The spectacle of Indian craftsmanship at this year’s Met Gala has sparked renewed conversations around cultural pride, artisanal heritage, and fashion’s global fascination with “Indian-inspired” aesthetics. But beneath the celebratory rhetoric lies a more uncomfortable reality: the same industries and personalities being praised for honouring Indian craft are often entangled in systems that marginalise the very artisans they claim to celebrate. The recurring appropriation of traditional textiles and designs raises a deeper question: are these gestures genuine acts of preservation, or merely performative tributes detached from the material struggles of artisans? In this post, Shama Mahajan explores how intellectual property frameworks, particularly Geographical Indications, may offer partial answers, while also questioning whether law alone can address the structural inequities underlying cultural commodification. Shama is an LL.M Candidate at the National University of Singapore, pursuing her masters in Intellectual Property and Technology Law. [Long post ahead.]
When Fashion ‘MET’ Culture: But Saving Traditional Craft Takes More Than A Red Carpet Tribute!!
By Shama Mahajan
Like many others, my social-media in the last week or so has been filled with Indian culture dominating the Met Gala. Manish Malhotra is being hailed for the recognition given to Indian artisans and uplifting Indian art. Isha Ambani became the walking representation of Indian culture when she wore the ‘bandage dress’. All I can say is, the internet has a short-lived memory given Mr. Malhotra was embroiled in the controversy of ‘allegedly’ passing-off traditional artisan’s Banarasi Saree as his own design. Azorte, a fast fashion brand pioneered by Isha Ambani, sells the very Ajrakh designed clothes and other such traditional textile works that took 450 hours of artisan craftsmanship for her Pre-Met Party dress, except the brand uses power-looms. (Ajrakh is a hand-block printing and resist dying technique that primarily uses red and blue dyes and involves layering of prints to create unique effects) So, it’s a bit dichotomic then for her to be hailed as writing love letters to Indian craft and supporting the artisans on a Red Carpet by way of ‘tribute’ when majority of them are struggling to compete against power-loom designs that threaten to annihilate their livelihood and craft. It’s more like an edited love-letter!!
Readers would recall that cultural designs from India popped back into the fashion industry’s lime-light when Prada walked the ramp in Kolhapuri (styled) Chappals a few months ago. Recently, Ralph Lauren made headlines for its ‘tie-died inspired motif’ wrap-around skirt being sold for around INR 50,000/-. Machine or digital replica of hand-printing is not new. If we brush-up our memory a bit, we might remember Sabyasachi defending H&M collab where Sanganeri prints were digitally recreated as a means of providing the art a global platform. What then is the difference between Prada and Sabyasachi and Manish Malhotra? Given that the latter has supposedly purged himself on the Met Red-Carpet this season, and Prada has done so by launching a ‘limited-edition’ collection of leather footwear by making it in India and collaborating with state-backed industry bodies to uplift artisans by ‘training’. The nuanced question is why have these outrages become periodic, and what should they demand? Performative gestures or structural reforms? It is in answering this question that IP and Geographical Indications become the exploratory site of investigation for their potential as the means, if not the end in itself.
My Mother loves her Benarasi Silk Saree
Let me recount a 6 years old story of my mother when she purchased her yellow Benarasi silk saree from a wholesaler in Benaras (the name is not used to protect privacy and I did not have the means of obtaining the consent from the individual). It was her sole objective behind this trip and it took her quite a few rounds of hunting the market to ensure she wasn’t being duped. When she came back, she told me “do you know I bought this from the man who also sells his sarees to Sabyasachi!” (The anecdote does not claim authenticity of the fact of any such procurement). That was the first time I heard my mother use a luxury fashion brand’s name like she knew all about it. But it was not the fact that he sold it to Sabyasachi that was of relevance, it was the question whether such luxury fashion brands, Indian or otherwise, ever acknowledge that they purchased it from these artisans? I do not know.
Why Does it Matter Who Made it?
While the answer to this question can be a long one, it was succinctly summarised by Wajahat Rather, a Srinagar based designer as, ‘craft cannot be isolated from its context for they are not just aesthetic expressions but involve identity, history and self-representation’. Asif Sheikh in one of his conversations also highlighted how Indian designers tend to avoid acknowledging the artisans and master weavers who have nurtured and practiced the craft for generations. He highlights how buyers want to buy ‘labels’ and hence, ‘labels’ give them what they want resulting in gradual bleeding of traditional craft and its substitution by power looms. The perfect demand and supply curve explanations of a market economy. So, statistically, even those outraged by Ralph Lauren’s Bandhani Skirt, have played a role in traditional Bandhani being pushed to the side-lines! (Yes, you and I). As the Business Standard Article rightly pointed like style even outrage endures and without structural shifts, both will keep coming back in season.
Handicrafts are closely linked to culture and are viewed as cultural symbols. There is a well-established connection between handicrafts, culture and society, as handicrafts are both influenced by cultural norms and contribute to cultural expression. Textile similarly holds a unique place given its symbolic value, history and craftsmanship nurtured and handed-down across generations. Its sustenance thus also becomes a matter cultural imperative. UNESCO focuses on protecting such traditions as intangible cultural heritage. Historically, clothing has served as marker of identity and status.
However, with fast-fashion and even luxury fashion both clothing and culture have been commodified. This commodification makes it a product of market whose value is determined by market forces. Its worth? Well, those conversations are reserved for the Red-carpets!! What is also interesting is the internal dichotomy where luxury fashion positions itself on a pedestal from where it can condemn fast-fashion for stealing from the run-way. However, its own morals remain unscathed by use of the magical words like ‘inspired’ when it comes to Bastoho Blanket or Bandhani. While brands may convince us to believe that borrowing and appropriation are separate, one may want to closely inspect that line before accepting the argument. It also highlights the gap within Intellectual Property Laws through which these instances escape legal outcomes.
If the answer to this question had to have a human face, then it would be of Mansukh Bhai Khatri. A lone artisan who possesses the knowledge of the craft of Bela Printing and is fighting to keep it alive with Khamir. (See also Niharika Salar’s discussion here). To put it bluntly, it matters because the market forces allow for extraction and consequent benefit to a class that holds power from a class who struggles to even define what the craft means and entails for them, because in the existing structures, they have limited means of being heard.
How Does IP with P for Property Help?
Just a few days back, I was reading this book titled ‘Who Owns the Native Culture’ by Michael F. Brown. One of the chapters explores how Aboriginal art in Australia was a means of claiming territorial identity – a way of sharing land for the Aboriginals. The case of Johny Bulun Bulun dealt with the interest the community had in the work of Mr. Bulun Bulun, given that it used Aboriginal art technique/ritual knowledge, and its infringement impacted not just the artist but the community. The judgement held that, while copyright does not recognise joint-interests unless there is joint-authorship yet, in cases where the copyright owner fails to take action when the work involves Aboriginal ritual knowledge, the courts will allow the community to take action. What the judgement does is it challenges the predominant exclusionary notion of an IP right and recasts it as a ‘protective mechanism’. To me, what is interesting is the question itself, ‘who owns culture’, and as I read this book, I wonder whether the answer to this lies in reframing the question itself. How can the culture be protected regardless of determining its owners?
The scholarship in recent times in IP has moved towards questioning its framing as a tool to control the market. The idea that justifications for property rights need not necessarily resort to an expansive commodification has found alternative theoretical frameworks that root IP in promoting creativity.
The Geographical Indications (GI) Discussion
Within the broader IP framework, GI’s become slightly more relevant because, among others, they provide the possibility of collective ownership. In the case of traditional craftsmanship and artisanal work, it is generationally sustained and carried forward by families, and a GI-tag can be used by its authorised users, thereby allowing community/collective ownership of sorts. However, the possibility ends at this stage in law because of the structural limitations of GI. The protection is not for the commodity per se, but its designation. In other words, Prada cannot label its footwear as Kolhapuri Chappal but there is no legal prohibition on Prada from making a look-alike. Having said that, research indicates that the role of GI can be explored further, and gradually it is becoming a proxy for understanding of terroir, which expands the notions of ‘place’. The traditional understanding of terroir, to which humans were incidental, could be reformed to make humans equally relevant. While given the structural and intentional limitations of the Indian GI Act, such an attempt might be a stretch, but it does offer a more grounded possibility that allows for bottom-up rather than top-down approach whereby artisans can become central to the narrative. This would require more robust enforcement and not just treating GI registration as the end. It would involve creating an infrastructure that allows the community to participate and flourish. It would entail using GI mechanisms as a springboard that enables the development of artisanal capabilities.
Conclusion
This is not a post to condemn luxury fashion or designers. Luxury fashion plays its own (dual) role in collaborating with traditional artisan craftsmanship while also erasing it in its own ways. It’s just an attempt to take a step-back from being swept away by the glamour. While attribution and acknowledgement of artisans is indeed the first step and appreciation of that is due, let us not forget that those being seen as ‘saviors’ have had their share of faux pas, and hand in gloves. Let the focus be the Mansukh Bhai(s) not the Manish Malhotra(s) for the latter doesn’t need it as much as the former. If India really is looking at preventing its culture from being ‘appropriated’ more tangible policy interventions which begin by understanding the difficulties of artisans by centering them as stakeholders are needed. Whether certain IP rights like GI can provide those means remains a possibility but surely, they are not the end in themselves and even as means, they may not be completely sufficient. Red Carpets though, cannot bear the weight of this challenge!!!
