India's bid to protect its basmati-rice growers through getting a geographical indications (GI) registration has come up against formidable hurdles. These come not just from basmati growers in Pakistan, but also Madhya Pradesh, which it did not list among traditional basmati-growing regions. TheAgricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (Apeda) wants to thwart other countries from selling their scented rice as basmati globally. Many attempts have been made in the past by foreign rice-trading companies to confuse consumers by using similar-sounding names, such as Jasmati and Kasmati. Apeda has spent crores of rupees on court cases abroad to preserve the basmati epithet for the typical Indian long-grained, non-sticky aromatic rice. The GI registration at home would strengthen its case in international litigation.
Apeda's woes are rooted in the fact that it has sought the GI status for basmati grown only in the contiguous region spanning Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, western Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Delhi, and parts of Jammu and Kashmir. Madhya Pradesh's rice industry has claimed that its state is also located in the Indo-Gangetic belt, part of which is suited for basmati cultivation. Pakistan's Punjab and adjoining regions, especially the foothills of the Himalayas, are well known for producing basmati rice - which, in fact, is the main competitor of the Indian basmati in the international market. The Geographical Indications Registry, which grants the GI status, had observed in an order issued in December 2013 that it was duty-bound to guard the interests of producers of all the areas from where a product came. Apeda is, however, now contesting this plea in the Chennai-based Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).
Technically, the GI label is meant to set apart a product whose quality, reputation and other traits are attributable to its geographic origin. This definition applies perfectly only to the desi basmati, such as Basmati 370, whose photosensitive nature allows it to be grown only in a region having a particular day-length during the basmati-growing season. That limits basmati cultivation to only the northwestern part of undivided India. However, the new evolved basmati types, including the high-yielding dwarf and semi-dwarf varieties, are, by and large, not photosensitive and can, thus, be grown in areas outside the traditional basmati belt as well. These varieties have now almost totally replaced the desi basmati in the domestic and export markets. It would, therefore, be unfair to deny them basmati status irrespective of where they are grown.
It was indeed Pakistan's folly that it did not accept India's offer in the past to jointly seek global GI registration for basmati. Now that Pakistan's basmati industry has, on its own, come forward for similar cooperation, Apeda should not drag its feet. India can compete with Pakistan in the global basmati bazaar on the basis of quality. A denial of Islamabad's claims may not, in any case, withstand the scrutiny of the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Apeda's woes are rooted in the fact that it has sought the GI status for basmati grown only in the contiguous region spanning Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, western Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Delhi, and parts of Jammu and Kashmir. Madhya Pradesh's rice industry has claimed that its state is also located in the Indo-Gangetic belt, part of which is suited for basmati cultivation. Pakistan's Punjab and adjoining regions, especially the foothills of the Himalayas, are well known for producing basmati rice - which, in fact, is the main competitor of the Indian basmati in the international market. The Geographical Indications Registry, which grants the GI status, had observed in an order issued in December 2013 that it was duty-bound to guard the interests of producers of all the areas from where a product came. Apeda is, however, now contesting this plea in the Chennai-based Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).
Technically, the GI label is meant to set apart a product whose quality, reputation and other traits are attributable to its geographic origin. This definition applies perfectly only to the desi basmati, such as Basmati 370, whose photosensitive nature allows it to be grown only in a region having a particular day-length during the basmati-growing season. That limits basmati cultivation to only the northwestern part of undivided India. However, the new evolved basmati types, including the high-yielding dwarf and semi-dwarf varieties, are, by and large, not photosensitive and can, thus, be grown in areas outside the traditional basmati belt as well. These varieties have now almost totally replaced the desi basmati in the domestic and export markets. It would, therefore, be unfair to deny them basmati status irrespective of where they are grown.
It was indeed Pakistan's folly that it did not accept India's offer in the past to jointly seek global GI registration for basmati. Now that Pakistan's basmati industry has, on its own, come forward for similar cooperation, Apeda should not drag its feet. India can compete with Pakistan in the global basmati bazaar on the basis of quality. A denial of Islamabad's claims may not, in any case, withstand the scrutiny of the World Intellectual Property Organization.
