UPSC DAW Mains Answer Writing 1st July 2025

UPSC DAW Mains Answer Writing 1st July 2025

Question

Examine the role of Geographical Indication (GI) tags in preserving India's traditional art forms and cultural identity. In light of recent controversies such as the Prada-Kolhapuri episode, analyse whether GI protection is sufficient to prevent cultural misappropriation at the global level. (10 marks, 150 words) 

Model Answer

Introduction:  

  • Geographical Indications (GI) are a form of intellectual property that identify goods as originating from a specific place, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic is essentially attributable to its geographic origin. In India, with over 658 GI-tagged products (as of 2024), these designations have become vital in safeguarding indigenous knowledge, crafts, and cultural heritage. 

 Role of GI Tags in Preserving Traditional Art Forms and Cultural Identity: 

  •  Cultural Protection and Recognition:  

  • GIs help protect local art forms and practices, such as Madhubani paintings (Bihar), Channapatna toys (Karnataka), and Kancheepuram silk (Tamil Nadu), from imitation and commercial misuse. 

  • Community Empowerment: 

  • GIs legally recognize the collective ownership of artisans and farmers, unlike patents or trademarks. 

  • E.g. The GI tag for Darjeeling tea helped preserve not just quality, but also livelihoods and regional branding. 

  • Economic and Social Value Addition: 

  • According to a NITI Aayog 2020 policy paper, GI-tagged products fetch 20–30% higher prices in domestic and international markets. 

  • Boosts rural employment, women's participation, and export competitiveness. 

  • Preservation of Intangible Heritage: 

  • GI tags protect oral traditions, weaving styles, and local knowledge systems associated with the product. 

 GI Tags and Cultural Misappropriation: The Prada-Kolhapuri Case: 

  • In 2024, luxury brand Prada unveiled sandals inspired by Kolhapuri chappals, triggering accusations of cultural misappropriation. 

  • Key Issues Highlighted: 

  • No attribution or collaboration with Kolhapuri artisans. 

  • The product did not violate GI rights per se, but appropriated aesthetic and cultural value without acknowledgment or benefit-sharing. 

 Limitations of GI Protection at the Global Level: 

  • Territorial Nature of GI Laws: 

  • As per the TRIPS Agreement (1995), GI protection is largely country-specific, and there is no automatic global recognition. 

  • India’s GI Act, 1999, offers enforcement only within India. 

  • Lack of Cross-border Enforcement Mechanisms: 

  • Countries must register separately in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., EU GI registry), which is costly and cumbersome for small producers. 

  • Historical Precedents: 

  • Turmeric Patent Case (US, 1995) - Revoked after India's intervention. 

  • Basmati Rice Case (1997) - Ricetec's patent partially overturned after diplomatic and legal pressure. 

  • Neem Patent Case (EPO, 2000) - Patent on antifungal properties revoked due to traditional knowledge evidence. 

  • Insufficient Due Diligence by Global Brands: 

  • There is no mandatory searchable global traditional knowledge database, which could help companies avoid inadvertent misappropriation. 

 Way Forward: Making GI Protection More Effective Globally: 

  • Expand Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL): As recommended by CSIR and supported by WIPO, to include cultural expressions, art forms, and textiles, not just medicinal knowledge. 

  • International Mutual Recognition Treaties: Push for bilateral or multilateral GI recognition agreements, as done with the EU–India GI Agreement (in progress). 

  • Incentivize Ethical Collaborations: Encourage global brands to partner with Indian GI producers. 

  • E.g., LV’s collaboration with Raghurajpur Pattachitra artists could serve as a model. 

  • Community-led Certification and Watchdog Systems: Empower GI-holding communities to act as certifying and monitoring bodies with legal recourse internationally. 

 Conclusion:  

  • While GI tags are instrumental in preserving India’s cultural heritage, their territorial limitations make them insufficient against global cultural misappropriation. The Prada-Kolhapuri episode illustrates the need for robust international enforcement, knowledge databases, and ethical brand collaborations. Protecting intangible cultural heritage in a globalized world requires stronger legal frameworks, diplomatic activism, and digital transparency.