Forced-labour import bans can serve both human rights and disguised protectionism. Discuss India's approach, with reference to its constitutional and ILO commitments.

The ILO estimates that 27.6 million people were in forced labour on any given day in 2021, earning US$236 billion a year in illegal profits [2]. Import bans can cut off this trade. When they are drawn too broadly, though, they become trade barriers. At the 2026 G20 Trade Ministers' Meeting, India set out a stance that keeps the human-rights goal but rejects that misuse [1].

Import bans: two faces

• Human-rights tool: Closing markets to forced-labour goods removes the profit motive and pushes firms to clean up their supply chains [2].
• Disguised protectionism: Some bans rest on presumptions about entire countries, regions or sectors. These reverse the burden of proof, so exporters must prove they are innocent and law-abiding firms lose markets [1].
• Bypassing the WTO: Unilateral labour-linked trade measures avoid WTO rules and shift the cost of adjustment onto developing countries [1].

India's approach

• Constitutional anchor: Article 23 prohibits begar and forced labour as an enforceable fundamental right [1].
• ILO commitments: India ratified C29 in 1954 and C105 in 2000 [3]. C105 bans forced labour used as political coercion or as punishment for dissent [5].
• India's own ban: In July 2026, India amended its Foreign Trade Policy to ban imports of goods made with forced labour. It calls its commitment "absolute and unconditional" [1].
• Evidence standard: Border measures must rest on specific, verifiable evidence, not on blanket labels [1].
• Right forum: The tripartite ILO, not the G20 or the WTO, should set labour standards. India accepts voluntary sharing of good practices only without monitoring, new obligations or unilateral trade action [1].

Gaps in India's position

• India has not ratified the 2014 Protocol (P029), which adds duties of prevention, victim protection and remedy [3][4]. This weakens the "absolute" claim.
• India's own July 2026 ban must pass the evidence test India asks others to meet. Otherwise India faces the same charge of protectionism.

India's approach is firm on ending forced labour and equally firm against bans based on presumption, so it supports both human rights and fair trade. The way forward is to ratify P029, publish a clear evidence standard for the FTP ban, and push for ILO-led cooperation. That would make India a standard-setter, giving full effect to Article 23 and to SDG 8.7's goal of ending forced labour.