The GI Act enacted in 2003 was believed to revive the dying handloom industry in India. However, 19 years later, the benefits failed to trickle down to the rural workers. What can we do to make the magic wand work?
India is celebrating the handloom week from April 7 to 14, 2022. While the handloom industry in India is thousands of years old, the industry is slowly dying. Some of the causes attributed to such a decline are the emergence of power looms and the benefits of the industry not trickling down to the grassroots.
In 2003, when India enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 (‘the GI Act’), there was a belief that registering handloom product names under the same could magically revive the dying industry. Successful European GIs were often cited as examples where registration magically transformed communities. Many Indian handloom products, among others, were thus registered, only to realise later that the GI Act held no magic wand. Despite registration and the ensuing media publicity, the markets are flooded with fakes, product credibility has been elusive, artisans are clueless about their GI ownership, their pockets remain light, and their communities are still underdeveloped. So, what is missing in the GI Act? The handloom week is an opportune moment to examine this.
Sustainable quality control lies at the heart of the success of any GI. Consistent high quality is an attractive force for a customer to repeatedly choose the same product. This can be achieved only through suitable measures implemented throughout the supply chain.
Unlike trademark branding, where it is simpler to get consistent quality for the branded products through licensing arrangements, it is complicated for GI branding. For example, textile brands like BIBA or FabIndia would be typically applied by the respective proprietors or their licensees after a quality check is done on each piece. Whereas, for a Kota Doria or a Chanderi, the GI tag is attached by the artisans, who are numbered in hundreds or thousands. They could be operating from their homes as opposed to factories. These artisans are the real owners of the GI and need no licensing. However, each artisan must ensure quality control by adhering to the specifications entered in the GI Register. Without stringent inspection mechanisms or quality control measures mandated in the legal framework coupled with sanctions for violation of the specifications, diligence and self-discipline of the artisan tends to wear off after a while. That is when inconsistency in quality creeps in and substandard products start to appear in the market.