VOL 20 NO 157 REGD NO DA 1589 | Dhaka, Wednesday, February 20 2013

http://www.fe-bd.com/index.php?ref=MjBfMDJfMjBfMTNfMV8yN18xNjA3Njg=

Go

The cases for Jamdani and Basmati

Published : Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Siddiqui

Rice, besides being the staple food, occupies a major aspect in the lives of the people in South, Southeast and some other parts of Asia. Over centuries, the farming communities throughout the region developed, nurtured, and conserved hundreds of distinct varieties of rice.

RiceTec, a Texas-based US company, in 1997, patented some types of rice they had developed as 'American Basmati'. RiceTec Inc had been trying to enter the international Basmati market with brands like 'Kasmati' and 'Texmati'. Ultimately, the company claimed to have developed a new strain of aromatic rice by interbreeding Basmati with another variety. They sought to call the so-called new variety Texmati or American Basmati. RiceTec Inc. was issued the Patent Number 5663484 on Basmati rice lines and grains on September 2, 1997.

RiceTec has got a patent for three things: growing rice plants with certain characteristics identical to Basmati, the grain produced by such plants, and the method of selecting rice based on a starch index (SI) test devised by RiceTec Inc.

The patenting of Basmati by RiceTec Inc. is perceived as not only an intellectual property and cultural 'theft', it also directly threatens farm communities in greater South Asia. The main aim for obtaining the patent by RiceTec Inc. is to fool the consumers into believing that there is no difference between the spurious Basmati and the real Basmati. Moreover, the 'theft' involved in the Basmati patent is, therefore, three-pronged: a theft of collective intellectual and biodiversity heritage of farmers in greater South Asia, a theft from the traders and exporters in the region whose markets are being encroached upon by RiceTec Inc., and, finally, a deception of the consumers since RiceTec is using the 'stolen' name, Basmati, for the rice which has been derived from Indian rice, but is not grown in India, and hence is not of the same quality.

The matter was taken up by two India-based non-government organisations (NGOs) Centre for Food Safety, an international NGO that campaigns against bio-piracy, and the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, an Indian environmental

NGO, which filed legal petitions in the United States. The Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research also objected to it. They sought trade protection for Basmati rice of the South Asian sub-continent and jasmine rice of Thailand. They have demanded amendment to the US rice standards to specify that the term 'Basmati' can be used only for the rice grown in India and Pakistan, and jasmine for the Thai rice.

The patent was challenged by the fact that the plant varieties and grains already exist as a staple in India. 5.75 per cent of US rice imports are from Thailand and the remainder is from India and Pakistan and both varieties are rice that cannot be grown in the United States. The legal theory is that the patent is not 'novel', and it should not have been granted in the first place.

As a result of the re-examination of the application filed by the Indian government, RiceTec agreed to withdraw several of the claims. In January 29, 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a Reexamination Certificate cancelling claims 1-7, 10, and 14-20 (the broad claims covering the rice plant) out of 24 claims and entered amendments to claims 12-13 on the definition of the rice grains.

The United Kingdom did not accept the request of RiceTec to allow Basmati as Texmati rice, since British law protects the use of the term Basmati to refer to the rice coming from India and Pakistan. RiceTec also uses Texmati in its US sales, but does use the term Basmati in its packaging. This is still a disputed issue and has not yet been settled under Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. Bangladesh has identical problem with Jamdani. Banglapedia says that Jamdani is an ancient fine muslin cloth with geometric or floral designs. Jamdani now usually means sari. In the 17th century, dresses were also made of Jamdani fabric. Towards the end of the Mughal Empire, a special type of Jamdani cloth used to be made for the Nepalese regional dress 'ranga'.

The earliest mention of Jamdani and its development as an industry is found in Kautilya's book of economics (about 300 AD), where it is stated that this fine cloth used to be made in Bengal and Pundra. Its mention is also found in the book of Periplus of the Eritrean Sea and in the accounts of Arab, Chinese and Italian travellers and traders. Four kinds of fine cloth used to be made in Bengal and Pundra in those days, viz khouma, dukul, pattrorna and karpasi.

From various historical accounts, folklore and slokas, it may be assumed that very fine fabrics were available in Bengal as far back as the first decade before the birth of Christ. Cotton fabrics like dukul and muslin did not develop in a day. Dukul textile appears to have evolved into muslin. Jamdani designs and muslin developed simultaneously.

In his 9th century book Sril Silat-ut-Tawarikh the Arab geographer Solaiman refers to the fine fabric produced in a state called Rumy, which according to many, is the old name of the territory now known as Bangladesh. In the 14th century, Ibn Batuta profusely praised the quality of cotton textiles of Sonargaon. Towards the end of the 16th century, the English traveller Ralph Fitch and historian Abul Fazl also praised the muslin made in Sonargaon.

The fineness of muslin cloth used to depend usually on the art of making yarns. The most appropriate time for making yarns was early morning as the air then carried the highest moisture. For making yarns, weavers needed taku, a bamboo basket, a shell and a stone-cup.

The art of making Jamdani designs on fine fabric reached its zenith during the Mughal rule. There were handlooms in almost all villages of the Dhaka district. Dhaka, Sonargaon, Dhamrai, Titabari, Jangalbari and Bajitpur were famous for making superior quality Jamdani and muslin. Traders from Europe, Iran, Armenia as well as MughalPathan traders used to deal in these fabrics. The Mughal emperors, the Nawabs of Bengal and other aristocrats used to engage agents in Dhaka to buy high-quality muslin and Jamdani.

According to a 1747 account of muslin export, fabrics worth Rs 550,000 were bought for the Emperor of Mughal India, the Nawab of Bengal and the famous trader Jagat Sheth. The same year, European traders and companies bought muslin worth Rs 950,000. According to James Wise, Dhaka muslin worth Rs 5 million was exported to England in 1787. James Taylor put the figure at Rs 3 million. In 1807, the export came down to Rs 850,000 and the export completely stopped in 1817. Thereafter, muslin used to reach Europe as personal imports.

Bangladesh had been the manufacturer and exporter of Jamdani to Delhi and other parts of the world for a few centuries. India is still importing Jamdani from Bangladesh. The fabric is part of our culture and livelihood of many weavers in and around Dhaka. In the meantime, India has registered Jamdani sari as originating from Andhra Pradesh and exporting it throughout the world.

The Indian government's enactment of laws designed to protect geographical indications demonstrates its attempt to accord the same protection to agricultural products currently being given to wine and spirits. The strategy is that once terms like Basmati gain protection domestically, pressure may arise to accord protection internationally. However, this is a longterm strategy.

Geographical Indications signify a core instrument in protecting the rights relating to the culture and heritage of several manufacturers and producers of goods which have been of traditional importance. Also in the international trade scenario, they are of vital importance since they indicate specialisation in natural resources and open new scopes for several countries which might be otherwise lacking in technologically updated resources. There is no specific legislation in Bangladesh to regulate geographical indications, and a draft law has been pending with the Ministry of Industries for a few years. Unless geographical indication products are protected in the country of its origin, there is no obligation under the agreement under Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement for other countries to extend reciprocal protection.

Following the Basmati dispute in 1997, India enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. This act seeks to provide for registration and better protection of GIs relating to goods. It excludes unauthorised countries and persons from misusing GIs. This would protect the interest of producers, manufacturers and, thereby, consumers from being deceived by the falsehood of geographical origin. There is a widespread belief that RiceTec Inc., took out a patent on Basmati only because of weak, non-existent Indian laws.

In the wake of the problems with patents that India has experienced in recent years, the importance of enacting laws for conserving geographical indication (GI) interest and controlling piracy as well as intellectual protection legislation that conform to international laws has been realised.

The Bangladesh authorities are sitting on the draft GI Act despite the aggressive Act of neighbouring India to gain ownership of our GI products like Jamdani, Fazli mango etc. We must understand the gravity of the situation and act on an emergency basis to safeguard national interests. The WTO system has no obligation to protect our interests as The there writer is is no local law PhD to at protect Open the GI products. Malaysia.

pursuing

University,

shah@banglachemical.com