to operate on the local incentive systems involved. Poverty in some parts runs so deep that the choice is between a working child and starvation. Mindless intervention in such a ?market? would be a denial of the very upward ladder to the poorest that Dickensian generations in the West took when society there were less easily appalled by work conditions. Also, conditions for children in India might be poor, but they are far from Ishiguruesque. Moreover, it should eventually be for consumers in overseas markets to make choices on the production methods they consider sinister, not their governments, which remain keen to use such issues are non-tariff barriers to block imports from poor countries. Blanket bans, besides being dubious in their motivation, serve little purpose. When such barriers are erected, they often signify a cynical play on people?s sense of morality rather than a genuine sense of empathy for the world?s poverty stricken. Trade tricks do not treat children any better.
