GI saga of Tangail Saree

The Geographical Identification (GI) controversy that took centre stage and played out between India and Bangladesh over the last two weeks bears a striking resemblance to Aesop's fabled, 'Hare and Tortoise.' In the famous fable, the tortoise ultimately wins the race by dint of its slow and steady characteristics despite the hare being much faster by nature. The hare loses out because of its indulgence in moments of indifference and inertia. This tale has deep spiritual significance and learning value, and has been told to children - generation after generation - to instill in them the importance of remaining focused and determined. And it's a lesson for Bangladesh as well.
In this globalised world, countries are in an ongoing race to grab a greater share of the world market, acquire skills, and technological advantage to raise the living standards of their people. In this highly competitive global market, GI certification, as a branch of intellectual property rights, is a valuable tool to ensure that marketing rights and legal protection is given to the rightful owners. Its aim is to prevent exploitation of historically established reputations of given products of a country by other countries for unethical gain.
Certain international organisations, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), provide frameworks and guidelines for the protection of GIs at international level. While they themselves do not grant GI status, they facilitate co-operation and provide assistance to member countries in developing GI protection systems. For example, in Bangladesh the Department of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (DPDT) under the Ministry of Industries grants GI certificate as per the guidelines of the WIPO.
The Tangail Saree tussle between Bangladesh and India started on February 1 when India's Ministry of Culture posted on its official Facebook page that the Indian government had granted GI recognition to Tangail Saree. It took the whole of Bangladesh and Bangladeshis abroad by surprise. Bangladesh has a long-established enviable reputation and tradition of weaving many of the world's finest cotton fabrics; Tangail Saree is one of them. The cottage industry that boomed in the Tangail district of Bangladesh dates back to the British colonial period. How could India claim GI rights over such a well-established and heritage product of Bangladesh? It's preposterous!
While it is true that some of the Tangail Saree weavers migrated to the West Bengal of India in 1947 and 1971, and set-up businesses there, the 'Tangail' district from which the Saree gets its name remains solidly anchored inside Bangladesh, as do the majority of weavers, and they are part of the flourishing weaving industry. The argument of migration of skills and knowledge doesn't hold water, as GIs must be linked to products produced in a specific territory. The market for Bangladesh's Tangail Sarees is worldwide; spanning Europe, North America, Middle East, Japan, and several Indian states. Bangladesh even exports around 50,000 sarees to India every week. Now with the newfound GI recognition, India has the opportunity to capitalise on the heritage brand built in Bangladesh over 250 years.
The attempt to hijack the brand value of Tangail Saree didn't happen overnight. India started the GI registration process in 2020, following an application by the West Bengal State Handloom Weavers Co-Operative Society Limited, and the official recognition was given as 'Tangail Saree of Bengal' on January 2, 2024. This raises the question why Bangladeshi authorities had overlooked India's GI registration process of Tangail Saree for such a considerable period of time. Was it because of incompetence and inefficiency of the administrative apparatus or the indifference of the officials concerned to protect our cultural heritage and the country's business interest?
Bangladesh was in the strongest position to win the race against India for GI registration of Tangail Saree. But administrative inertia and apathy kicked in - just like the hare in the fable - and Bangladesh napped while India steadily advanced towards the winning post. After India had successfully completed the process, a huge public outcry jolted Bangladeshi authorities into action, and in record time (in a matter of few days) they, too, finished the GI recognition of the Tangail Saree!
Now both India and Bangladesh have GI certification for the same Tangail Saree, which is not good and is bound to cause conflict, confusion and resentment until its rightful ownership is determined. By definition, the role of GI is to identify products as originating from a particular place, region, or locality, and certify to its qualities, reputation, or unique characteristics that are essentially attributable to the place of origin. So, in no way can India justify West Bengal as the origin of the Tangail Saree. Tangail itself is the womb of the Tangail Saree.
Bangladesh has woken up late, but perhaps not too late. WIPO says a GI may be refused protection if its use would be misleading to consumers due to the existence of another homonymous indication. To settle the matter, the Center for Policy Dialogue (CPD) recently came up with a plethora of recommendations such as asking the Bangladesh High Commission in Delhi to seek legal remedy in Indian High Court and assign the Bangladesh Permanent Mission in Geneva to consult with WIPO officials to explore options regarding appellation against 'Tangail Saree of Bengal', among others. If any country is permitted to hijack the reputed brand of another, the credibility of the entire GI system to protect intellectual property of the world is open to questioning. Bangladesh should explore all possible options available from bilateral negotiation to international arbitration to reclaim its sole GI rights over Tangail Saree.
Meanwhile, the government's renewed commitment to register at least one GI product from each district is welcome, but it is also necessary to ensure that businesses can utilise and benefit to the maximum potential from having the GI tag. Bangladesh has so far given GI resignation to 22 products. But in absence of adequate marking and promotion, the businesses are yet to gain any substantial benefit of having GI recognition of those products. DPDT recognises and certifies GI products, and its responsibility ends at that point. But simply registering GI is not enough. The authorities need to ensure that those who produce GI products can adequately leverage the benefits of having the tag.
Last but not least, India is reportedly in the process of granting GI certificate to a host of Bangladeshi agricultural products like our national fruit 'jackfruit', national flower 'water lily', jute, and honey of the Sundarbans. This is no time for the concerned Bangladeshi authorities to slip back into deep slumber as they did before. What is at stake now is nothing less than national pride. To safeguard its rich cultural heritage as well as business interests in the global market, it's imperative that Bangladesh learns from the tortoise and remains focused.

[email protected]