Weaving Law and Tradition: The Role of Geographical Indications in Protecting Indian Textiles

ABSTRACT 

India’s traditional textiles reflect the country’s immense cultural diversity, with each region offering unique designs, techniques, and patterns. Geographical Indications (GI) for these textiles have become important instruments that combine cultural preservation with economic empowerment. This article examines the role of GIs in protecting the distinct characteristics of Indian textiles that are closely tied to their geographical origin. It highlights how GIs serve both as a safeguard against unauthorized imitation and as a tool to enhance market visibility, thereby creating demand and recognition for traditional products. Despite these benefits, many genuine artisans and producers face socio-economic challenges and legal gaps that limit their ability to fully capitalize on GI registration. Factors such as insufficient awareness, weak enforcement mechanisms, and limited access to markets often reduce the practical impact of GIs. This study proposes a comprehensive approach to address these challenges, including legal reforms, improved governmental support, and collaborative efforts among stakeholders. Ultimately, it presents a structured framework aimed at strengthening the protection, promotion, and sustainable development of India’s traditional textile heritage through effective use of GIs. 

INTRODUCTION 

India’s textile industry embodies a rich cultural heritage that is deeply intertwined with both the economic and social fabric of the country. Traditional textiles are far more than mere materials; they carry symbols of tradition, heritage, and the cumulative skill of generations of artisan families who have devoted their lives to these crafts. These textiles represent not only cultural identity but also significant economic contributions. As per recent statistics,“India has a share of 4.6% of the global trade in the textiles and apparel industry. The share of textile and apparel (‘T&A’), including handicrafts, in India’s total merchandise exports stood at a significant 10.5% in 2021-22.”[i] This demonstrates that Indian textiles are simultaneously cultural treasures and economically valuable commodities, reinforcing the urgent need for their protection.

Conventional forms of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks, have proven inadequate to safeguard the unique qualities of traditional textiles and protect the interests of artisan communities. This gap highlighted the necessity for Geographical Indications (GI), which serve as a distinct mechanism linking products to their geographic origin while assuring their authenticity and quality. GIs go beyond simple legal protection; they function as instruments of empowerment that preserve cultural heritage and protect the livelihood of communities engaged in these crafts.[ii] As of November 2019, 65 handloom products and six product logos in India have received GI registration, reflecting the growing recognition of their role in safeguarding traditional textiles.[iii] 

GIs fall under the broader umbrella of IPRs and enjoy international recognition under frameworks such as the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and the Paris Convention. India, as a member of the World Trade Organization, enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999, demonstrating its commitment to promoting and protecting its traditional textiles. According to this Act, a “Geographical Indication, in relation to goods, means an indication which identifies manufactured goods as originating, or manufactured in the territory of a country, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.”[iv] 

Despite the enactment of the GI Act and other initiatives to protect traditional textiles, several challenges remain, including weak enforcement, limited market access, and gaps in legal provisions that often prevent artisans from fully benefiting from GI recognition. This article examines both the substantial impact of GIs on preserving traditional textiles and the limitations of the current system. It proposes strategies such as legislative reforms, enhanced government support, and collaborative efforts to address these shortcomings. Structurally, the article is divided into three sections: the first highlights the importance of GIs for traditional Indian textiles, the second addresses the gaps and limitations in the current framework, and the third suggests practical solutions. Ultimately, GIs represent more than a legal designation as they are a powerful tool to preserve cultural heritage while empowering artisan communities. 

THE TRANSFORMATIVE POWER OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS 

The foremost legal significance of a Geographical Indication (GI) Tag lies in its capacity to act as a protective barrier for the original works of artisans involved in producing traditional Indian textiles. By establishing a definitive connection between a textile and its region of origin, [v] the GI Tag grants the artisan community exclusive rights to utilize the product’s name and its unique characteristics. This legal recognition safeguards them against unfair competition and imitation.[vi] Moreover, GI registration equips artisans with the authority to take legal action against counterfeit products, ensuring that their creative and cultural contributions are respected.

Indian textile techniques and traditions, often handed down through generations, represent invaluable cultural knowledge that must be preserved. Before these products were granted GI status, artisans frequently faced widespread imitation and replication,[vii] with copies sold at lower prices, undermining both their reputation and financial stability. Following the assignment of GI status, however, these textiles experienced a noticeable rise in market demand and recognition.[viii] The GI Tag functions as a strategic marketing tool,[ix] instilling consumer confidence in the authenticity and quality of the textile, thereby encouraging buyers to pay a premium for genuine products.[x] This not only ensures fair pricing but also directly benefits both the artisans and the consumers who value authenticity. 

In the face of growing challenges, many traditional artisans had been compelled to abandon their crafts. By linking products to local heritage and a recognized reputation, the GI Tag provides a guarantee of origin and specific qualities, incentivizing artisans to continue practicing their skills. Consumers often demonstrate a willingness to pay higher prices for GI-certified goods,[xi] offering economic motivation for artisans to preserve their traditional knowledge and techniques for future generations. 

GIs also contribute to regional economic development by attracting tourists to areas where these textiles are produced,[xii] providing visitors with opportunities to understand and appreciate the rich traditions and values embedded in the crafts. This influx of tourism not only generates direct sales for these textiles but also fosters potential job creation, infrastructure development, and cultural exchange.[xiii] 

Furthermore, traditional Indian textiles are typically produced by local communities using sustainable methods and regionally sourced materials, distinguishing them from mass produced counterfeits or fast-fashion alternatives.[xiv] The protection offered by GI has encouraged the continuation of these eco-friendly practices while simultaneously opening up business opportunities for artisan communities. By ensuring recognition and market value, the GI Tag empowers communities to preserve their artistic expression and maintain their cultural heritage.[xv] 

In conclusion, the GI Tag is far more than a legal instrument. It serves as a transformative force that not only protects the cultural and artistic heritage of India but also sustains the livelihoods of artisan communities. By combining legal protection with market advantages, consumer trust, and opportunities for tourism-driven economic growth, GIs ensure that the unique traditions of Indian textiles continue to thrive and remain an integral part of the nation’s cultural identity.

CHALLENGES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS 

The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999, was introduced to safeguard the rights of artisan communities and preserve India’s rich tradition of handloom and handicraft textiles. While the GI Act has contributed positively by providing legal recognition and protection, numerous challenges continue to hinder its effective implementation, particularly concerning GI-tagged textiles. Many socio-economic difficulties faced by artisans on a daily basis remain beyond the protective scope of GI registration. 

The GI Act defines a “producer” in relation to goods as “any person who, if the goods are handicraft or industrial goods, makes or manufactures the goods, and includes any person who trades or deals in such production, exploitation, making or manufacturing, as the case 

may be, of the goods.”[xvi] On closer examination, this broad definition encompasses not only the artisans who create the products but also traders and intermediaries. While intended to cover all actors in the supply chain, it inadvertently provides intermediaries with opportunities to exploit authentic producers and their goods. These middlemen often prioritize higher sales volumes over the promotion of genuine products, which can lead to malpractices that compromise product quality.[xvii] 

The presence of intermediaries throughout the textiles’ journey from production to market introduces significant issues regarding supply and demand. Middlemen frequently capture a disproportionately large share of profits, leaving the actual artisans in a vulnerable position. As a result, the producers lose access to the full benefits of GI registration, including direct engagement with consumers, fair pricing structures, and opportunities for branding and product differentiation.[xviii] This structural imbalance reduces the financial incentives for artisans to continue crafting high-quality products, ultimately weakening the objectives of the GI system. 

For many artisan communities, especially those that are illiterate or socio-economically disadvantaged, the process of obtaining GI registration in India is cumbersome, time consuming, and costly. This serves as a significant barrier to entry, preventing smaller groups of producers from securing legal protection. Additionally, many GI products are managed by organizations or boards, such as The Chanderi Development Foundation for the Chanderi cluster,[xix] which often lack sufficient financial resources to pursue legal action against imitation or infringement.[xx] Low levels of awareness about GI registration among both artisans and consumers further hinder the system’s effectiveness. Consequently, many GI-registered products struggle to achieve their potential in the market.

The GI Tag is designed to recognize the uniqueness and quality of a textile. Despite this, many craftsmen continue to live under challenging economic conditions due to insufficient market demand for their products and the widespread availability of counterfeit goods sold at significantly lower prices. In response to financial pressures, artisans are sometimes forced to compromise on the quality of their work. Counterfeit products are widely distributed through both formal and informal channels,[xxi] making regulation extremely difficult. The lack of stringent enforcement allows fraudulent traders to mislabel products with authentic GI tags, undermining the integrity of the system and reducing the premium value that consumers would otherwise be willing to pay.[xxii] 

The limited number of GI-related cases brought before Indian courts highlights the Act’s deficiencies and its limited practical effectiveness.[xxiii] To ensure the sustainability and global recognition of India’s traditional textiles, it is imperative that the government addresses these loopholes and strengthens the legal framework supporting GIs. This includes more rigorous enforcement mechanisms, targeted awareness programs for artisans and consumers, and financial and institutional support for organizations managing GI products.[xxiv] Without these measures, the full potential of GI registration to protect traditional textiles, empower artisan communities, and promote cultural heritage cannot be realized. 

In conclusion, while the GI Act represents a significant step toward preserving India’s textile heritage, its current implementation faces multifaceted challenges. These challenges range from structural issues within the supply chain to socio-economic barriers, low awareness, weak enforcement, and the prevalence of counterfeit products. Addressing these issues is crucial to ensuring that GI registration fulfills its intended purpose: safeguarding the originality of traditional textiles, empowering artisan communities economically, and maintaining the cultural legacy embedded in India’s rich textile traditions. Strengthening the GI system is not only a legal necessity but also a cultural imperative, ensuring that authentic Indian textiles continue to thrive in both domestic and international markets. 

STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS 

While Geographical Indications (GIs) are an important legal tool for safeguarding India’s traditional textiles, several obstacles still prevent them from realizing their full protective and promotional capacity. To overcome these limitations, a multi-dimensional strategy must be adopted, requiring cooperation among artisan communities, government authorities, industry stakeholders, and non-governmental organizations. Only through coordinated action can the GI regime evolve into a framework that both preserves cultural heritage and improves the economic prospects of artisans.

A major hurdle arises from the complex and costly pre-registration process. Most communities applying for GI recognition belong to socio-economically disadvantaged groups, many of whom are illiterate. For such communities, the procedural requirements of filing for a GI Tag become intimidating and inaccessible. The registration process should therefore be simplified to encourage greater participation. During the pre-registration stage, it is also essential that applicant groups designate independent certifying bodies to ensure that the specifications tied to GI-tagged products are properly enforced.[xxv] This would help maintain quality standards and curb enforcement issues that arise due to counterfeit products. To further ease the burden on applicants, the government could extend legal aid facilities. Institutions such as the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)[xxvi] and other existing legal aid schemes may be mobilized to provide assistance in both registration and litigation against infringement. 

Beyond registration, structured markets supported by the government can play a crucial role. A regulated marketplace with fixed pricing mechanisms would prevent exploitation and ensure that artisans receive fair value for their goods. State and central government grants, delivered through agencies such as the Ministry of Textiles and the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, could provide additional financial support to help communities sustain production, upgrade techniques, and establish markets for their products. 

Integration into digital marketplaces offers another promising strategy. Artisans should be trained to create and manage online seller accounts to expand their consumer base.[xxvii] Prominent e-commerce platforms such as Amazon and Flipkart could partner in this effort by assigning authenticity seals, such as the “Flipkart Assured” tag, to GI-certified goods. This not only reassures buyers but also helps GI products stand out against counterfeit versions. However, for these initiatives to succeed, e-commerce platforms must strictly enforce seller verification protocols, regularly monitor product listings, and promptly remove counterfeit items. Quick complaint mechanisms should also be instituted to enable immediate redressal of infringement cases, coupled with strict legal action against offenders. In this way, e-commerce platforms can play a vital role in supporting compliance with intellectual property protections. 

Technological modernization of production methods is another pressing need. Textile production is highly labor-intensive, involving processes such as spinning, weaving, and reeling. To compete with cheap, mass-produced alternatives, GI-tagged producers must be supported in adopting improved technologies. The government could extend subsidies and low-interest loans to artisans to help them modernize production while retaining the unique characteristics that define their craft.

Equally important are training and skill development programs. Government and NGOs could organize workshops to upskill artisans and even train their families in areas such as product innovation, marketing, and social media promotion. These efforts would allow artisans to improve product quality and establish a distinctive brand identity, reducing reliance on intermediaries. The creation of a dedicated government-supported digital platform to connect artisans directly with consumers would also enhance transparency, strengthen trust, and provide fairer income distribution. 

Government schemes already in place can be harnessed to amplify the visibility of GI products. The One Station One Product (OSOP) scheme of the Ministry of Railways[xxviii] is one such initiative that can provide market access by showcasing local products at railway stations. For GI textiles, this platform could significantly boost consumer engagement and create additional revenue streams for marginalized communities. GI products can also be showcased in tourism-centric locations such as airports, heritage sites, and cultural fairs. Linking GIs to tourism not only promotes sales but also enhances cultural appreciation. 

Raising consumer awareness is equally crucial. Many buyers remain unaware of what a GI Tag represents or how to identify one. To address this, awareness initiatives such as roadshows, exhibitions, and craft fairs could be launched. Publicity drives with attractive displays, branding campaigns, and success stories—such as the Chanderi model[xxix]— should be highlighted to inspire trust in authentic products. Participation in global events like the Commonwealth Games[xxx] would give GI textiles an international platform, while collaborations with fashion houses could bring them into mainstream fashion markets. Such exposure would not only increase demand but also elevate the cultural prestige of these textiles. 

Finally, legislative reforms are necessary to plug gaps in the current framework. A key issue is the GI Act’s broad definition of “producer,” which includes traders and intermediaries alongside genuine artisans. While intermediaries cannot be eliminated entirely due to their link with consumers, unchecked recognition of their role often results in artisans being sidelined from the benefits of GI protection. Amending the Act to clarify or restrict the role of intermediaries is therefore essential.[xxxi] This would ensure that the benefits of GI status accrue primarily to artisans while still allowing intermediaries to function in a regulated manner. 

In conclusion, strengthening the GI framework for textiles requires a holistic and multi pronged approach. Simplifying registration, extending legal aid, creating regulated markets, promoting e-commerce integration, modernizing technology, organizing capacity-building workshops, and raising consumer awareness are all necessary measures. Additionally, leveraging government schemes and amending the GI Act will address systemic challenges. Through these combined efforts, GIs can move beyond their legal identity to become instruments of cultural preservation, economic empowerment, and sustainable development, inspiring future generations while safeguarding India’s textile heritage.

CONCLUSION 

This article,“Assessing the Impact of GI on Traditional Indian Textiles,” underscores the crucial role that Geographical Indications (GIs) play in safeguarding and promoting the distinctiveness of India’s traditional textiles, which are deeply embedded in the nation’s cultural fabric. GIs operate as a shield against widespread imitation, ensuring authenticity while simultaneously driving economic growth and protecting the cultural identity of artisan communities. 

Throughout the discussion, the article has highlighted how GI registration benefits artisans by guaranteeing originality, enhancing consumer confidence, and expanding market demand for traditional goods. At the same time, it acknowledges the persistent challenges that limit the effectiveness of GIs. These include loopholes within the GI Act, socio economic vulnerabilities of artisan groups, inadequate enforcement, and a general lack of awareness among both producers and consumers about the significance of GI protection. 

To address these concerns, the article has proposed a comprehensive strategy focused on legislative reform, institutional support, and collaborative engagement among stakeholders. Simplifying the registration process, offering legal aid to marginalized communities, and utilizing digital platforms such as e-commerce for marketing GI products are identified as central measures. Particular emphasis has been placed on amending the definition of “producers” under the GI Act to prevent exploitation by intermediaries and ensure that the benefits remain with genuine artisans. 

Ultimately, the article advocates for an integrated, multi-stakeholder approach to strengthen the protective capacity of GIs. By closing existing gaps and implementing reforms, GIs can preserve India’s textile heritage while also positioning the country as a global leader in sustainable, ethical, and culturally rooted fashion.

REFERENCE(S): 

[i] Ministry Of Textiles, Government Of India Annual Report 3 (2022-23). 

[ii] Suelen Carls, Thinking Outside the Box: Legal and Non-legal Objectives of Geographical Indications, WIPO-WTO Colloquium Papers, (Jan 13, 2024) 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/colloquium_papers_e/2017/chapter_1_2017_e.p df. 

[iii] Victoria & Albert Museum, (Mar. 24, 2024) https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/indian textiles 

[iv] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 No. 48, Acts of Parliament, 1999. 

[v] WIPO, Geographical Indications, (Jan 13, 2024) 

https://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/. 

[vi] Id. 

[vii] Ruppal W Sharma & Shraddha Kulhari, Marketing of GI Products: Unlocking their Commercial Potential, Centre For WTO Studies, (Jan 11, 2024) 

https://wtocentre.iift.ac.in/Papers/Marketing%20of%20GI%20Products%20Unlocking%20th eir%20Commercial%20Potential.pdf. 

[viii] Kasturi Das, Prospects and Challenges of Geographical Indications in India, 13 J. World Intellect. Prop., 148, 173 (2010). 

[ix] Francesco Carrelli Palombi, Exploring the Benefits of Geographical Indications, Dennemeyer (Jan. 3, 2023), https://www.dennemeyer.com/ip-blog/news/exploring-the benefits-of-geographical-indication/. 

[x] Kasturi, supra note 8 at 158. 

[xi] Why Geographical Indications matter to SME’s, WIPO, 

https://www.wipo.int/sme/en/geographical 

indications.html#:~:text=Using%20a%20GI%20label%20links,price%20for%20GI%2Dcertif ied%20goods. 

[xii] Kasturi, supra note 8 at 180. 

[xiii] Id. at 593.

[xiv] Ketki, Sustainable textile and Sustainable practices from traditional Indian Culture, Curiosity saves the planet, https://curiositysavestheplanet.com/sustainable-textile-and clothing-practices-from-traditional-indian-culture/; Ritu Sethi, Handmade for the 21st century safeguarding traditional Indian textiles, UNESCO Digital Library, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000382921. 

[xv] Id at 594. 

[xvi] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 No. 48, Acts of Parliament, 1999. 

[xvii] Duplicate GI products hampering niche market: Textile Min, Business Standard, https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/duplicate-gi-products-hampering niche-market-textile-min-116011201241_1.html. 

[xviii] Pratima Kalita, Role of Muga Silk-GI of Assam in the Sustainable Development of Assam, 5 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 594, 595 (2022). 

[xix] Kasturi, supra note 8 at 177. 

[xx] Abhishek Mishra, Can Geographical Indications Support the Indian Village Economy Impacted by the Ongoing Economic Crisis Caused by COVID-19? Brics Law Journal. 2022;9(2):121–144.[xxii] The New Indian Express, 

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/vijayawada/2020/Feb/09/despite-gi-tag-work duplication-a-major-concern-rue-handloom-artisans-2101062.html 

[xxi] The New Indian Express, 

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/vijayawada/2020/Feb/09/despite-gi-tag-work duplication-a-major-concern-rue-handloom-artisans-2101062.html 

[xxii] Yogesh Pai & Tania Singla, Vanity GIs’: India’s Legislation on Geographical Indications and the Missing Regulatory Framework, in Geographical Indications at the Crossroads of Trade, Development, and Culture 334, 333-58 (Irene Caboli & Ng-Loy Wee Loon, eds., 2017). 

[xxiii] Naina Gupta and Vaishali Joshi, Trends in GI sector: An analysis, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys (Jan. 14, 2024), https://www.lakshmisri.com/insights/articles/trends in-gi-sector-an-analysis/. 

[xxiv] Ranjit Singha & Surjit Singha, Women’s Empowerment through the Silk Industry of Assam, India, and its underlying economy, 21 Journal Of International Women’s Studies, 17, 9–31 (2020).

[xxv] Yogesh, supra note 22, at 351-354. 

[xxvi] NALSA, https://nalsa.gov.in/ (Mar. 24, 2024). 

[xxvii] Ranjit, supra note 24 at 18-19. 

[xxviii] Press Information Bureau, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx? PRID=1923698 (March 25, 2024). 

[xxix] Kasturi, supra note 8. 

[xxx] Kasturi Das, Prospects and Challenges of Geographical Indications in India, The Journal Of World Intellectual Property 13, 148 -201 (2010). 

[xxxi] Pratima Kalita, Role of Muga Silk-GI of Assam in the Sustainable Development of Assam, 5 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 594, 595 (2022)