September 17, 2025 • 50 mins
This week on Jeansland, Andrew sits down with Indian journalist Subir Ghosh for a clear-eyed look at how sustainability narratives often miss the mark. Subir challenges the fashion industry’s fixation on circularity, calling it more of a marketing loop than a real solution. He explains why cotton farmers in India remain under immense pressure, why worker struggles beyond the sewing floor go largely unnoticed, and how global fashion summits recycle the same conversations without meaningful results.
From the realities of farmer suicides to the limitations of regenerative cotton, this conversation underscores the disconnect between polished industry rhetoric and the lives of people who grow, spin, and dye the fibers we rely on.
For deeper reporting on these issues, visit texfash.com, where Subir is co-founder and Executive Editor, and subirghosh.in.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:05):
July 29th, 2025, just about six weeks ago, as
Transformers Foundation wasreleasing their report on water
use in Indigo Dying, I was senta very interesting group of
questions by Texfash, apublication in India that I'd
never heard of before.
When I looked them up, I wasfascinated by the co-founder and
executive editor, Mr.
Shubin Kosh, who is aKolkata-based journalist
(00:27):
researcher who writes aboutcrony capitalism, corporate
corruption, environment,conflict, and films.
Not exactly the typical pathjournalists in the fashion
industry generally follow.
He started out his career insales before switching over to
journalism in 1991, and he's nowleading TexFash, where he writes
mostly about sustainable fashionand policy issues related to
(00:49):
textiles and the apparelindustry.
He is the author of three booksand has co-authored three with
others.
We are very proud that he wouldagree to do an interview with
me, and we hope you like theinterview.
Jubin, it is an incrediblepleasure to have you join our
podcast.
Thank you very much for makingtime.
SPEAKER_01 (01:09):
Thank you very much for having me here, and it's a
privilege to be hosted by you.
SPEAKER_00 (01:15):
In our industry, I'm trying to have these podcasts
represent all differentcountries and all different
players in the industry and Ithink you're the first
journalist that we've had on andyou're certainly the first
person from India so I am besidemyself with joy so let's start
out this way what is thestoryline that the fashion
industry is clinging to thatfeels kind of out of touch to
(01:39):
you or kind of like something'swrong
SPEAKER_01 (01:41):
the main narrative that is not probably driving the
industry right now iscircularity there's nothing
wrong about circularityfundamental speaking.
But I personally feel that theindustry is going overboard with
it.
The primary reason is that theway I've been looking at things,
(02:04):
it seems to me that the industryis being led to believe that
secularity is the way out of allproblems, number one.
And number two is that this isjust another way of doing the
same things all over again,which means that, no, you keep
on doing your business and thecircle becomes bigger and bigger
(02:27):
and bigger every day.
No, if the circle were to remainkind of constant in terms of
circumference, no, nobody wouldbe able to do business after a
point of time.
So that is the way it has beenworking for the last two or
three years, I think.
SPEAKER_00 (02:42):
I'm smiling because I love the concept that we can
take garbage and reuse it.
I mean, I love the concept.
I went to Lensing many, manyyears ago.
And when they asked them abouttheir energy, they said that, I
think the number in its memoryis 50 or 60% of their energy was
from consumer waste.
(03:04):
And I thought, oh, that would besuch a great idea in India and
China.
They have a lot of waste.
So I love the concept of reusinganything for another purpose.
Whether it's a solution to ourindustry, I think it's kind of a
Yes, that has been the
SPEAKER_01 (03:35):
problem.
The industry, from what I haveseen, does not really have a
mind of its own.
And the industry, by and large,has been doing what the big four
or probably the big fiveconsultants have been telling
them to do.
And they have been told, theyhave been made to understand
(03:55):
that circularity is, or circularfashion, so to speak, is
wonderful because you get tokeep your hands clean and
everyone is happy and everyonemakes money and that's the way
to go about it.
That's why I keep on saying thatthe idea is always to ensure
that the circle keeps bigger andbigger and bigger over time.
SPEAKER_00 (04:19):
And how do people in India in the textile business
regard the global north, youknow, always blabbing about all
the great things they're doingwhile they're doing nothing.
SPEAKER_01 (04:28):
It's a mixed bag, really, because you have all
kinds of people.
There's no country as diverse asIndia.
I mean, not only in terms ofethnicities, etc., but also in
terms of opinions.
You probably have not as manyopinions as there are people.
Now, there are lots of peoplewho believe that the
(04:51):
sustainability agenda of theWest is being thrust on us.
There are lots of people whodon't have a clue what's going
on.
And there are lots of people whowant to do things their own way.
So these are no, I mean, I ampretty sure no, these three
broad categories of people wouldbe there in every country.
(05:13):
And in India, the problem isthat you don't have too many,
let's, I don't like the termcivilization organizations which
work in this textiles, apparel,fashion space.
So the only players who are thediscussants, who are the only
(05:33):
people who kind of drive thenarrative, and the only people
who you see at events, etc., areindustry people and no one else.
Which makes it extremelylopsided because all that you
have, good, bad, and ugly, comesonly from the industry.
SPEAKER_00 (05:50):
There's no engine working on sustainability in
India.
Is that what you mean?
SPEAKER_01 (05:56):
Not in the textiles fashion apparent space.
I see.
There are lots of wonderful NGOswho work in other areas, but
nobody really specializes inthis sector.
And probably there's some scopefor somebody to do in this space
out here.
(06:16):
I see.
Tremendous scope, tremendousscope actually.
SPEAKER_00 (06:20):
And what about regenerative agriculture in
cotton?
How do you see that and how doesit fit inside the Indian textile
industry, farming community?
SPEAKER_01 (06:31):
I mean, historically speaking, the proportion of
cotton versus polyester in Indiahas been virtually the opposite
of what it is globally.
Globally, it's roughly.
I mean, if you leave out thesmaller fibers aside, it's
(06:52):
two-thirds is polyester andone-third is cotton.
Right.
India is still just the otherway around.
But the thing is, polyester,even in India, is on a rise.
And fast fashion, so to speak,has been on a relatively late
(07:14):
entrance.
India, but then again thissector, this segment of the
industry has been growing aswell.
There's no way to quantify itbecause nobody has the actual
numbers.
But what this means is thatthere is tremendous pressure on
cotton.
And when I say pressure oncotton, I necessarily mean
(07:34):
farmers.
Now, there's been a lot of workon farmer suicides in India.
In most of the cases in of theculprit crop was cotton, has
been cotton.
Now, which is to say that thecotton farmers in India have
(07:56):
been historically under pressurebecause of various reasons,
because of finance, because ofbeing led up the garden path and
because of not being guided byexperts.
Cotton, as you know, cotton isprobably one of the most
valuable weird crops the yieldcan vary from field to field it
(08:20):
can vary from one part of thestate to another part of the
state and the requirements andother inputs that are required
very drastically anddramatically from area to area
which necessarily means thatthere cannot be one solution for
all kinds of farmers and thereis nobody there to give them
(08:42):
that guidance in my opinion andAnd industry bodies in terms of
cotton industry associations andall of, in my opinion, have not
really been doing that.
And that is one factor.
The other factor is, you know,India, you have something called
the MSP, the minimum supportprice that the government
(09:03):
offers, which is the minimumprice that a farmer would get
for his or her produce, perquintal or per kilogram or
whatever, per ton or whatever.
Now, Industry.
I really shudder.
I really shudder because I knowthe The grassroots realities are
(09:48):
very different.
Cotton companies are not reallyin favor of cotton farmers.
Cotton farmers are just there toshowcase at great events and
all.
We love farmers and all that.
But the industry doesn't reallycare about farmers.
SPEAKER_00 (10:02):
They're kind of like mercantile slaves.
SPEAKER_01 (10:04):
Yeah, kind of.
Even to this day.
And which is why, again, thereare farmer organizations, there
are agricultural organizationsbut they are not really the best
people to make cotton farmersunderstand about what's going on
because sometime back I wrotesome piece about fashion for an
(10:28):
agriculture magazine and fromwhat I understood these
agriculture experts had no ideaabout cotton except for how to
grow it.
Nobody knows what happens tocotton, where is it taken, does
it go into home textiles, doesit go into other consumer
textiles?
Does it go into technicaltextiles?
(10:49):
No.
Does it go into medical textilesfor usage in hospitals or
whatever?
So my point was that if youreally don't understand or know
what your product is used forthere are high chances that you
will not know how to tackle itexcept to do groundwork
(11:09):
mitigation in terms ofirrigation or fertilizers.
Beyond that, they don't knowanything.
So there's a big, big knowledgegap in my opinion.
I don't know how it is in othercountries, but I think by and
large, except for those fewNGOs, very few international
NGOs, et cetera, who workdirectly with cotton farmers,
(11:31):
but they work in small verysmall pockets to make a veil of
a difference.
And which is why now I always,you know, review this fact that
there are no civil societyorganizations, no NGOs who work
in this field.
SPEAKER_00 (11:49):
So let me go backwards to my question.
So there's conventional cotton.
Then India has a long history ofsupplying the world organic
cotton.
Of course, there was lots ofproblems with organic cotton in
India.
SPEAKER_01 (12:04):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (12:06):
You're laughing, but we'll come back to that.
I'd like to know, actually, ifyou want to share what happened.
But I really want to go into theregenerative.
The latest discussion in theindustry that is, I think,
rational is the desire to haveregenerative cotton.
Is it happening in India?
Is it just a label?
Is it another certificationbusiness?
SPEAKER_01 (12:30):
Probably so, because I really don't know who comes up
with these ideas and trusts themon industry, starting with
circularity.
We talked about circularity.
Then you have regenerativecotton and all.
No, there's nothing wrong withthe concept.
There is nothing wrong withthose ideas at all.
(12:52):
But my point is that thesebecome kind of gimmicks for
organizations.
Now, and as far as regenerativecotton or regenerative
agriculture is concerned, Imean, I really don't see or I
haven't heard of much somethingthat has made any impact on me.
(13:13):
I mean, to me, it seems like anoxymoron.
No, agriculture in itself shouldbe regenerative.
Now, that is what, no,historically, traditionally,
agricultural practices were allabout, not only in India but
across the world.
So, what What is this new thingthat you have come up with
regenerative agriculture?
(13:34):
It's probably more of a label.
But of course, there is a lot ofwork to be done because we know
of the kind of pressures thatcotton farmers have been under
and we do know that soil healthin many parts of India, I mean I
(13:55):
know about, is a major issue.
And if you look at agriculturenot only in terms of the fields
but in terms of an ecosystem,then it is certainly a subject
of concern but the thing is I amnot sure how these projects
(14:17):
actually unfold on the groundunless I see these for myself
and these have to work and showresults not over one season but
over 10-15 seasons only then youcan know whether the practices
that you have adopted, whetherthe measures that you have
taken, whether those areactually working on the ground.
SPEAKER_00 (14:39):
Well, the thing I wonder is isn't if you're
worried about the seriouslyworried about the soil health
isn't that a government issuemore than a brand issue like
some brand in America says to anIndian farmer I need you to grow
your farm a certain way or Ican't buy from you isn't that
really the state issue like thestate of Gujarat or the state I
(15:03):
mean I don't really understandactually so you have what six
million farmers in India someProbably more.
Probably more.
So you have millions andmillions of farmers.
How are you going to pass alongthe information to each one and
then ensure each one is doingtheir work?
It seems incredible to me.
SPEAKER_01 (15:22):
Yes, there are lots of these issues, not only
related to cotton, but alsoapparel, etc.
When what a particular brand ora retailer wants to do, say in
the US or in Western Europe,cannot work beyond a point
because a lot of things need tobe implemented on the ground in
(15:47):
those respective countries.
I mean, farmers is one thing.
The same thing goes for apparelworkers.
No, it's all fine for you to saytell a brand or a retailer in
the US that you must pay thoseminimum wages or whatever,
(16:08):
living wages or working wages orwhatever you call it in India.
But at the end of the day, agarment factory here in India
has to abide by the rules, bythe laws here in India.
And the same goes for a lot ofother countries too.
SPEAKER_00 (16:27):
So is there conflict between what a brand standard is
and the local governmentstandard?
Is there conflict on that?
SPEAKER_01 (16:34):
Probably so, especially in countries where
laws are not implementedproperly.
India has been a signatory toall ILO conventions.
It has ratified everything, butthe thing is that you really
(16:55):
need to implement things on theground.
No, or labor standards or laborliving conditions vary from
state to state in India becauseevery state does things in its
own way.
The condition of a particularcotton farm or in one state
would be very different from hiscounterpart in another state.
(17:19):
Same thing goes for workers.
SPEAKER_00 (17:22):
Yeah, I was going to ask you that question.
So let me ask you this.
There's a garment factory inIndia that produces for export
and also has a factory thatproduces for the domestic
market.
Is their behavior with theirworkers different for both?
SPEAKER_01 (17:37):
No, I wouldn't think so.
I wouldn't think so.
Not that I know much of, butfrom whatever little I have seen
and learned, there isn't much ofa difference.
But certain things wouldprobably be different in the
sense that if I have twofactories, one factory makes
(18:01):
garments for the Indian marketand another makes something for,
say, US or European retailers.
Now, it is quite likely thatbuyers or company
representatives would want tovisit my premises sometime.
So, they're likely to visit thefactory unit which produces
(18:22):
garments for the export market.
So, I will ensure in my owninterest that the facilities,
the cleanliness, hygiene, etc.
is much better than the onewhich caters to the export
market.
I mean, it's probably a verylogical thing to do for everyone
in any country, not only inIndia.
SPEAKER_00 (18:44):
Hmm.
How are the labor unions inIndia as far as government
workers go?
SPEAKER_01 (18:50):
See, most, again, it varies from state to state.
Yes.
And, say, I mean, I know a lotabout the garment industry in
Bangalore because that's where Ilived for, you know, 10 years
before shifting to Calcuttaabout two years back.
Out there, about roughly, again,nobody knows the numbers for
(19:11):
sure, probably 80% of thegarment workers do not, come
under the organized labor sectorin the sense of there are no
representative unions speakingfor them or working for their
rights.
I mean, they have been trying tomake inroads for a long time
now, but still only roughlyabout 15 to 20% of the
(19:34):
government workers are there,are affiliated with unions.
Even in a small place, just acity like Bangalore, there are
probably three or four unionsdivided different union bodies
out there.
And not often, but there aretimes when these people work at
(19:54):
cross purposes and which reallydoesn't help the cause of
garment workers in my opinion.
SPEAKER_00 (20:00):
I see.
And what is the minimum wage inIndia today for a garment
factory?
SPEAKER_01 (20:05):
I really don't know.
I mean, it's a very silly thingto admit, but I really don't
know.
Yes.
I am not aware of the exactwages it would be.
Again, it would vary drasticallyfrom one company to another,
from big companies to smallcompanies.
It would be very different.
But my guess is that, no,export-oriented companies
(20:29):
definitely workers andexport-oriented companies get
better than their counterpartsin factories which are produced
for the domestic market, whichalso is
SPEAKER_00 (20:41):
huge.
I guess it's different in everystate, so there's no answer for
that, really.
All right.
Let's move to the Global FashionSummit.
I'd like to hear your views onthe Global Fashion Summit.
First of all, I'd like you toexplain what you think it is.
I'd like you to tell us what youthink it does and where do we go
from here.
So Let's go through that slowlyand unpack
SPEAKER_01 (21:03):
that.
That's a lot of questions in onepackage.
I'll interrupt you.
Don't worry.
SPEAKER_00 (21:10):
It won't be a huge monologue for you.
SPEAKER_01 (21:12):
No, no.
There's a lot to unpack for meout there.
Earlier, when they started, itwas the Copenhagen Fashion
Summit.
They decided to become theGlobal Fashion Summit, and
that's when I think everythingwent wrong.
Everything went kind of haywire,and I I'm not likely to ascribe
(21:33):
ulterior motives to them whenthey started.
I mean, anyone can startanything and anyone should start
something.
There's nothing wrong with that,fundamentally speaking.
But now it's become kind of moreof a circus, in my opinion.
So you have, so I shouldn't besaying this, but once you start
(21:54):
a circus, sooner and later theclowns drop in.
And that is what happens withmany of the many of the similar
kind of events.
SPEAKER_00 (22:04):
I'm going to interrupt you there for a second
because when I started to do anevent called Denim Days, my
friend who produced our eventsgave me a book on the circus.
SPEAKER_01 (22:18):
Really?
SPEAKER_00 (22:20):
No disrespect to you.
No, no, no.
It was a very, very appreciatedgift because the idea of a
circus when you do an event isvery relevant.
but you make it very funny whenyou say sooner or later the
clowns appear because yes thereare many clowns in the circus
SPEAKER_01 (22:39):
and yeah of course a good circus is always a great
even in terms of skill sets interms of artistry etc and the
clowns are just there to just tosidetrack the audience and that
is what also happens in theseevents except that these kind of
take over the They have kind oftaken over all these events in
(23:03):
the sense that, I mean, if youlook at the lineups of different
panels and panelists over thelast eight, ten years, you'll
see that almost the same, eitherthe same people or the same
kinds of people appear on thesepanels over and over again, and
this has been happening for thelast ten years.
(23:25):
What also happens is that mostof the discussions are centers
around the similar themes and...
Do you want to...
As far as I am concerned, Imean, there is not much to take
away from these events.
Those are just fireside chats.
(23:45):
I mean, apart from that, I mean,there's no, in my opinion,
there's no effort to come to aconclusion about anything that
we, you know, take up an agendaand we try to, you know, hammer
out a solution or whatever.
Those are just discussions.
And you can have thesediscussions over Zoom.
(24:06):
You can have the samediscussions over coffee in a
cafeteria or something, and youcan do the same thing in front
of a so-called global audiencein a setup in, say, Copenhagen
or wherever.
There's really no difference.
I mean, these are just plaindiscussions.
I mean, in my opinion, I mean,you should probably take up a
(24:32):
very decisive agenda that thisis a problem, this is the
problem that we are going tosolve, and And this problem we
will solve at this summit.
That is the only way it canwork, actually work.
Otherwise, it's just an event.
I mean, who cares?
I mean, they haven't made apenny worth of difference to the
fashion industry in the last 10years.
(24:52):
Do they make money?
I don't know.
I mean, earlier when theystarted, I remember all their
videos and everything, you know,used to be, you know, freely
accessible.
Now, I think those have all gonebehind a paywall.
I mean, who are you trying tofool and who are you trying to
help?
Are you trying to help anyone?
(25:13):
I don't think so.
Because if you really wanted tohelp industry, it was really, if
these were actual brainstormingsessions, then what you would
want is that these to be freelyaccessible to everyone around
the world.
Be it researchers, be itjournalists, be it students, be
(25:35):
it unions leaders, be it cottonfarmers, anyone.
Those should be accessible.
That is when knowledge issupposed to be above.
These are probably not anythingabout knowledge, but more about
just discussions.
I mean, nothing more than that.
SPEAKER_00 (25:54):
Why do you think when there's all these
sustainable conversations thatthere's a lack of discussion
ever about, or almost ever,about workers in spinning
factories or workers in dyeingfactories or in the gins?
They're hardly even likeacknowledged as part of the
industry.
Once in a while, there's somediscussion about labor in the
(26:14):
sewing factories, but everywhereelse, they seem to be invisible,
including the farmers.
Why do you think that is, andwill that ever change?
Or how do we change it?
SPEAKER_01 (26:24):
Coincidentally, I was thinking about the same
thing yesterday or the daybefore that, when I was just
browsing through the potentialquestions that you might ask.
If you look at these twotrajectories, One is these
global fashion agenda-ledsummits on one hand, and the
(26:51):
post-Rana Plaza campaigns, etcetera, on the other hand.
These two kind of have proceededmore or less simultaneously.
More or less simultaneously.
Those happen more or less, thetimelines more or less coincide
to quite an extent.
Now, what happened with the withRana Plaza thing was that
(27:15):
apparel workers came totallyinto focus at that time and they
have remained in the focus inthe sustainability agenda for
the same for the same period oftime and for the same reasons as
well and you know talking aboutworkers you know I you know I
mean just let me digress a bitin my early career etc when I
(27:41):
was very, veryactivist-oriented.
No, no, you always, when youstart as a journalist, you are
100% an activist and less of ajournalist.
And then, of course, you growover time and you become more of
a journalist and less of anactivist.
So in those early days, we usedto have these jokes that the
(28:02):
most obscene thing is about richpeople discussing poverty and
how they should eliminatepoverty.
And there's nothing moregrotesque, nothing more obscene
than that.
Poverty is not a financial thingto solve.
Poverty is a political issue.
And this is something that kindof remains everywhere.
(28:24):
What should I say?
The residual effects of thosearguments are to be found
everywhere.
And all these big-ticket events,people love to talk about
workers.
They love to...
show how much their hearts bleedfor workers and farmers, et
(28:46):
cetera.
Saying things is one thing andimplementing things is quite
another.
What happens at these events isthat you show all your
overflowing love for andoverweening concern for garment
workers.
And because it kind of fits inwith your ESG agenda, which kind
(29:10):
of trickled in around about thesame time.
And that was kind of a, in myopinion, that was a way out of
the environmental quagmire as itwere because when you add S and
you add G to it, those are noeasy ways to get out of your
environmental mess that you havecreated.
(29:31):
So you talk more about S, youtalk more about G, so you talk
more about workers.
I mean, you talk at least.
So the discussions used to behas been a lot about workers you
know how much you can do andwhat you should do no no we look
at the lineups of anddiscussions at the OECD due
(29:53):
diligence conferences that areheld in every January or
February every year you willfind that they have been
discussing the same things overthe last 10 years My question to
ask is, what have you done overthe last 10 years?
Have things really improved?
Most people, most governmentworkers will probably disagree.
You have agitations for higherpays in Bangladesh every year.
(30:17):
You have the same kind ofagitation for higher pay in
Cambodia everywhere.
Why is it that these thingshappen?
These things probably happenbecause you people have not been
doing anything.
In spite of showing so much oflove for workers, etc., all
these...
So talking about workers makesfor a very good story.
(30:39):
Most, when I really doubt thenumbers, but it's definitely a
majority of garment workers arewomen.
And therefore, those make forvery interesting stories to put
up on international platforms.
And I know those, I mean, not todiscredit the women workers by
(31:01):
any means at all, but the thingis that these people kind of
feed, in my opinion, or I shouldprobably rather say scavenge on
female garment workers acrossthe world.
Like you said, these apparelworkers are not the only workers
(31:24):
in industry.
The textile processing itselftakes place 15, 16, 17 stages.
And you have workers in allthose areas.
You have workers in you haveworkers in all these different
(31:46):
processing plants and you haveworkers in all these fabric
factories, spinning wheels,knitting wheels, etc.
And those are really, really,really many of these are
hazardous as you would know.
And the condition of workers inthese kind of factories is not
great or anything like that.
(32:07):
These are also human beings.
These are also people who areunder pressure financially more
than anything else.
And these are also people whosecause need to be taken up.
There's nothing wrong with that.
But there's no news about that.
There's silence.
Never.
Because those don't make forsexy stories.
That's why.
(32:28):
I mean, what am I going to writeabout a man slogging himself at
a spinning mill?
It doesn't make for a goodstory, right?
I mean, I'm not talking...
You're the writer.
I'm also saying it in anactivist sense.
It doesn't make for a goodreport.
It doesn't make for a goodstory.
(32:49):
So you kind of ignore it.
SPEAKER_00 (32:52):
If the challenge was to activate that segment of the
business, how would you activateit?
Activate in what sense?
Make it sexy.
Oh, no.
I mean, you need a fire.
And you need a lot of liveslost.
And then people would payattention.
SPEAKER_01 (33:10):
That is why I know I always use these words,
scavenge.
You know, scavenge.
Not all activists, but certainactivists who come from elite
backgrounds happen to do what Icall scavenger activism.
They feed on the debt.
(33:30):
It's not that the condition ofworkers in Bangladesh has
improved drastically in the last10 years.
It hasn't.
Just last year, I think, or theyear before that, there was this
study by some NGO in Bangladeshwho found that A very relatively
(33:52):
high percentage of survivors ofthe Rana Plaza tragedy still
don't have jobs.
I mean, who is it that hasgained in the last 10 years?
Wow.
Who is it that has gained?
Tell me, who is it that hasgained out of the Rana Prasad
tragedy?
I mean, the classicinvestigative journalist,
(34:15):
journalism tactic is to justfind who has benefited.
And you have to see where themoney has flown.
Who are the people who havebenefited?
The person, I mean, I don't havethe numbers, but you can verify
that yourself.
Your audience can do itthemselves.
Which is that you see the growthof Bangladesh's apparel industry
(34:41):
in the last 10 years.
It has grown phenomenally.
But has the pain level ofgarment workers also risen
phenomenally?
It hasn't.
No, absolutely not.
Absolutely.
So the thing is that the onlyones who have benefited from the
Rana Praja tragedy IsBangladesh's apparently
(35:02):
interesting?
No one else.
I mean, workers have notbenefited.
Just the other day, they wereagitating.
Minister benefited as well, fromwhat I understand.
Of course.
I mean, it happens in all thesesmall countries anyway, where
politicians and big industryare.
(35:22):
It is true across all countries,but it is particularly true of
small countries wherepoliticians and big industry,
are in bed together.
And this has been so for thelast so many years.
You know, it's funny that yousay that because, you know, just
the other day I was, you know, Iwon't name him.
There's a particular personalitywho is widely reckoned to be a
(35:50):
sourcing expert who knows how abarrel sourcing is done and all.
You know, suddenly I find thathe has changed his tack in the
last few months, you know, whois against the last Prime
Minister of Bangladesh who wasousted.
But the thing is that if you gothrough his old posts on
(36:10):
LinkedIn, five, six, seven yearsback also, he was also very much
in with these politicians, etc.
The thing is that, why is itthat all of a sudden you have
realized that this primeminister was corrupt?
The charges of corruptionagainst this prime minister has
been there for the last five,ten years.
(36:32):
Now, all of a sudden, you haveChase Tack and all of a sudden
you love the new Bangladeshregime.
SPEAKER_00 (36:39):
Now, you made me, I was never going to ask you this
question, but now I'm going toask you.
So, there's all theseallegations that the Bangladesh
Prime Minister took money, andnot money, billions, billions on
billions, but India gives herhome.
India finds her a good guest.
Why?
She's helped use the genocidebesides the money, and yet she
(37:01):
is living peacefully in India.
Why?
SPEAKER_01 (37:04):
Oh, yes, this is probably create a heated
discussion out here as well seethe backdrop was that her father
was the first president of thecountry and India played a big
part in Bangladesh'sindependence struggle as it were
(37:30):
and after her father wasbrutally assassinated she knew
What refuge in India?
So that those historic ties havealways been there.
And it is probably somethingthat she fell back on when she
fled Bangladesh last August, Ithink it was.
(37:53):
I mean, it's been a year now.
And she was given refuge inIndia.
There are lots of opinions aboutit, about why India did that.
One is probably there's ahistorical context there.
(38:16):
The other thing is that thepresent regime doesn't like,
it's not that they love Hasina,but it's that they hate the
dispensation which is analternative to which is much
more Islamist in dispensation.
So we have a Hindu right-winggovernment here in India.
(38:39):
So you have the potential of,I'm talking of last to power in
Bangladesh.
So that is probably the rightthing you think, right thing to
do, and therefore you allow herhere.
That is one of the prevailingarguments here.
SPEAKER_00 (39:03):
I got it.
Thank you for sharing.
So as we're kind of winding downhere, do you see any serious
media outlets covering tradepolicy, subsidies, currency
manipulation, or fashion issuesin a hard way.
Is there anybody in the worldwriting about what's really
going on that you admire or youread?
(39:24):
Not
SPEAKER_01 (39:26):
really.
I mean, most of the stuff, Imean, not in the textile fashion
space, certainly.
No, no, whatever.
I mean, I used to follow theRCEP or the RCEP negotiations,
you know, when they startedabout 12-13 years back I used to
follow that very diligently andit used to be very difficult for
(39:49):
me to find a textile or afashion angle to it because
nobody else nobody was actuallycovering it so much except if I
wanted to read about how itaffects the textile business in
each of the constituent ormember countries as it were I
(40:10):
could find very littleinformation anywhere So except
for those few, so you find goodinformation, relevant
information, credibleinformation, more in academic
studies.
And in mainstream media or evenin business media, so to speak.
No, you could never, I couldnever find anything.
(40:31):
And the same goes for, no, tradein general.
Trade in general.
Everybody has been talking aboutthe tariffs imposed by the US,
but that's probably only becausepeople either like Trump or hate
Trump.
(40:51):
So that's the reason why peoplehave been talking so much about
tariffs and you know he has comeup with really big numbers so no
it affects everyone to a greatextent so that is probably one
of the reasons that people havebeen talking a lot of tariffs
which so I mean if you find allthese articles here and there in
(41:15):
the fashion business media etcyou will find the talk is more
about Trump or more aboutretailers or something rather
than discussing things at thepolicy level.
All these reportage and allthese analyses are extremely
(41:37):
cosmetic.
Those only skim the surface.
Trade is something extremelydeep.
If you have to understandthings, you have to make people
understand.
You have to make readersunderstand.
You really need to dive deep.
And I don't think anybody doesthat, I mean, I really wonder
how many people have gonethrough, you know, all those,
(42:00):
you know, those huge, you know,trade deals that are sent, those
are running to hundreds andhundreds, probably thousands of
pages, and which all those, youknow, HSN codes and everything,
who understands all thosethings?
Who understands?
I mean, except people whoactually export and who actually
import, but other people don'tunderstand these things.
Now, I've gone through those,you know, huge annexures and I
(42:24):
mean, you really have tounderstand how those work to be
able to make your readers to beable to make your audience
understand what are the no whatare the nitty gritties I mean
how things work and how thingsdon't how things affect how a
particular tariff exemption orsome duty affects production in
(42:49):
your country why does it affectproduction in your country will
you be able to sell such thingsin this country will you be able
to settle certain things to thatcountry but these are extremely
important things and Ipersonally feel these are not
really discussed so much andgiven the recent backdrop in the
(43:15):
last 5-6 years trade was alwayskind of a kind of a weapon
always it has historical mean sobut it has not been weaponized
to this extent in the last 5-10years primarily by the US and
also to great extent by the EUand given this backdrop I think
(43:39):
it's extremely important to talkabout actual trade because there
is no industry which is thisdependent on trade as the
fashion industry
SPEAKER_00 (43:51):
that's true All right, I have two final
questions for you.
I think they're both kind ofinteresting questions.
And the first question is, ifthere was a headline, a headline
that you wish to see, what wouldit look like?
It's
SPEAKER_01 (44:10):
not a tricky question, actually.
It's a very difficult thing toanswer.
I
SPEAKER_00 (44:14):
mean, what do you want to read?
The second question that goesbehind it is, what long story
would you like to publish?
So it's two questions.
What would you like to see andwhat would you like to publish
yourself?
SPEAKER_01 (44:28):
Oh, I would really love to investigate all these
consultancies who have, in myopinion, misled the fashion
industry.
Historically speaking, thefashion industry has been kind
of laggards in many things.
It was very slow in adopting oradapting themselves to IT.
(44:53):
The fashion industry ishistorically slow.
And when this sustainabilityagenda and all kind of came
about, I mean, they had no cluewhat to do and what was what and
all that.
Now, no disrespect to them.
I'm not saying they are ignorantor they are fools or whatever.
(45:14):
The thing is that there arepeople who are in a particular
industry who don't know, whodon't know for whatever reason.
Let's give it to them.
They don't know.
They didn't know anything aboutit.
And so the same people...
who advised fashion companies togo the whole hog in 2000 on fast
fashion, on sensitive fibers,you know, 25 years ago.
(45:38):
The same people are advising theindustry on how to make
themselves, like, how to makethemselves sustainable.
You know, I would really laughmyself to death if it were that
funny.
I mean, seriously.
But the thing is, you know, canit take some more time to give
(45:58):
the context here.
You want to add anything youcan?
Yeah, of course.
I mean, it's extremely importantto understand why this has
happened.
Why all this has happened, notonly in the fashion industry,
but everywhere else.
You know, the history of modernenvironmental activism or
anything kind of starts in 1992with the Rio Summit.
(46:22):
Now, there was a backdrop tothat which started from the
1960s from know from RachelCarson's Silent Spring and then
following the BrantlandCommission's report in 1987
leading up to the 1992 RioSummit.
Now from 1992 Rio Summit tillabout 2005 the things were in an
(46:49):
absolute mess in the sense thatif you want to make the world a
better place, you need to havebusinesses, you need to have
industry on board as well.
You may not like them, you maydislike them wholeheartedly, but
the thing is the need to havethem on board to discuss things,
to sort things out.
And none of the UN bodies, noneof the...
(47:13):
could have industry on board fordiscussions.
The only thing the industry wasdoing always was kind of
scuttling efforts.
No, they didn't have a role toplay.
They didn't want to have a roleto play.
But it changed in around about2005 when the UNEP, it keeps on
(47:34):
changing its name, the UnitedNations Environment Program,
which is now known as UNEnvironment.
But let's call them UNEP.
When they came up with theMillennium ecosystem assessment.
That's when it was an officialdocument which brought
businesses and industry onboard.
(47:54):
Do you want to say some closing
SPEAKER_00 (47:55):
remarks?
SPEAKER_01 (47:57):
Yeah, I would love to do an investigative piece on
how these big-ticketconsultancies have on one hand,
led the fashion industry up thegarden path, and kind of the
second is kind of what takes offfrom the first, which is that
they have actually beenmisleading the fashion industry.
(48:21):
That is the reason why you haveall these contradictory figures
where you have all thesesummaries where everybody says
that we are going to do this, weare going to do that, we are
going to increase our recycledfiber intake, we are going to do
this sustainably.
We are going to do that in amore circular way.
(48:43):
But the bottom line is that theemissions are still up.
Every year you have all thesereports from Stand.org and from
other organizations which alwayscome up with these numbers which
shows that the emissions are upover the previous year.
(49:06):
So that necessarily it reallymeans that the bottom line is
that the bottom line is notworking, which is that whatever
you talk about, whatever youpreach is not working.
So if things are not working,then you should go into the
reasons behind it.
Why is it not working?
And I don't see anyintrospection in the industry
(49:31):
about trying to find out.
It's probably because the peoplewho are advising you are not
doing the right things.
You probably need to get a newset of advices.
SPEAKER_00 (49:43):
On that happy note, I would like to tell the
audience that Shabeen has awebsite called techsfash.com and
you might want to visit it ifyou want to get some news from
India.
I think it's a nice place to goand check it out.
I really appreciate you,Shabeen, for being here with us.
It's delightful to talk to youand hope we can do it again
(50:04):
soon.
SPEAKER_01 (50:05):
Yeah, thank you, Andrew.
I And it's been, like I said,it's been a privilege to be
hosted by Andrew Holder.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Have a good night.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
July 29th, 2025, just about six weeks ago, as
Transformers Foundation wasreleasing their report on water
use in Indigo Dying, I was senta very interesting group of
questions by Texfash, apublication in India that I'd
never heard of before.
When I looked them up, I wasfascinated by the co-founder and
executive editor, Mr.
Shubin Kosh, who is aKolkata-based journalist
(00:27):
researcher who writes aboutcrony capitalism, corporate
corruption, environment,conflict, and films.
Not exactly the typical pathjournalists in the fashion
industry generally follow.
He started out his career insales before switching over to
journalism in 1991, and he's nowleading TexFash, where he writes
mostly about sustainable fashionand policy issues related to
(00:49):
textiles and the apparelindustry.
He is the author of three booksand has co-authored three with
others.
We are very proud that he wouldagree to do an interview with
me, and we hope you like theinterview.
Jubin, it is an incrediblepleasure to have you join our
podcast.
Thank you very much for makingtime.
SPEAKER_01 (01:09):
Thank you very much for having me here, and it's a
privilege to be hosted by you.
SPEAKER_00 (01:15):
In our industry, I'm trying to have these podcasts
represent all differentcountries and all different
players in the industry and Ithink you're the first
journalist that we've had on andyou're certainly the first
person from India so I am besidemyself with joy so let's start
out this way what is thestoryline that the fashion
industry is clinging to thatfeels kind of out of touch to
(01:39):
you or kind of like something'swrong
SPEAKER_01 (01:41):
the main narrative that is not probably driving the
industry right now iscircularity there's nothing
wrong about circularityfundamental speaking.
But I personally feel that theindustry is going overboard with
it.
The primary reason is that theway I've been looking at things,
(02:04):
it seems to me that the industryis being led to believe that
secularity is the way out of allproblems, number one.
And number two is that this isjust another way of doing the
same things all over again,which means that, no, you keep
on doing your business and thecircle becomes bigger and bigger
(02:27):
and bigger every day.
No, if the circle were to remainkind of constant in terms of
circumference, no, nobody wouldbe able to do business after a
point of time.
So that is the way it has beenworking for the last two or
three years, I think.
SPEAKER_00 (02:42):
I'm smiling because I love the concept that we can
take garbage and reuse it.
I mean, I love the concept.
I went to Lensing many, manyyears ago.
And when they asked them abouttheir energy, they said that, I
think the number in its memoryis 50 or 60% of their energy was
from consumer waste.
(03:04):
And I thought, oh, that would besuch a great idea in India and
China.
They have a lot of waste.
So I love the concept of reusinganything for another purpose.
Whether it's a solution to ourindustry, I think it's kind of a
Yes, that has been the
SPEAKER_01 (03:35):
problem.
The industry, from what I haveseen, does not really have a
mind of its own.
And the industry, by and large,has been doing what the big four
or probably the big fiveconsultants have been telling
them to do.
And they have been told, theyhave been made to understand
(03:55):
that circularity is, or circularfashion, so to speak, is
wonderful because you get tokeep your hands clean and
everyone is happy and everyonemakes money and that's the way
to go about it.
That's why I keep on saying thatthe idea is always to ensure
that the circle keeps bigger andbigger and bigger over time.
SPEAKER_00 (04:19):
And how do people in India in the textile business
regard the global north, youknow, always blabbing about all
the great things they're doingwhile they're doing nothing.
SPEAKER_01 (04:28):
It's a mixed bag, really, because you have all
kinds of people.
There's no country as diverse asIndia.
I mean, not only in terms ofethnicities, etc., but also in
terms of opinions.
You probably have not as manyopinions as there are people.
Now, there are lots of peoplewho believe that the
(04:51):
sustainability agenda of theWest is being thrust on us.
There are lots of people whodon't have a clue what's going
on.
And there are lots of people whowant to do things their own way.
So these are no, I mean, I ampretty sure no, these three
broad categories of people wouldbe there in every country.
(05:13):
And in India, the problem isthat you don't have too many,
let's, I don't like the termcivilization organizations which
work in this textiles, apparel,fashion space.
So the only players who are thediscussants, who are the only
(05:33):
people who kind of drive thenarrative, and the only people
who you see at events, etc., areindustry people and no one else.
Which makes it extremelylopsided because all that you
have, good, bad, and ugly, comesonly from the industry.
SPEAKER_00 (05:50):
There's no engine working on sustainability in
India.
Is that what you mean?
SPEAKER_01 (05:56):
Not in the textiles fashion apparent space.
I see.
There are lots of wonderful NGOswho work in other areas, but
nobody really specializes inthis sector.
And probably there's some scopefor somebody to do in this space
out here.
(06:16):
I see.
Tremendous scope, tremendousscope actually.
SPEAKER_00 (06:20):
And what about regenerative agriculture in
cotton?
How do you see that and how doesit fit inside the Indian textile
industry, farming community?
SPEAKER_01 (06:31):
I mean, historically speaking, the proportion of
cotton versus polyester in Indiahas been virtually the opposite
of what it is globally.
Globally, it's roughly.
I mean, if you leave out thesmaller fibers aside, it's
(06:52):
two-thirds is polyester andone-third is cotton.
Right.
India is still just the otherway around.
But the thing is, polyester,even in India, is on a rise.
And fast fashion, so to speak,has been on a relatively late
(07:14):
entrance.
India, but then again thissector, this segment of the
industry has been growing aswell.
There's no way to quantify itbecause nobody has the actual
numbers.
But what this means is thatthere is tremendous pressure on
cotton.
And when I say pressure oncotton, I necessarily mean
(07:34):
farmers.
Now, there's been a lot of workon farmer suicides in India.
In most of the cases in of theculprit crop was cotton, has
been cotton.
Now, which is to say that thecotton farmers in India have
(07:56):
been historically under pressurebecause of various reasons,
because of finance, because ofbeing led up the garden path and
because of not being guided byexperts.
Cotton, as you know, cotton isprobably one of the most
valuable weird crops the yieldcan vary from field to field it
(08:20):
can vary from one part of thestate to another part of the
state and the requirements andother inputs that are required
very drastically anddramatically from area to area
which necessarily means thatthere cannot be one solution for
all kinds of farmers and thereis nobody there to give them
(08:42):
that guidance in my opinion andAnd industry bodies in terms of
cotton industry associations andall of, in my opinion, have not
really been doing that.
And that is one factor.
The other factor is, you know,India, you have something called
the MSP, the minimum supportprice that the government
(09:03):
offers, which is the minimumprice that a farmer would get
for his or her produce, perquintal or per kilogram or
whatever, per ton or whatever.
Now, Industry.
I really shudder.
I really shudder because I knowthe The grassroots realities are
(09:48):
very different.
Cotton companies are not reallyin favor of cotton farmers.
Cotton farmers are just there toshowcase at great events and
all.
We love farmers and all that.
But the industry doesn't reallycare about farmers.
SPEAKER_00 (10:02):
They're kind of like mercantile slaves.
SPEAKER_01 (10:04):
Yeah, kind of.
Even to this day.
And which is why, again, thereare farmer organizations, there
are agricultural organizationsbut they are not really the best
people to make cotton farmersunderstand about what's going on
because sometime back I wrotesome piece about fashion for an
(10:28):
agriculture magazine and fromwhat I understood these
agriculture experts had no ideaabout cotton except for how to
grow it.
Nobody knows what happens tocotton, where is it taken, does
it go into home textiles, doesit go into other consumer
textiles?
Does it go into technicaltextiles?
(10:49):
No.
Does it go into medical textilesfor usage in hospitals or
whatever?
So my point was that if youreally don't understand or know
what your product is used forthere are high chances that you
will not know how to tackle itexcept to do groundwork
(11:09):
mitigation in terms ofirrigation or fertilizers.
Beyond that, they don't knowanything.
So there's a big, big knowledgegap in my opinion.
I don't know how it is in othercountries, but I think by and
large, except for those fewNGOs, very few international
NGOs, et cetera, who workdirectly with cotton farmers,
(11:31):
but they work in small verysmall pockets to make a veil of
a difference.
And which is why now I always,you know, review this fact that
there are no civil societyorganizations, no NGOs who work
in this field.
SPEAKER_00 (11:49):
So let me go backwards to my question.
So there's conventional cotton.
Then India has a long history ofsupplying the world organic
cotton.
Of course, there was lots ofproblems with organic cotton in
India.
SPEAKER_01 (12:04):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (12:06):
You're laughing, but we'll come back to that.
I'd like to know, actually, ifyou want to share what happened.
But I really want to go into theregenerative.
The latest discussion in theindustry that is, I think,
rational is the desire to haveregenerative cotton.
Is it happening in India?
Is it just a label?
Is it another certificationbusiness?
SPEAKER_01 (12:30):
Probably so, because I really don't know who comes up
with these ideas and trusts themon industry, starting with
circularity.
We talked about circularity.
Then you have regenerativecotton and all.
No, there's nothing wrong withthe concept.
There is nothing wrong withthose ideas at all.
(12:52):
But my point is that thesebecome kind of gimmicks for
organizations.
Now, and as far as regenerativecotton or regenerative
agriculture is concerned, Imean, I really don't see or I
haven't heard of much somethingthat has made any impact on me.
(13:13):
I mean, to me, it seems like anoxymoron.
No, agriculture in itself shouldbe regenerative.
Now, that is what, no,historically, traditionally,
agricultural practices were allabout, not only in India but
across the world.
So, what What is this new thingthat you have come up with
regenerative agriculture?
(13:34):
It's probably more of a label.
But of course, there is a lot ofwork to be done because we know
of the kind of pressures thatcotton farmers have been under
and we do know that soil healthin many parts of India, I mean I
(13:55):
know about, is a major issue.
And if you look at agriculturenot only in terms of the fields
but in terms of an ecosystem,then it is certainly a subject
of concern but the thing is I amnot sure how these projects
(14:17):
actually unfold on the groundunless I see these for myself
and these have to work and showresults not over one season but
over 10-15 seasons only then youcan know whether the practices
that you have adopted, whetherthe measures that you have
taken, whether those areactually working on the ground.
SPEAKER_00 (14:39):
Well, the thing I wonder is isn't if you're
worried about the seriouslyworried about the soil health
isn't that a government issuemore than a brand issue like
some brand in America says to anIndian farmer I need you to grow
your farm a certain way or Ican't buy from you isn't that
really the state issue like thestate of Gujarat or the state I
(15:03):
mean I don't really understandactually so you have what six
million farmers in India someProbably more.
Probably more.
So you have millions andmillions of farmers.
How are you going to pass alongthe information to each one and
then ensure each one is doingtheir work?
It seems incredible to me.
SPEAKER_01 (15:22):
Yes, there are lots of these issues, not only
related to cotton, but alsoapparel, etc.
When what a particular brand ora retailer wants to do, say in
the US or in Western Europe,cannot work beyond a point
because a lot of things need tobe implemented on the ground in
(15:47):
those respective countries.
I mean, farmers is one thing.
The same thing goes for apparelworkers.
No, it's all fine for you to saytell a brand or a retailer in
the US that you must pay thoseminimum wages or whatever,
(16:08):
living wages or working wages orwhatever you call it in India.
But at the end of the day, agarment factory here in India
has to abide by the rules, bythe laws here in India.
And the same goes for a lot ofother countries too.
SPEAKER_00 (16:27):
So is there conflict between what a brand standard is
and the local governmentstandard?
Is there conflict on that?
SPEAKER_01 (16:34):
Probably so, especially in countries where
laws are not implementedproperly.
India has been a signatory toall ILO conventions.
It has ratified everything, butthe thing is that you really
(16:55):
need to implement things on theground.
No, or labor standards or laborliving conditions vary from
state to state in India becauseevery state does things in its
own way.
The condition of a particularcotton farm or in one state
would be very different from hiscounterpart in another state.
(17:19):
Same thing goes for workers.
SPEAKER_00 (17:22):
Yeah, I was going to ask you that question.
So let me ask you this.
There's a garment factory inIndia that produces for export
and also has a factory thatproduces for the domestic
market.
Is their behavior with theirworkers different for both?
SPEAKER_01 (17:37):
No, I wouldn't think so.
I wouldn't think so.
Not that I know much of, butfrom whatever little I have seen
and learned, there isn't much ofa difference.
But certain things wouldprobably be different in the
sense that if I have twofactories, one factory makes
(18:01):
garments for the Indian marketand another makes something for,
say, US or European retailers.
Now, it is quite likely thatbuyers or company
representatives would want tovisit my premises sometime.
So, they're likely to visit thefactory unit which produces
(18:22):
garments for the export market.
So, I will ensure in my owninterest that the facilities,
the cleanliness, hygiene, etc.
is much better than the onewhich caters to the export
market.
I mean, it's probably a verylogical thing to do for everyone
in any country, not only inIndia.
SPEAKER_00 (18:44):
Hmm.
How are the labor unions inIndia as far as government
workers go?
SPEAKER_01 (18:50):
See, most, again, it varies from state to state.
Yes.
And, say, I mean, I know a lotabout the garment industry in
Bangalore because that's where Ilived for, you know, 10 years
before shifting to Calcuttaabout two years back.
Out there, about roughly, again,nobody knows the numbers for
(19:11):
sure, probably 80% of thegarment workers do not, come
under the organized labor sectorin the sense of there are no
representative unions speakingfor them or working for their
rights.
I mean, they have been trying tomake inroads for a long time
now, but still only roughlyabout 15 to 20% of the
(19:34):
government workers are there,are affiliated with unions.
Even in a small place, just acity like Bangalore, there are
probably three or four unionsdivided different union bodies
out there.
And not often, but there aretimes when these people work at
(19:54):
cross purposes and which reallydoesn't help the cause of
garment workers in my opinion.
SPEAKER_00 (20:00):
I see.
And what is the minimum wage inIndia today for a garment
factory?
SPEAKER_01 (20:05):
I really don't know.
I mean, it's a very silly thingto admit, but I really don't
know.
Yes.
I am not aware of the exactwages it would be.
Again, it would vary drasticallyfrom one company to another,
from big companies to smallcompanies.
It would be very different.
But my guess is that, no,export-oriented companies
(20:29):
definitely workers andexport-oriented companies get
better than their counterpartsin factories which are produced
for the domestic market, whichalso is
SPEAKER_00 (20:41):
huge.
I guess it's different in everystate, so there's no answer for
that, really.
All right.
Let's move to the Global FashionSummit.
I'd like to hear your views onthe Global Fashion Summit.
First of all, I'd like you toexplain what you think it is.
I'd like you to tell us what youthink it does and where do we go
from here.
So Let's go through that slowlyand unpack
SPEAKER_01 (21:03):
that.
That's a lot of questions in onepackage.
I'll interrupt you.
Don't worry.
SPEAKER_00 (21:10):
It won't be a huge monologue for you.
SPEAKER_01 (21:12):
No, no.
There's a lot to unpack for meout there.
Earlier, when they started, itwas the Copenhagen Fashion
Summit.
They decided to become theGlobal Fashion Summit, and
that's when I think everythingwent wrong.
Everything went kind of haywire,and I I'm not likely to ascribe
(21:33):
ulterior motives to them whenthey started.
I mean, anyone can startanything and anyone should start
something.
There's nothing wrong with that,fundamentally speaking.
But now it's become kind of moreof a circus, in my opinion.
So you have, so I shouldn't besaying this, but once you start
(21:54):
a circus, sooner and later theclowns drop in.
And that is what happens withmany of the many of the similar
kind of events.
SPEAKER_00 (22:04):
I'm going to interrupt you there for a second
because when I started to do anevent called Denim Days, my
friend who produced our eventsgave me a book on the circus.
SPEAKER_01 (22:18):
Really?
SPEAKER_00 (22:20):
No disrespect to you.
No, no, no.
It was a very, very appreciatedgift because the idea of a
circus when you do an event isvery relevant.
but you make it very funny whenyou say sooner or later the
clowns appear because yes thereare many clowns in the circus
SPEAKER_01 (22:39):
and yeah of course a good circus is always a great
even in terms of skill sets interms of artistry etc and the
clowns are just there to just tosidetrack the audience and that
is what also happens in theseevents except that these kind of
take over the They have kind oftaken over all these events in
(23:03):
the sense that, I mean, if youlook at the lineups of different
panels and panelists over thelast eight, ten years, you'll
see that almost the same, eitherthe same people or the same
kinds of people appear on thesepanels over and over again, and
this has been happening for thelast ten years.
(23:25):
What also happens is that mostof the discussions are centers
around the similar themes and...
Do you want to...
As far as I am concerned, Imean, there is not much to take
away from these events.
Those are just fireside chats.
(23:45):
I mean, apart from that, I mean,there's no, in my opinion,
there's no effort to come to aconclusion about anything that
we, you know, take up an agendaand we try to, you know, hammer
out a solution or whatever.
Those are just discussions.
And you can have thesediscussions over Zoom.
(24:06):
You can have the samediscussions over coffee in a
cafeteria or something, and youcan do the same thing in front
of a so-called global audiencein a setup in, say, Copenhagen
or wherever.
There's really no difference.
I mean, these are just plaindiscussions.
I mean, in my opinion, I mean,you should probably take up a
(24:32):
very decisive agenda that thisis a problem, this is the
problem that we are going tosolve, and And this problem we
will solve at this summit.
That is the only way it canwork, actually work.
Otherwise, it's just an event.
I mean, who cares?
I mean, they haven't made apenny worth of difference to the
fashion industry in the last 10years.
(24:52):
Do they make money?
I don't know.
I mean, earlier when theystarted, I remember all their
videos and everything, you know,used to be, you know, freely
accessible.
Now, I think those have all gonebehind a paywall.
I mean, who are you trying tofool and who are you trying to
help?
Are you trying to help anyone?
(25:13):
I don't think so.
Because if you really wanted tohelp industry, it was really, if
these were actual brainstormingsessions, then what you would
want is that these to be freelyaccessible to everyone around
the world.
Be it researchers, be itjournalists, be it students, be
(25:35):
it unions leaders, be it cottonfarmers, anyone.
Those should be accessible.
That is when knowledge issupposed to be above.
These are probably not anythingabout knowledge, but more about
just discussions.
I mean, nothing more than that.
SPEAKER_00 (25:54):
Why do you think when there's all these
sustainable conversations thatthere's a lack of discussion
ever about, or almost ever,about workers in spinning
factories or workers in dyeingfactories or in the gins?
They're hardly even likeacknowledged as part of the
industry.
Once in a while, there's somediscussion about labor in the
(26:14):
sewing factories, but everywhereelse, they seem to be invisible,
including the farmers.
Why do you think that is, andwill that ever change?
Or how do we change it?
SPEAKER_01 (26:24):
Coincidentally, I was thinking about the same
thing yesterday or the daybefore that, when I was just
browsing through the potentialquestions that you might ask.
If you look at these twotrajectories, One is these
global fashion agenda-ledsummits on one hand, and the
(26:51):
post-Rana Plaza campaigns, etcetera, on the other hand.
These two kind of have proceededmore or less simultaneously.
More or less simultaneously.
Those happen more or less, thetimelines more or less coincide
to quite an extent.
Now, what happened with the withRana Plaza thing was that
(27:15):
apparel workers came totallyinto focus at that time and they
have remained in the focus inthe sustainability agenda for
the same for the same period oftime and for the same reasons as
well and you know talking aboutworkers you know I you know I
mean just let me digress a bitin my early career etc when I
(27:41):
was very, veryactivist-oriented.
No, no, you always, when youstart as a journalist, you are
100% an activist and less of ajournalist.
And then, of course, you growover time and you become more of
a journalist and less of anactivist.
So in those early days, we usedto have these jokes that the
(28:02):
most obscene thing is about richpeople discussing poverty and
how they should eliminatepoverty.
And there's nothing moregrotesque, nothing more obscene
than that.
Poverty is not a financial thingto solve.
Poverty is a political issue.
And this is something that kindof remains everywhere.
(28:24):
What should I say?
The residual effects of thosearguments are to be found
everywhere.
And all these big-ticket events,people love to talk about
workers.
They love to...
show how much their hearts bleedfor workers and farmers, et
(28:46):
cetera.
Saying things is one thing andimplementing things is quite
another.
What happens at these events isthat you show all your
overflowing love for andoverweening concern for garment
workers.
And because it kind of fits inwith your ESG agenda, which kind
(29:10):
of trickled in around about thesame time.
And that was kind of a, in myopinion, that was a way out of
the environmental quagmire as itwere because when you add S and
you add G to it, those are noeasy ways to get out of your
environmental mess that you havecreated.
(29:31):
So you talk more about S, youtalk more about G, so you talk
more about workers.
I mean, you talk at least.
So the discussions used to behas been a lot about workers you
know how much you can do andwhat you should do no no we look
at the lineups of anddiscussions at the OECD due
(29:53):
diligence conferences that areheld in every January or
February every year you willfind that they have been
discussing the same things overthe last 10 years My question to
ask is, what have you done overthe last 10 years?
Have things really improved?
Most people, most governmentworkers will probably disagree.
You have agitations for higherpays in Bangladesh every year.
(30:17):
You have the same kind ofagitation for higher pay in
Cambodia everywhere.
Why is it that these thingshappen?
These things probably happenbecause you people have not been
doing anything.
In spite of showing so much oflove for workers, etc., all
these...
So talking about workers makesfor a very good story.
(30:39):
Most, when I really doubt thenumbers, but it's definitely a
majority of garment workers arewomen.
And therefore, those make forvery interesting stories to put
up on international platforms.
And I know those, I mean, not todiscredit the women workers by
(31:01):
any means at all, but the thingis that these people kind of
feed, in my opinion, or I shouldprobably rather say scavenge on
female garment workers acrossthe world.
Like you said, these apparelworkers are not the only workers
(31:24):
in industry.
The textile processing itselftakes place 15, 16, 17 stages.
And you have workers in allthose areas.
You have workers in you haveworkers in all these different
(31:46):
processing plants and you haveworkers in all these fabric
factories, spinning wheels,knitting wheels, etc.
And those are really, really,really many of these are
hazardous as you would know.
And the condition of workers inthese kind of factories is not
great or anything like that.
(32:07):
These are also human beings.
These are also people who areunder pressure financially more
than anything else.
And these are also people whosecause need to be taken up.
There's nothing wrong with that.
But there's no news about that.
There's silence.
Never.
Because those don't make forsexy stories.
That's why.
(32:28):
I mean, what am I going to writeabout a man slogging himself at
a spinning mill?
It doesn't make for a goodstory, right?
I mean, I'm not talking...
You're the writer.
I'm also saying it in anactivist sense.
It doesn't make for a goodreport.
It doesn't make for a goodstory.
(32:49):
So you kind of ignore it.
SPEAKER_00 (32:52):
If the challenge was to activate that segment of the
business, how would you activateit?
Activate in what sense?
Make it sexy.
Oh, no.
I mean, you need a fire.
And you need a lot of liveslost.
And then people would payattention.
SPEAKER_01 (33:10):
That is why I know I always use these words,
scavenge.
You know, scavenge.
Not all activists, but certainactivists who come from elite
backgrounds happen to do what Icall scavenger activism.
They feed on the debt.
(33:30):
It's not that the condition ofworkers in Bangladesh has
improved drastically in the last10 years.
It hasn't.
Just last year, I think, or theyear before that, there was this
study by some NGO in Bangladeshwho found that A very relatively
(33:52):
high percentage of survivors ofthe Rana Plaza tragedy still
don't have jobs.
I mean, who is it that hasgained in the last 10 years?
Wow.
Who is it that has gained?
Tell me, who is it that hasgained out of the Rana Prasad
tragedy?
I mean, the classicinvestigative journalist,
(34:15):
journalism tactic is to justfind who has benefited.
And you have to see where themoney has flown.
Who are the people who havebenefited?
The person, I mean, I don't havethe numbers, but you can verify
that yourself.
Your audience can do itthemselves.
Which is that you see the growthof Bangladesh's apparel industry
(34:41):
in the last 10 years.
It has grown phenomenally.
But has the pain level ofgarment workers also risen
phenomenally?
It hasn't.
No, absolutely not.
Absolutely.
So the thing is that the onlyones who have benefited from the
Rana Praja tragedy IsBangladesh's apparently
(35:02):
interesting?
No one else.
I mean, workers have notbenefited.
Just the other day, they wereagitating.
Minister benefited as well, fromwhat I understand.
Of course.
I mean, it happens in all thesesmall countries anyway, where
politicians and big industryare.
(35:22):
It is true across all countries,but it is particularly true of
small countries wherepoliticians and big industry,
are in bed together.
And this has been so for thelast so many years.
You know, it's funny that yousay that because, you know, just
the other day I was, you know, Iwon't name him.
There's a particular personalitywho is widely reckoned to be a
(35:50):
sourcing expert who knows how abarrel sourcing is done and all.
You know, suddenly I find thathe has changed his tack in the
last few months, you know, whois against the last Prime
Minister of Bangladesh who wasousted.
But the thing is that if you gothrough his old posts on
(36:10):
LinkedIn, five, six, seven yearsback also, he was also very much
in with these politicians, etc.
The thing is that, why is itthat all of a sudden you have
realized that this primeminister was corrupt?
The charges of corruptionagainst this prime minister has
been there for the last five,ten years.
(36:32):
Now, all of a sudden, you haveChase Tack and all of a sudden
you love the new Bangladeshregime.
SPEAKER_00 (36:39):
Now, you made me, I was never going to ask you this
question, but now I'm going toask you.
So, there's all theseallegations that the Bangladesh
Prime Minister took money, andnot money, billions, billions on
billions, but India gives herhome.
India finds her a good guest.
Why?
She's helped use the genocidebesides the money, and yet she
(37:01):
is living peacefully in India.
Why?
SPEAKER_01 (37:04):
Oh, yes, this is probably create a heated
discussion out here as well seethe backdrop was that her father
was the first president of thecountry and India played a big
part in Bangladesh'sindependence struggle as it were
(37:30):
and after her father wasbrutally assassinated she knew
What refuge in India?
So that those historic ties havealways been there.
And it is probably somethingthat she fell back on when she
fled Bangladesh last August, Ithink it was.
(37:53):
I mean, it's been a year now.
And she was given refuge inIndia.
There are lots of opinions aboutit, about why India did that.
One is probably there's ahistorical context there.
(38:16):
The other thing is that thepresent regime doesn't like,
it's not that they love Hasina,but it's that they hate the
dispensation which is analternative to which is much
more Islamist in dispensation.
So we have a Hindu right-winggovernment here in India.
(38:39):
So you have the potential of,I'm talking of last to power in
Bangladesh.
So that is probably the rightthing you think, right thing to
do, and therefore you allow herhere.
That is one of the prevailingarguments here.
SPEAKER_00 (39:03):
I got it.
Thank you for sharing.
So as we're kind of winding downhere, do you see any serious
media outlets covering tradepolicy, subsidies, currency
manipulation, or fashion issuesin a hard way.
Is there anybody in the worldwriting about what's really
going on that you admire or youread?
(39:24):
Not
SPEAKER_01 (39:26):
really.
I mean, most of the stuff, Imean, not in the textile fashion
space, certainly.
No, no, whatever.
I mean, I used to follow theRCEP or the RCEP negotiations,
you know, when they startedabout 12-13 years back I used to
follow that very diligently andit used to be very difficult for
(39:49):
me to find a textile or afashion angle to it because
nobody else nobody was actuallycovering it so much except if I
wanted to read about how itaffects the textile business in
each of the constituent ormember countries as it were I
(40:10):
could find very littleinformation anywhere So except
for those few, so you find goodinformation, relevant
information, credibleinformation, more in academic
studies.
And in mainstream media or evenin business media, so to speak.
No, you could never, I couldnever find anything.
(40:31):
And the same goes for, no, tradein general.
Trade in general.
Everybody has been talking aboutthe tariffs imposed by the US,
but that's probably only becausepeople either like Trump or hate
Trump.
(40:51):
So that's the reason why peoplehave been talking so much about
tariffs and you know he has comeup with really big numbers so no
it affects everyone to a greatextent so that is probably one
of the reasons that people havebeen talking a lot of tariffs
which so I mean if you find allthese articles here and there in
(41:15):
the fashion business media etcyou will find the talk is more
about Trump or more aboutretailers or something rather
than discussing things at thepolicy level.
All these reportage and allthese analyses are extremely
(41:37):
cosmetic.
Those only skim the surface.
Trade is something extremelydeep.
If you have to understandthings, you have to make people
understand.
You have to make readersunderstand.
You really need to dive deep.
And I don't think anybody doesthat, I mean, I really wonder
how many people have gonethrough, you know, all those,
(42:00):
you know, those huge, you know,trade deals that are sent, those
are running to hundreds andhundreds, probably thousands of
pages, and which all those, youknow, HSN codes and everything,
who understands all thosethings?
Who understands?
I mean, except people whoactually export and who actually
import, but other people don'tunderstand these things.
Now, I've gone through those,you know, huge annexures and I
(42:24):
mean, you really have tounderstand how those work to be
able to make your readers to beable to make your audience
understand what are the no whatare the nitty gritties I mean
how things work and how thingsdon't how things affect how a
particular tariff exemption orsome duty affects production in
(42:49):
your country why does it affectproduction in your country will
you be able to sell such thingsin this country will you be able
to settle certain things to thatcountry but these are extremely
important things and Ipersonally feel these are not
really discussed so much andgiven the recent backdrop in the
(43:15):
last 5-6 years trade was alwayskind of a kind of a weapon
always it has historical mean sobut it has not been weaponized
to this extent in the last 5-10years primarily by the US and
also to great extent by the EUand given this backdrop I think
(43:39):
it's extremely important to talkabout actual trade because there
is no industry which is thisdependent on trade as the
fashion industry
SPEAKER_00 (43:51):
that's true All right, I have two final
questions for you.
I think they're both kind ofinteresting questions.
And the first question is, ifthere was a headline, a headline
that you wish to see, what wouldit look like?
It's
SPEAKER_01 (44:10):
not a tricky question, actually.
It's a very difficult thing toanswer.
I
SPEAKER_00 (44:14):
mean, what do you want to read?
The second question that goesbehind it is, what long story
would you like to publish?
So it's two questions.
What would you like to see andwhat would you like to publish
yourself?
SPEAKER_01 (44:28):
Oh, I would really love to investigate all these
consultancies who have, in myopinion, misled the fashion
industry.
Historically speaking, thefashion industry has been kind
of laggards in many things.
It was very slow in adopting oradapting themselves to IT.
(44:53):
The fashion industry ishistorically slow.
And when this sustainabilityagenda and all kind of came
about, I mean, they had no cluewhat to do and what was what and
all that.
Now, no disrespect to them.
I'm not saying they are ignorantor they are fools or whatever.
(45:14):
The thing is that there arepeople who are in a particular
industry who don't know, whodon't know for whatever reason.
Let's give it to them.
They don't know.
They didn't know anything aboutit.
And so the same people...
who advised fashion companies togo the whole hog in 2000 on fast
fashion, on sensitive fibers,you know, 25 years ago.
(45:38):
The same people are advising theindustry on how to make
themselves, like, how to makethemselves sustainable.
You know, I would really laughmyself to death if it were that
funny.
I mean, seriously.
But the thing is, you know, canit take some more time to give
(45:58):
the context here.
You want to add anything youcan?
Yeah, of course.
I mean, it's extremely importantto understand why this has
happened.
Why all this has happened, notonly in the fashion industry,
but everywhere else.
You know, the history of modernenvironmental activism or
anything kind of starts in 1992with the Rio Summit.
(46:22):
Now, there was a backdrop tothat which started from the
1960s from know from RachelCarson's Silent Spring and then
following the BrantlandCommission's report in 1987
leading up to the 1992 RioSummit.
Now from 1992 Rio Summit tillabout 2005 the things were in an
(46:49):
absolute mess in the sense thatif you want to make the world a
better place, you need to havebusinesses, you need to have
industry on board as well.
You may not like them, you maydislike them wholeheartedly, but
the thing is the need to havethem on board to discuss things,
to sort things out.
And none of the UN bodies, noneof the...
(47:13):
could have industry on board fordiscussions.
The only thing the industry wasdoing always was kind of
scuttling efforts.
No, they didn't have a role toplay.
They didn't want to have a roleto play.
But it changed in around about2005 when the UNEP, it keeps on
(47:34):
changing its name, the UnitedNations Environment Program,
which is now known as UNEnvironment.
But let's call them UNEP.
When they came up with theMillennium ecosystem assessment.
That's when it was an officialdocument which brought
businesses and industry onboard.
(47:54):
Do you want to say some closing
SPEAKER_00 (47:55):
remarks?
SPEAKER_01 (47:57):
Yeah, I would love to do an investigative piece on
how these big-ticketconsultancies have on one hand,
led the fashion industry up thegarden path, and kind of the
second is kind of what takes offfrom the first, which is that
they have actually beenmisleading the fashion industry.
(48:21):
That is the reason why you haveall these contradictory figures
where you have all thesesummaries where everybody says
that we are going to do this, weare going to do that, we are
going to increase our recycledfiber intake, we are going to do
this sustainably.
We are going to do that in amore circular way.
(48:43):
But the bottom line is that theemissions are still up.
Every year you have all thesereports from Stand.org and from
other organizations which alwayscome up with these numbers which
shows that the emissions are upover the previous year.
(49:06):
So that necessarily it reallymeans that the bottom line is
that the bottom line is notworking, which is that whatever
you talk about, whatever youpreach is not working.
So if things are not working,then you should go into the
reasons behind it.
Why is it not working?
And I don't see anyintrospection in the industry
(49:31):
about trying to find out.
It's probably because the peoplewho are advising you are not
doing the right things.
You probably need to get a newset of advices.
SPEAKER_00 (49:43):
On that happy note, I would like to tell the
audience that Shabeen has awebsite called techsfash.com and
you might want to visit it ifyou want to get some news from
India.
I think it's a nice place to goand check it out.
I really appreciate you,Shabeen, for being here with us.
It's delightful to talk to youand hope we can do it again
(50:04):
soon.
SPEAKER_01 (50:05):
Yeah, thank you, Andrew.
I And it's been, like I said,it's been a privilege to be
hosted by Andrew Holder.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Have a good night.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com