This post emerges from the National Seminar on Geographical Indications held in New Delhi recently which I had the opportunity to attend in part. That ‘part’ extended only to the first day, but shed some interesting light on the evolution of GI protection in India. (Details of the event, organised by the Centre for WTO Studies, IIFT, can be found here). For the benefit of readers, I highlight below three issues that emerged in discussion that day which I found of particular interest myself. Perhaps you will too. And we can throw open the debate online.A team of researchers working on the Baluchari GI were concerned that oftentimes the weavers or the artisans – who were the direct creators of the product in question – rarely got the opportunity to speak or voice their concerns. (This had emerged in interview sessions with crafterspersons and traders in the business). Instead, intermediaries – e.g., manufacturers, traders, and exporters – invariably hijacked situations to their advantage, silencing the artisans and taking the limelight and the benefit away.
This could be due to differences in education, relative social status, or other sociological reasons, but it raised a more fundamental and immediate need of educating the potential beneficiaries of GI protection. It is evident that without any understanding of the concept of a GI, or the advantages and benefits of a GI, it seems futile to blindly pursue registration. The question remains – whose duty is it to do so? I speculate below. (Image from here)
The applicants for a GI registration are an association of persons, which necessitates the presence of an organised entity of some kind managing the operations of the artisan-producers. Is it the responsibility of the association to ensure that the artisans understand the nuances of a GI? I am not too sure of the answer, for it may remain in the interests of the association (of managers) to keep the artisans in the dark, since a better-informed artisan population may potentially eat into the benefits they hope to derive from such registration. On the other hand, an informed artisan population may be inspired to innovate and improve in existing products with the knowledge that their creations will fetch a premium in the market. Do you have any other suggestions? Or are you comfortable with the status quo?
I would like to point out that this is an issue that will surely gain importance in the coming years, as and when the number of GIs granted increases. Introspection will be necessary at some point, once the mad rush of granting GIs decelerates, and the administration attempts to examine if this form of protection is serving the purpose it was intended to, at least in India. I had raised concerns about the purpose of GI protection here and here, citing the examples of Kangra tea and Kullu shawls.
The Chinese Threat
Researchers studying the brass metalworks of Moradabad had empirical evidence showing that the artisans/metalworkers were the least informed about GIs. The team also hit another raw nerve – the Chinese threat to Indian goods, and particularly to the traditional arts and crafts in India.
Several concerns went back and forth between members of the audience, essentially reiterating that the Indian manufacturing sector had been hugely hit by the import of Chinese goods in the market, which were, among other things, inauthentic and of cheaper materials and price. Someone did have the sense to refer to the vagaries of the market, and of simple things like demand and supply, but the emotional tug of ‘swadeshi”, and so on, overwhelmingly swept the audience. There did not seem to be a satisfactory answer to troubles Oriental, and it was left at that.
The Case of Inter-State GIs
The problem of cross-border GIs has been done and dusted. Well, not quite, perhaps, but it is certainly an issue that everyone is aware of: Kutchi embroidery, Basmati Rice, Pashmina work, Madhubani painting, Kantha embroidery – these are all cases where India’s IP interests collide with those of neighbourhood countries. These disputes (potential, if not already extant) are combined with that peculiar legislative limitation of necessitating the protection of a GI within your national boundaries before seeking protection in any other jurisdiction. But that was a delicate subject left for another day.
Instead, the debate – appropriately – turned within, when attention was drawn to the participation of the states in GI protection. Highlighting this peculiar form of passive infighting was the case of Bidriware, which comes from the region of Bidar that straddles the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. (Image from here). Aysha Shaukat, who was with SpicyIP until recently, was closely engaged in this research project, and had also highlighted this issue on the blog some months ago.
An enterprising state Handicrafts Development Corporation in Karnataka helped the artisans within their side of the border gain protection. But this came at the cost of a loss of identity for metalworkers in Andhra Pradesh, who could not acquire similar institutional support from their own state administration. Surely it is hypocrisy to expect an international solution to emerge in matters as grave as Basmati if we are unable to resolve near-identical issues within. Some food for thought.
