Choice is interesting. It has a ring of comfort to it, and to the more Shakespearean, is even seen to be 'twice blessed'; it blesses those who give, and those who take. Choice is noble. Choice is cool. Choice is the principal power-source of the free market economy.

Choice, by the way, can also be binary. The only condition necessary is the existence of a second option. This makes for some rather provocative formulations. "With us or against us". "Flee or fight". "Get off or go under". "Us or out".

It's a shame that this is the sort of choice that increasingly confronts employees of India's bustling Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry. It's in the papers. Wipro Spectramind, the BPO subsidiary of a leading software firm, has been busy signing "non-hiring agreements" with fellow BPO players, to reduce attrition levels.

The deal, plainly, is not to hire one another's employees. As Spectramind's chief, Raman Roy has argued, the biggest problem in the otherwise thriving BPO industry is employee retention. Call centre agents are notorious job-hoppers. The talent pool, in his reckoning, is not expanding fast enough to satisfy the industry's voracity, and this has created a resource crunch that could throw growth prospects into jeopardy.

As a business reader, or perhaps shareholder, you might be tempted to second Roy's case. The BPO explosion, after all, is important to the economy too-a reason why the current bout of consolidation is getting so much media coverage.

But think of a scenario with every BPO unit in agreement with every other, or else with every unit's interests linked to the other's via octopus equity deals at the top, giving rise to a cartelised industry where nobody dares hire another's employee. The call centre's message to the hapless young lady sitting cheerfully through the night with a headset to her ears, then, is simple: stick where you are, or suffer excommunication (the telecom age version). Like it or lump it. Us or out.

Would the companies whose calls they're processing offer their customers such terms? They wouldn't. And that's because these companies are operating mostly in competitive industries, globally, where customers have choice. This is by market design. Competition is the surest guarantee of ever-better performance-better customer satisfaction, stronger businesses, faster industry growth, and spiffier market evolution in the long term.

A truly competitive industry, however, is one in which players compete not just for customers, but for all the resources as well-including the human kind. Theory after theory has spelt the rationale out: players vying with one another for talent is the best way to ensure an optimal allocation of skills across the industry.

Given a wide set of truly free choices, and sufficient multi-way mobility, the best will find the company that helps them perform the best, and companies will find what it takes to attract and retain the best (salaries, skill enhancement, work environment or whatever). Moreover, job-switching also fosters the speedy diffusion of hot new techniques and ideas-from which all could gain. Diversity of experience makes for a vibrant work culture. Chain them with iron-balls, and watch how dull they become.

So it isn't just your concern for freedom that should make you oppose the industry's hr cartelisation, but also your concern for the industry's overall competitiveness. Be clear: in a globalising world, what's good for competition is good for the economy.

That sounds fine on paper, you might respond, but what about the talent crunch that's worrying Spectramind?

Well, a country of a billion people has no business talking about any human resource crunch. Eager job seekers abound; it's a question of skill-sets. Agreed, this requires urgent attention. But all it takes is a long-term perspective, coupled with an attitude of enlightened self-interest, to make it happen. And, of course, some investment. The private sector has rarely had such a direct interest in the quality of Indian schooling.