Authenticity, Innovation, and the Geographical Indication in an Artisanal Industry: The Case of the Banarasi Sari

• Published date: 01 July 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12035
• Date: 01 July 2015
• Author: Amit Basole

Authenticity, Innovation, and the Geographical

Indication in an Artisanal Industry: The Case of the

Banarasi Sari

Amit Basole

Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA

Scholars and policy-makers have proposed Geographical Indications (GIs) as the preferred IPR to integrate traditional

knowledge-based industries into the global market. In this paper I ask under what conditionsGIs can address problems

of poor but skilled artisans in developing countries and what are their limitations in doing so. Based on a case study of

the weaving industry in the city of Banaras, that was granted a GI in 2009 for the Banarasi Sari, I argue that GIs, in

order to be effective, must be designed through a participatory process in which ordinary artisans, who are the

producers of knowledge, are closely involved. Further the GI must be sensitive to the dynamic nature of artisanal

knowledge and allow room for market-induced changes in production methods. I show that the Banaras GI freezes

current production methods in the name of craft preservation while artisans take a dynamic approach to their

knowledge even as they demand protection against imitation. I also argue that a GI cannot address problems that arise

out of the political economy of artisanal industries. The lessons from this case study may be applicable to other

artisanal industries and to livelihoods of millions of artisans in India and elsewhere.

Keywords traditional knowledge; geographical indications; political economy; textiles

Artisanal industries contribute signif‌icantly to employment, output, as well as export earnings in

developing countries in addition to being bearers of cultural identity (Liebl and Roy, 2004; Nash, 1993).

But despite producing high-value added products with skilled labor, artisans usually work in the “informal

sector”under precarious working conditions and for low wages due to a subordinate position in the value-

chain (Basole and Basu, 2011; Scrase, 2003). Their livelihoods are further threatened by commercial

imitation and passing-off of mechanized products as craft (Fowler, 2004). Recently, there has been a lot of

interest in improving artisanal livelihoods and preserving crafts via participation in global markets.

1

International institutions such as the World Bank and the World Intellectual Property Organization have

proposed the integration of artisanal knowledge into existing intellectual property regimes as the solution

to creating brand identity, discouraging imitation, and enhancing incomes (Finger and Schuler, 2004;

World Intellectual Property Organization, 2008).

This debate is part of a broader discourse on how (and whether) traditional and indigenous knowledge

(TK/IK)

2

can be protected within the institutional framework of international trade and intellectual

property rights (Arewa, 2006; Drahos, 2011; Frankel, 2011a, b; Gervais, 2005). Several scholars and

policy-makers have proposed Geographical Indications (GIs) as the preferred IPR to integrate TK/IK into

the global market (Aylwin and Coombe, 2010; Das, 2010; Gopalakrishnan et al., 2007; Martens, 2012).

GIs are designed to preserve a “culture of production”and a “culture of consumption”(Broude, 2005) and

more controversially tend to favor existing methods of production over innovation and change (Drahos,

2011; Hughes, 2006; but see Addor and Grazioli, 2002). For these reasons and due to their place-based and

collective nature GIs are seen as compatible with local, community-based TK/IK, and have been hailed as

“poor people's intellectual property rights”(Sunder, 2007, p. 114). Development agencies such as the

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) have aggressively pushed for

©2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 127

The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2015) Vol. 18, no. 3–4, pp. 127–149

doi: 10.1111/jwip.12035

Geographical Indications and over the past 10 years more than 400 GIs have been issued in India to various

agricultural and artisanal products.

3

Aylwin and Coombe (2010, p. 754) note that the IP “frenzy”in India is

part of a trend in developing countries.

In this paper I ask under what conditions GIs can be the answer to the problems of poor but skilled artisans

in developing countries using the case of the centuries old artisanal weaving industry located in the Indian city

of Banaras (Kumar, 1988). The industry was granted a GI in 2009 for its embroidered, hand-woven, silk fabrics

(Banaras Bunkar Samiti et al., 2009). I argue that GIs, in order to be effective, must be designed through a

participatory process in which ordinary artisans, who are the producers of knowledge in any tradition, are

closely involved. Further the GI must be sensitive to the dynamic nature of artisanal knowledge and allow room

for market-induced changes in production methods. Finally, I also argue that even well designed GIs cannot

address problems that arise out of the political economy (power relations) of artisanal ind ustries.

The Banaras textile industry employs over 200,000 workers in weaving and allied activities, with a

Rs. 30,000 million (approx. $500 million) annual turnover (Varman and Chakrabarti, 2011). Its specialty is

the Banarasi sari,

4

hand-woven silk fabric with intricate woven embroidery worn by women (see Figure 3).

Despite the industry's reputation within India and abroad, ordinary artisans who weave the fabric have

been facing poverty and destitution due to falling demand for handloom products, excess supply of skilled

labor, lack of employment alternatives, and capturing of value by traders (Ahmad, 2007; Basole, 2015;

Bose, 2007). The industry has faced stiff competition from other weaving centers in India and from China.

In particular, the practice of passing-off machine-made fabric as hand-made has instigated attempts to

formalize the def‌inition of authentic Banarasi fabric via a GI that sets out detailed conditions a product

must meet in order to qualify as Banarasi.

This study draws on surveys and interviews, as well as observations, resulting from f‌ieldwork

conducted between October 2009 and June 2010.

5

Weavers, master-weavers merchants, NGO workers,

and government off‌icials were interviewed. I show how artisans conceptualize authenticity and contrast it

with the way authenticity has been embodied in the GI. I also argue that the GI has been developed without

signif‌icant participation of the artisanal community and is “preservationist,”that is, freezes current

production methods in the name of craft preservation. In contrast artisans take a dynamic approach to their

knowledge and innovate in response to market pressures as well as changing resource bases. A GI that

seeks to preserve artisanal traditions, as they exist now, risks punishing artisans for innovating. To prevent

this from happening, criteria of authenticity must be developed from within the artisanal community. I

conclude that instead of allowing innovation and improving the distribution of value within the industry,

the Banaras GI will discourage innovation and allow mal-distribution of value.

Secondly, I argue that a GI is not the solution to problems that result from the political economy of the

artisanal value chain. As is well known, many artisanal industries are informal in nature and are organized

on a “putting-out”basis. Artisans tend to have low bargaining power in product as well as labor markets in

comparison to master-manufacturers and merchants (Basole and Basu, 2011; de Neve, 2005; Knorringa,

1999; Scrase, 2003). As a result the distribution of value in national and global chains is biased toward

merchants and traders. In extreme cases a ratio of 70:1 may exist between retail prices and the artisan's

wages (Liebl and Roy, 2004). In these circumstances, an effectively implemented GI can increase

premiums in the market, but cannot ensure that these increases trickle down to the artisans. Further,

unequal distribution of power in the value-chain can result in a subversion of the GI to suit more powerful

interests in the industry (Bowen and Zapata, 2009; Gade, 2004).

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section I review the literature on traditional

knowledge, the geographical indication, and artisanal industries. Next, taking the case of Banaras I show

the context in which the GI has been issued. Following that I analyze the shortcomings of the Banaras GI in

terms of process, content, and political economy. The f‌inal section discusses the way forward and

concludes.

Amit Basole Authenticity, Innovation, and the Geographical Indication in an Artisanal Industry

©2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

128 The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2015) Vol. 18, no. 3–4