In 2004, and again in 2008, India opposed the inclusion of asbestos on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) list of the Rotterdam Convention on the basis that India had no evidence that white asbestos, or chrysotile, is dangerous. Inclusion in the PIC list would make it obligatory for asbestos exporters to gain consent from importing countries, thus ensuring that developing countries are not taken advantage of. As suggested by India’s opposition to this inclusion, it is not persuaded that asbestos is hazardous.1 This chapter explores the construction of asbestos risk and disease in India, showing how asbestos has been considered as a tool for Indian economic growth and an instrument of modernization and how, in contrast to the previous chapter on South African mobilization, political awareness of asbestos is shaped by economic interests. The chapter argues that the state’s narrow definition of asbestos-related diseases (ARDs) enables it to officially document the lack of ARDs experienced by Indian workers. Unlike the Northern Cape, where grassroots initiatives provided the driving force for social mobilization, this process defines sufferers as politically invisible and inconsequential and, accompanied by the 30-year delay between exposure and the onset of disease, means that there is no obvious constituency to be mobilized.