A SENIOR vice-president of the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry has sought the commerce minister’s intervention in preventing India from getting its basmati rice registered as Geographical Indication (GI) in the subcontinent in the name, style and title of ‘basmati’.

If India succeeds in its intent, Abdul Rahim Janoo says, it may deprive Pakistan of using the title of basmati for its basmati rice which, in terms of value, happens to be the second highest export commodity after textiles. It is time, he says, the ministry preempted Indian move in order to protect interests of Pakistani farmers who had been growing ‘the long-grained aromatic rice’ for centuries.

There is no denying the fact that India is currently in a hurry to get its basmati registered as a GI. A. K. Gupta, director of the state-run Agriculture and Processed Food Products Export Development Agency (Apeda), a wing of the commerce ministry, says “We must have the GI for basmati before others start claiming.

The GI registration should be seen from a ‘national interest’ perspective, as Pakistan is also claiming rights over basmati.” His attitude shows that the idea of a joint registration of basmati as a Geographical Indication is no more on table.

However, it is Apeda’s legal battles with Madhya Pradesh which is delaying the process. The two have been locked in a dispute on whether the basmati grown in parts of the state has the characteristics of original basmati, claimed for inclusion in GI registry.

Apeda is defending the GI status of basmati grown in two districts of Jammu and Kashmir, undivided Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, western Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. If Apeda includes MP, other states will claim it, too. Three years ago, it was proposed that both India and Pakistan apply for a joint GI but for various political and legal reasons, the plan was dropped.

One may note that the problem doesn’t arise from any non-recognition by India of GI rights of basmati being grown in areas of Pakistani Punjab such as Gujarat, Gujranwala, Sialkot, Narowal, etc. The problem arises from lack of serious efforts on the part of bureaucracy to resolve a serious issue. One can witness an indifferent attitude and a half-hearted approach in pursuing negotiations with the Indians whenever the occasion came.

To begin with, an obvious deficiency Pakistan suffers from is the absence of GI registry in the country, nor is one planned in the near future. The argument advanced is that the GI-related work in Pakistan is too little, hence no need for registry.

Instead, trademark is seen a good substitute for GI and a trademark for basmati has been granted to the Basmati Growers Association (BGA), investing it with exclusive ownership of the commodity. But this has not been accepted by the European Union and some other countries.

Earlier it was in 2006 that talks on joint GI registration were initiated. Following detailed discussions between the commerce secretaries of India and Pakistan, the two nations had agreed to form a joint study group to explore the possibility of a joint registration of basmati as a geographical indication.

The move also had the support of the All India Rice Exporters Association and the Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan.

Under WTO rules two countries can apply together for registering a product or good as a GI under the ‘homonymous’ provision.

A year later a senior official in Indian High Commission at Islamabad, told reporters that Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath too had taken up the proposal of a joint GI registration of basmati with his Pakistani counterpart Mr Humayun Akhtar but nothing came off.

This ‘ non-response’ from Pakistan side forced India to go ahead to claim intellectual property rights for ‘super basmati’ which Pakistan had been exporting to the EU and enjoying a good market position.

In May 2010, Apeda, which like BGA in Pakistan, is also invested with exclusive ownership of basmati until the commodity is granted GI status, filed an application for registering the basmati growing regions for grant of GI tag under the GI Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999. On October 25, 2010, BGA served a notice to oppose Apeda’s move.

In fact, the Lahore-based BGA also opposed the grant of GI tag ‘basmati’ to India ‘in totality’. It said in its appeal, “Any registration of basmati as GI under Indian statutes would be in clear violation of BGA’s rights as only the parties concerned in Pakistan are rightfully entitled to GI basmati.”

Four months later, Apeda filed its counter statement. Despite providing two extensions, BGA failed to provide evidence in support of its claims within the stipulated period, according to India media. Apeda then moved an interlocutory petition seeking directions to quash the opposition petition.

The GI registry on December 31, 2013, set aside BGA’s petition. Meanwhile, the Chennai-based Intellectual Property Appellate Board on March 30 this year allowed the appeal of Basmati Growers Association to contest the award of GI tag for basmati rice to Madhya Pradesh to be heard sometime this month.

Published in Dawn, Economic & Business, June 15th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play