A journalist called to know if we face the same problems that are plaguing Chinese exports of late: tainted pet food, toxic toothpaste, lead-paint in toys, chemicals in textiles, and so on.
It got me thinking: of China, of India, and more importantly, about the phenomenon we call the market.
The fact is that the US and other parts of the rich world, which are today crying foul about Chinese toxic exports, should have known better. They should have known that they were in the business of buying cheap food and cheap consumer products, and that in this business something was rotten.
They should have been aware that goods produced in their country are expensive, partly, because they pay for pollution control, surveillance and enforcement of regulations and for new technologies to get rid of newer and newer toxins.
So it is in the interest of the rich world to outsource production to feed its ravenous appetite. The economy of the rich world is built on the principle of consuming disposable products -- new toys that come with each season or with each new hit movie, and processed food that breaks all price-lines.
This madly consuming rich society needs cheap goods for its happiness and to make its economy profitable.
But these goods are cheap because the Chinese discount their environment in manufacturing them. In this market, "competitive advantage" lies in not paying the price for safeguarding the environment.
There is no doubt in my mind that if India is to also become the favourite junk provider of the world -- which we are desperate to be -- then we will have to do the same. The only difference between us and the Chinese is our democracy -- that is if we allow it to breathe.
Whether Indian industry likes it or not, the internal pressure it gets from consumer and environmental interests is its safety valve. This pressure is forcing the Indian industry to produce quality food and meet environmental standards, not only for exports but also for sale in domestic markets.
It is this, if anything, that distinguishes us from the Chinese, as I said to the journalist who called me. But this pressure will not be able to withstand the desperation to feed the cheap goods desire of the rich world.
There is also no doubt in my mind that the western world has used environmental safeguards to its advantage -- to keep out goods produced in the developing world by claiming that these are unsafe and do not meet stringent quality requirements. Over the years, the green stick has been another name for trade protectionism.
But it is also clear that the Chinese and the Indians cannot win this game by playing it. In this game of catch-up, the only option is to invest in first producing dirt and then invest in cleaning it up or invest in phasing it out. After this, another chemical must be introduced -- this is still not qualified to be a toxin but will soon become one. In this business, environmental protection is expensive and never-ending. In this green business, we cannot win.
It is for this reason that we must change the rules, if not the very game itself. We cannot keep arguing that our trade advantage lies in undermining environmental safety. We must argue instead that the environment is our competitive advantage. It is our advantage only if we can learn not to discount it but to use it.
We must build our industry and agriculture by learning from the expensive mistakes made by the western world. We can beat them, not by playing their game of catch-up, but by reinventing our economic pathway.
We can do agriculture today without first using the toxins that need to be cleaned up. This will mean reinventing the rules for organic and safe food production. We can produce cheaper goods by cutting out the unnecessary toxins that will need cleaning up tomorrow. This is the only choice.
