The Tangail saree fiasco: Why cry over GI tag when we can't make use of it?

Over the past week, we have witnessed a major dispute between Bangladesh and India over the ownership of the Geographical Indication (GI) tag for the Tangail saree.

After massive backlash, Bangladesh's Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (DPDT) under the Ministry of Industries finally recognised the Tangail saree as a GI product of the country on Wednesday. 

With this inclusion, Bangladesh now has 22 GI products. Jamdani was the first to get registered in 2016. Among others, notable examples include muslin fabrics, Rajshahi silk, Hilsha fish, and Tangail's Chamcham sweets. 

While it is fair to blame India for instigating this controversy to some extent, it also underscores a more pressing issue — the apathy of our government towards safeguarding our cultural heritage until there is an attempt to hijack it by someone else.

There is also considerable scepticism surrounding the credibility of the GI status, and whether the acquisition of it truly leads to beneficial changes, particularly within the country's economic sector.

And thus, India's GI registration for Tangail saree serves as a big reality check for us that cannot be overlooked. 

The controversy began with the Ministry of Culture of India making an announcement through their Facebook page on 1 February that they attained GI rights for the traditional Tangail saree, which according to them "originated from West Bengal."

Needless to say, such a claim did not sit well with Bangladeshi netizens and sparked a movement against India's actions. The post has since been deleted.

Notably, Tangail saree is named after its place of origin, Tangail, which is clearly located inside Bangladesh. Studies indicate that the weaving tradition of the Tangail saree can be traced back to the British colonial period, experiencing notable growth in the late 19th century.

Pathrail, Nolshodha and Gharinda are among the villages identified as the origins of this clothing. A Hindu migrant weavers community, the Basak, started weaving the Tangail saree there. They are actually descendants of traditional muslin weavers, who resided in Dhamrai and Chauhatta areas of Dhaka district around 1850.

After receiving invitation and patronage from the zamindars (landlords) of Delduar, Santosh, and Gharinda areas of Tangail, those weavers relocated due to the scarcity of muslin and a search for more favourable climatic conditions. Thus, the saree they used to weave later came to be known as Tangail saree.

"The recent incident is very disgraceful. The key criteria for GI recognition is the location and Tangail is nowhere near India. It's a part of Bangladesh. India should have given a second thought before doing this," Chandra Shekhar Shaha, chairman of the National Crafts Council of Bangladesh, told The Business Standard. 

"From all aspects, Bangladesh is the rightful claimant for this product," he added. 

However, the matter is way more complex than it appears on the surface, according to Pavel Partha, a researcher and writer on ecology and diversity, geographical ecosystems and occupational groups of GI products.

He pointed out that during the partition in 1947 and again amid the Liberation War in 1971, weavers from Tangail migrated to certain areas of West Bengal, such as Nadia and East Bardhaman. In doing so, they brought with them the expertise in weaving the Tangail saree to those regions.

"Hence, those weavers also have every right to call it a Tangail saree," Partha said, adding that it was the West Bengal State Handloom Weavers Co-Operative Society Limited who filed the application, and he sees no problem with that. 

"But the issue arises when it receives GI registration, because the original location should be registered for it. I believe their higher authorities made a mistake due to ignorance," he added. 

Though ignorance may indeed be a problem within India's administration, it is the indifference of our own government that warrants scrutiny. The pertinent question to ask is why our government did not pursue the certification earlier.

Amin Mohammad Tajul Islam, deputy director of DPDT, acknowledged the presence of a lack of awareness and seriousness on their part, which contributed to the delay in registering the Tangail saree for GI. 

"The law for GI registration was enacted in 2013. We conducted virtual seminars with all district representatives to compile a list of potential products. However, since participation is optional, there was a deficiency in awareness and seriousness. Hence, the registration process for the Tangail saree remained incomplete," he explained.

He further emphasised that GI is a territorial and optional right, not an internationally recognised status. "Every country has the opportunity to register its own original products. The process is internal and remains consistent for any country," he clarified.

Md Kaisarul Islam, deputy commissioner and district magistrate of Tangail, also spoke along the same lines. "We had already been working on the GI registration process since September last year," he said, adding that they had also compiled a paper detailing the historical evolution of the Tangail saree.

Finally, the paper was submitted to the DPDT on Wednesday. But the damage had already been done by that time. 

When questioned about how India laid claim to the Tangail saree as their own, Kaisarul Islam also pointed out that it is part of India's internal process.

"However, we have thoroughly reviewed the documents and found gaps to challenge it as well. After having GI registration for ourselves, we can appeal against India's claim based on international intellectual property right law," he added. 

Meanwhile, Pavel Partha suggested that the two countries should form a joint GI council instead and negotiate on issues like this.

Apparently, as neighbouring countries, both Bangladesh and India have shared many cultural GI products for centuries. However, some of the GI products, which are culturally and geographically associated with Bangladesh, had earlier been exclusively claimed by India.

The case of Jamdani saree was one such instance, as India registered the "Uppada Jamdani" saree as a GI product under its sui generis system of GI protection in 2009. 

Such a move from India raised concerns among many people in Bangladesh, who feared that Bangladesh might lose GI recognition for Jamdani, despite its century-old tradition.

Hence, Bangladesh also implemented a sui generis GI legislation, namely, the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 2013, which provides a registration system for some of its reputed local and indigenous products. 

Finally, in late 2016, Jamdani was recognised as a GI product of Bangladesh as well. 

"GI recognition gives validity in the global market and attracts consumers' attention. It's more critical than it looks. If we can't claim our heritage now, it will pave the way for many other products. That is dangerous," Partha explained. 

It is widely acknowledged that GI tagged products usually fetch about 20% to 30% more in the international market compared to similar ones lacking the tag.

However, questions remain whether Bangladesh has so far been able to capitalise on such economic benefits of its own GI products. 

Despite holding the status of a GI product since 2016, Jamdani continues to encounter challenges in reaching customers compared to other GI products from different countries. 

While it is exported to various nations, including India, the US, Europe, and the Middle East, the export quantities are relatively low, and there is a lack of adequate data regarding the market size of Dhakai Jamdani due to insufficient monitoring of the export process.

The situation is more or less the same for the country's other GI products as well, with the recognition hardly leading to any significant improvements in the lives of the people associated with these products.

Therefore, Partha highlighted the importance of establishing a national register to address the current situation. Without such a register, GI certification may continue to be granted without proper documentation and adherence to global standards, as has been the case thus far.

"If we have a national register, which should be updated every year, we can ensure that we're doing the certification right and contributing to the life of the occupational groups involved in the trade," he explained.

Sketch: TBS

Ariful Hasan Shuvo & Jannatul Naym Pieal