See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333682265

Protecting Traditional Artefact for Socio-Economic Sustenance: Case Study of

Gamosa, a Traditional Handicraft of Assam

Chapter · December 2017

CITATION READS

1 650

2 authors:

Mridul Dutta Sujit Bhattacharya

Tezpur University CSIR-National Institute of Science Comunication and Policy Research (formerlly NIS…
24 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS    112 PUBLICATIONS   1,029 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Studies on Contemporary Challanges View project

Understanding Emerging Technologies: Technological, Economic, and Social Impact View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mridul Dutta on 17 December 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 119

11
Protecting Traditional Artefact for Socio-Economic Sustenance: Case Study
of Gamosa, a Traditional Handicraft of Assam
Mridul Duttaa and Sujit Bhattacharyab
a
Tezpur University. Assam, India
Email: mridul@tezu.ernet.in
b
CSIR-National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies,
New Delhi-110012, E-mail: sujit@nistads.res.in; sujit_academic@yahoo.com

The paper tries to explore the importance of protecting traditional artifacts through the case study
of Gamosa; a handloom towel/scarf of the indigenous communities of Assam, India. Gamosa
demonstrates the weaving skills, practices and traditional knowledge passed from mothers to their
daughters. It has a sacrosanct value, a sign of love and respect when Gamosa is presented. The
traditional way of manufacturing this product is facing severe competition from the machine made
“me-too” product. This infringement is having major detrimental effect on the traditional product,
almost wiping out its mass market. Along with the threat of the loss of this art of weaving this cloth,
the social and economic cost for people involved in various aspects of this artifact, especially the
rural women is enormous. Drawing lessons from various approaches that have been taken for
protecting traditional artefacts; adopting a multi-strategy approach for protection is argued. The
study points out that the key strategy of protection should be built around getting ‘Geographical
Indication (GI)’ of this artifact. However, the paper cautions that just getting GI protection would
not be enough; building the brand around GI supported by other instruments of IPR, ensuring
traditional process is strictly adhered to, developing good mechanisms for reaching out to the
market, monitoring infringement, etc. can lead to socio-economic sustenance of the community.
The study also draws attention to the need for a long term strategy that can be achieved by
developing an IPR policy for the state that can be an enabling mechanism for protecting the rich
traditional knowledge and cultural wealth of this region. The paper argues that lessons learned
from this study will have important implications for protecting traditional knowledge and inclusive
growth.

Keywords: Gamosa; Geographical Indication; Traditional Knowledge; Traditional Cultural

Expression; TRIPS; Assam.

Introduction
Nations and regions can create unique competitive advantage by exploiting natural and
symbolic resources (traditional knowledge/traditional cultural expressions) (Bandelj & Wherry,
2011). Developing and improvised economies have rich resources of this kind; however, only in a
few cases they have been able to create competitive advantage by proper exploitation 1of their

1
Exploitation here is defined not only for creating economic wealth but also in terms of social wealth

119
 120

unique resources. On the other hand, there are many instances where developed countries have
been able to exploit the resources of these countries to create global brands. Consumers, for
example, across the world pay a premium for Swiss or Belgian chocolates, whereas the raw
material (cocoa) suppliers of third world have very little distribution control in the inbound
logistics of the value chain (Porter, 1985). This type of inequality is seen in many commodities
(rice, tea, corn, medicinal plants, and spices) where communities from developing countries play
very limited role in acquiring economic benefits because of their limited capacity to influence the
global value chain.
Traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) comprises various forms in which traditional
culture is expressed, for example, dances, songs, handicraft, designs, ceremonies, tales or many
other artistic or cultural expressions. They can be fixed in a medium (tangible) or intangible, or,
most usually, a combination of the two. TCEs are generally embedded within symbolic or religious
elements. Globally, fashion and apparel brands liberally borrow the traditional designs and
handloom motifs from the cultural and folklore wealth of the communities with no proper
appropriation to the primary stakeholder (Dutta, 2014). Most of the time, these communities are
unaware of this intellectual piracy or do not have the wherewithal to confront for cultural piracy.
In the last decade or so, there have been some visible signs of resistance by developing
countries to the exploitation of their cultural wealth. Even strong voices have emerged from
indigenous communities in developed economies. Protection of Maori cultural heritage in New
Zealand (Zappaterra, 2016) happened due to long struggle of this community. Due to interventions
primarily by developing countries, the global multilateral agencies UNCTAD, CBD, WIPO and
WTO have started paying attention to these issues. The global governance of IPR is through WTO-
TRIPS2 agreement. Though TRIPS does not provide the same safeguards like CBD for TK/TCE;
in principal it becomes more fruitful if protective mechanisms can be designed by exploiting
various IPR instruments that are allowed by the TRIPs. The rationale that drives this argument is
that unlike CBD, TRIPs is embedded within WTO and thus IPR is linked with global trade which
makes it a much stronger binding agreement. Keeping this as a premise, we examine through case
study of Gamosa a traditional handicraft of Assam, how protective mechanisms can be designed

2
TRIPS is an international agreement administered by the WTO, providing framework for minimum standards for
intellectual property, administration and regulation protocols that WTO members have to incorporate in their IPR
laws.

120
 121

for this artifact; which is losing its mindshare and market share to machine made products. Further,
the study examines how creativity and innovation is built around a traditional product and argues
why it is important to protect this unique artifact for socio-economic welfare and cultural wealth.

Gamosa: Its Origin and Socio-Cultural Significance in Assamese Community

The Gamosa is one of the recognizable symbols of communities of Assam 3. The Gamosa
(Dutta and Bhattacharya 2015) is derived from Kamrupi dialect ‘gaamasa’ (gaama+chadar). The
sacrosanct identification of ‘gaamasa’ is a sacred cloth to cover the scripture Kirton Ghoxa. Literal
interpretation is “gaa” which means body and "mosa" meaning cleaning or wiping water, dust or
sweat. Gamosa is a unique handloom product of Assam weaved primarily by womenfolk called as
Xhipinies (Bhuyan, 2007). Gamosa touches all the inhabitants of Assam who are someway
associated with Assamese way of life, irrespective of religious or ethnic background.
Box I: Gamosa

Gamosa is a white rectangular piece of cloth around 2 feet wide and 4 feet in length with red
stripes on three sides and decorated red motifs on the forth side with white background. Another
version of Gamosa is Tangali (around 1 and half feet in width and 6 feet in length). During Bihu
festival, Tangali is used as waist cloth or is wrapped around the head as a headgear by the men in
Bihu dances or used for tying the drum around the shoulder. It is customary gesture in Assam to
welcome the dignitaries with a phulam (motif or embroidered) Gamosa instead of garlanding with
flowers. There were many symbolic elements and designs woven in Gamosa. The typical designs
are of flowers, motifs of birds (adjutant stork), geometrical motifs, lions, dragon-lions or flying-
lion symbolising power and prosperity. Gamosa is also given as a bihuwaan, offered by a lady to
her loved ones during the Rongali Bihu festivals (lunar calendar new year day) as a token of love.

Gamosa did not come from other parts of SoutheEast Asia or Indian mainland as there is no
documented source which mentions its origin elsewhere. It is an innovation of Assamese weaving
community, entirely women folk of this region. Significant references of Gamosa are documented
in the history of the Assam region. Gogoi (1982) mentioned the usage of Gamosa during Ahom
kingdom4. Another historical reference of Gamosa is recorded in oral format during 15 th-16th
century, neo-vaishnava movement in Assam. Sri Srimanta Sankardeva and his disciple Sri
Srimanta Madhavdeva started the religion Mahapuruxiya Dharma, which happened at the time of

3
Indigenous natives of Assam, a state of India located in the north-eastern part of India.
4
The Ahom kingdom was a kingdom in the Brahmaputra valley in Assam, India covering the period AD1228 to
AD1826 (Gait, 2012).

121
 122

Bhakti5 movement. Folklore tells that Madhavdeva got the news of sad demise of his mentor
Sankardeva when his son Ramananda came running to give the sad news wearing a gamosa as a
headgear.
Gamosa is used in almost all the religious activities and rituals in Assam. The monikut
(symbolic deity) of naamghar (temple) is usually covered with Gamosa. The ghaai khutaa or laai
khutaa (main pillar of Naamghar) is again wrapped with a Gamosa (Vemsani, 2016). People
entering the Naamghar for prayer would never enter without a Gamosa hung around their shoulder
or neck. The Gamosa is used to welcome guests or put over the shoulder to bestow respect. Finally,
but not the least, Kirton Ghoxa (scripture) is kept on top of a xhorai (bell-metal ornamental cup
with a stand) with a Gamosa to cover the scripture from dust and dirt (Mirza, 1967).

Objective and Significance of the Study

This research aims to explore the production process of Gamosa and the skills of the
handloom weavers to highlight how community knowledge and cultural practices builds up a
traditional artifact. The significance of a traditional artifact is not only limited to utility, but also
for its recognition in society. IPR becomes one of the useful instruments for protecting a traditional
artifact. Keeping this as a premise, the study examines to what extent IPRs can provide a support
system for the community. However, arguing for exploiting IPR instruments, the study cautions
that a traditional artifact has to be seen in a larger context i.e. recognition of the value not strictly
defined in terms of a ‘commodity’.

Methodology
The study is based on an extensive analysis of documented sources and select interviews
undertaken in Sivasagar district of Assam6. This district was chosen for conducting selected
interviews as the pilot study by the authors have shown that in this district the style of weaving
and motifs are very unique and are seldom compromised by independent weavers. On the other
hand, other districts of Assam have a comparatively higher concentration of commercial weavers.
These weaving units may have adopted mechanization in their production process. The motif and

5
Srimanta Sankardev was the founder of Neo-Vaishnavite movement in 15th-16th of Ahom reign in Assam.
6
Special Purpose Vehicle Comprehensive Handloom Cluster Development scheme is being implemented in Sivasagar
district of Assam www.handlooms.nic.in/hl_eoi_sivasagar.doc

122
 123

finishing quality are of general standard. Assam Government has also taken notice of the high
concentration of independent weavers in Sivasagar region and has created a Handloom Mega
Cluster under the Comprehensive Handloom Cluster Development Scheme in this district.
Lakhimpur, Jorhat and Dibrugarh districts are in proximity to this cluster having large numbers of
handloom units engaged in domestic consumption as well. The first author made extensive field
visits to the weaving community in Sivasagar district of Assam involved in Gamosa production to
understand the process of production, various types of skills involved in the production process,
how the skills have evolved, the tacit knowledge of the community, and the threats and
vulnerability to the community, etc. This was supplemented by close-reading various kinds of
documents.

Findings from the Case Study

There are about 4.5 lakh weavers in Assam organized in about 3,789 societies registered
as handloom cooperative societies7. Most of the cooperative weavers have single loom household
units. The number of commercial looms in Assam is less, but these commercial weaving centers
are the prominent handloom clusters of Assam. A typical weaving center includes a master-weaver
who is well versed with the fabric/weaving knowledge. She (he) invests for the raw material, space
for handlooms, colour combination, fabric design, engages weavers for producing fabrics and
markets the produce either to a retail shop or distributes it through village level intermediary
(middlemen). The prominent commercial handloom weaving centers of Assam are Sualkuchi,
Palasbari, Mirza, Bijoynagar and Rampur in Kamrup, Jajori in Morigaon, Dhemaji, North
Lakhimpur, Sibsagar, Jorhat, Dibrugarh, Karimganj, Kokrajhar, Nalbari, Baksa, Mangaldoi and
Udalgiri. Women dominate the overall handloom and weaving labour sector in Assam.

Traditional Production Process

Two types of xhal (loom) called pattixhal (traditional household loom) and fly-shuttle or
throw-shuttle loom (locally known as weaver’s xhal) are used by the traditional weavers
(Xhipinies). The ideal time for weaving Gamosa is from the month of February end 8 to the
beginning of April. Xhipinies weave in other seasons also depending upon the factors such as

7
Registrar of Societies, Government of Assam, 2009
8
Based on interviews with xhipinies

123
 124

market demand (marriages), leisure time or if required to produce customised patterns and motifs.
The yarn they use is called pokuwa xhoota which is brought from the markets. An intricate process
was observed in preparing the yarn suitable for Gamosa. The yarn is dried in sunlight for about
Xhipinie women weaving Gamosa one or two days and then it is distributed to nessa (smaller,
multiple strands) and bobbin. For the patti (border), scarlet-red
dyed pokuwa shoota or crimson rose coloured zero-ply wool
yarn is used. The handloom stands over four pillars called khuti,
two in the front side and other two on the rear side. The
instrument chereki and zatar are used to remove the tangles of
Source: Village Chopaloga,
Sonitpur Assam the yarn and put the threads into strands. Using a raas bhoruwa
(copper blade), the strands are inserted into the raas. Further,
the threads are subjected to combing again using kakoi phoni (kakoi is variety of bamboo grass
and phoni means comb) to give the finishing touch to the strands. Using a pkholi and sirhdi, these
strands are wrapped over a tulutha (sort or wooden bar, closed to end of the weaver). This tulutha
is attached with a duar bandha to give it position in the loom.
Preparation of motif involves skillful artisans within the community. The motifs are
captured through saneki (graph paper design). An average small motif may have 05 to 15 threads
of zero ply thread, medium motif will have about 25 and large motifs about 50 thread count. For
giving a finishing touch, one of few golden coloured threads is also woven on one end of the
Gamosa. The semi-finished Gamosa is wrapped around kuhali and dried under the sunlight to
remove moisture before splitting the individual pieces of Gamosa. An xhipinie of independent
weaver9 category can produce a Gamosa for domestic consumption on an average of 5-7 hours.
The silk Gamosa, which is mostly Paat10 and sometimes Muga11, normally takes about two days
(12-14 hours) because of the finer texture of silk yarn. Following Bajpeyi, Padaki and Mishra
(2010), we could also identify three categories of handloom weavers i.e. independent (individuals),
cooperative and wage weavers. The independent weavers are part-time domestic weavers who are

9
Independent weavers are women who are engaged with handlooms in their homes for household consumption
which are not commercial in nature.
10
Mulberry silkworm produce is also called pat or paat in Assam.

11
Muga silk s granted Geographical Indication of Assam. Silkworm Antheraea assamensis is endemic to Assam.

124
 125

engaged with handlooms and ancillary production in their homes for domestic/household
consumption.

Social Changes
For Assamese woman, irrespective of her economic status and caste, possession of good
weaving skills is regarded highly in the Assamese society. However, with socio-economic
transitions, the value given to women who possessed good weaving skills is getting replaced with
other aspects. Our interviews showed that many parents would like their daughters to take interest
in other lucrative occupations rather learn handloom and weaving. The effect of this can be seen,
for example, in bihuwaan12. Few decades ago, it was a matter of pride for a xhipinie to weave
bihuwaan, but with changing socio-demographic features, Bihuwaan is bought from handloom
fairs and marts. The urban and upper income Assamese people have replaced the utility of the
towel Gamosa with a spun cotton towel or machine woven towel. The utility of Gamosa is confined
to the lower income class such as the daily wage labours, farmers, rickshaw pullers, or the petty
commodity and vegetable traders.

Market
We found that Gamosa is positioned in the market in multi-ways; the type and quality
vary with the usage/application and the consumer profile. Power loom-woven me-too products
have strong presence in the lower end of the market segment which comprises of towel, waistcloth,
scarf, etc. This market caters to the working people at the lower occupation levels with preferred
choice are me too products due to aggressive price tag. Me-too products are also able to capture
the higher end of the market during Bihu13 when the demand is high. These products are imported
in bulk during this time. Higher end of the market primarily covers Gamosa usage as an offering
during rituals, as a gift and token of love in bihuwaan, for felicitation, ornamentation and as a
souvenir.
Me-too products compromise on quality as they are transparent, poor absorbent and machine
woven motif, but since they are much cheaper, they capture a substantial share of the market. A

12
Token of love, expressed by women during Rongali Bihu festival. Rongali Bihu is celebrated by the indigenous
communities of Assam marking the new lunar calendar year.
13
Bihu is the main festival of Assam. It covers three different festivals: Rangali or Bohag Bihu observed in April,
Kangali or Kati Bihu observed in October, and Bhogali or Magh Bihu observed in January

125
 126

cotton Gamosa with beautiful motifs would cost about INR 200 to 350 14 in any retail shop.
However, with me-too products in the market it is difficult to sell the genuine product in the above
price band. The cost of production makes it unviable to sell below the above price range.
We found that there is no statutory protection for Gamosa that would help the community
to challenge the machine made product for a valid infringement case. The absence of any statutory
protection would result an infringement suite ending up as weak legal battle in a court. The
Handloom & Textile Department, Government of Assam has imposed an order to the wholesale
traders to abstain themselves from importing any imitation product of Gamosa. However, this is
not implemented properly. Another factor, we found, that is affecting the genuine product to assert
itself in the market is its loss of mind share as bourgeois do little care to recognize it as a brand
different from imitation product. The case study provides us with a strong rationale to explore
mechanisms that can protect this unique handicraft and, in the process, sustain the livelihood of
the community involved in this artifact.

Protecting Gamosa: Exploring the Various Instruments for Protection

Different instruments of IPRs: copyright, trademarks, geographical indication, trade
name and trade secret have been applied to protect traditional handicraft. Copyright can be used
to protect the artistic manifestation of TK holders and thus can be useful for protecting the various
textile compositions. Industrial design can be a useful instrument for protecting the design and
shape of utilitarian craft. However, the limitations of copyright and the industrial design is that
they are typically individual rights. To overcome this limitation, many countries have developed
legislative actions or incorporated prior informed consent and benefit sharing agreement for
protecting traditional knowledge. Typically, they cover misappropriation of biological resources 15.
Sui generis instruments have also been developed to protect TK. For protecting traditional
handicraft, it is more useful to explore rights that can give collective ownership. Trademark or
their variants, trade names that can distinguish a group, trade secrets that can protect the traditional
process can be useful instruments for protecting community rights. These instruments have been

14
65 INR is approx. 1 USD
15
Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) constructed by India is now being recognized as a key instrument
in stopping misappropriation of India’s traditional knowledge by disallowing patents or specific claims in patents
which has direct bearing on knowledge already well-established through ancient Indian text. However, it is more
centered towards protecting traditional medicinal knowledge wealth of India.

126
 127

exploited for promoting TK including handicrafts. National Certification Trademark, for example,
has been given to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists in Australia to help promote
marketing of their art and cultural products. Philippines have given indigenous communities rights
over their traditional knowledge through legislative provision. Geographical Indication (GI) has
been the more preferred mode if particular characteristics can be attributed to a geographical
origin. Mashelker (2001), Correa (2001) and others felt that legal 16 protection of TK based on sui
generis ensures that knowledge is retained holistically by the community, establish community
intellectual rights and thus can protect the knowledge, practices and innovations of indigenous
communities.
GI is defined under TRIPS as any indication that identifies a good as originating from a
particular place, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristics of the good are
essentially attributable from its geographical origin. GI serves to recognize the essential roles
played by geographical factors, climate conditions and/or human knowhow in the end quality of
certain products. GI do have limitation however like trademark that they can only prevent the use
of the protected marks or indication but do not protect the knowledge or the technologies
embracing that knowledge, as such. Some useful studies from India draw attention to GI as a useful
instrument for protecting traditional handicraft. Mir (2010), study of GI protection of the handicraft
products of Jammu and Kashmir, points out that the fundamental need for GI tag is to provide
safeguard in situations when the ornamental appearance is imitated by non-local manufacturers,
produced in bulk (using mechanization) and sold locally/abroad as a product of local origin.
Ganguli (2003) argues that GI is the best option to protect the knowledge of the handloom weaving
process. Das (2009) provides a detailed account of socio-economic implications of protecting GI
in India. The study draws attention to over 100 GI registrations done in India and how the majority
of GIs i.e. around 69% are from handicrafts (including handlooms). Das (1986) highlights that the
target market of Gamosa will be retained provided its qualitative features and distinctiveness is
properly marketed.

16
Because of statutory construction, it is not possible to obtain intellectual property rights in certain products under
the traditional IPR provisions. Sui-generis may provide legal protection of intellectual property rights of Gamosa,
where there is no specific characteristic of handlooms, weaving process or motif patterns.

127
 128

GI can be a strategic instrument for developing countries to protect their traditional

products17. There is a strong claim for GI tag to be given to Gamosa because the unique and tacit
knowledge for producing this artifact emerges from a particular region (localized origin). GI tag
may help to build a brand around the original artifact and assert its identity in the market and can
provide a legal support to challenge me too products which infringes the original product. The
commercial weavers are replacing the traditional process for producing this artifact. Possibly in
the long run, this traditional art of weaving including usage of traditional dyes and ingredients will
disappear. GIs may be able to address this problem. Consumer survey in European Union found
that 40% of consumers are ready to pay a 10% premium for origin guaranteed products (EU, 2004).
Thomas (2013) highlights further instances based on different surveys the consumer preference to
origin guaranteed products. Jena and Grote (2010) argue that producers can cash in on the
reputation theory to obtain price premium in the market. The two products from India that have
high source recognition (Basmati and Darjeeling Tea18) are used to support their reputation theory
argument19. GI Act provides legal basis to challenge infringement and options for out-of-court
settlement (Das, 2009). The infringement case of Pochampally Ikat 20 silk saree, followed by the
verdict of Delhi High Court and its subsequent out-of-the-court-settlement provides substance to
this claim.

Discussion, Conclusion and Policy Suggestions

As Russel Barsch (in Blake, 2015) says “What is ‘traditional’ about traditional knowledge
is not its antiquity, but the way it is acquired and used. In other words, the social process of learning
and sharing knowledge, which is unique to each indigenous culture, lies at the very heart of its
traditionality.” He further notes that it is important to distinguish between the knowledge
indigenous people acquired from settlers and industrialised societies with the knowledge of the
indigenous people which not only is characterised by substantial element of newness but also by
social meaning and legal character. Dutfield (2003) further qualifies this statement by arguing that

17
While the TRIPS Agreement has no specific provisions on the issue of TK, the Doha Declaration, in 2001, instructed
the TRIPS Council to examine the protection of TK and TCEs. Furthermore, discussions on the relationship between
the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD are taking place within the TRIPS Council since the built-in review of Article 27.3
(b) in 1999 (https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/art27_3b_background_e.htm)
18
Darjeeling Tea is GI mark advocated by Tea Board of India. It is grown in Darjeeling and Dooars region of India.
19
Basmati is identified globally special characteristics because it is grown in a particular region of Punjab and Sindh
in India and Pakistan.
20
Pochampally Ikat saree was the first handloom product of India to get GI (GI Registry, 31 December 2004)

128
 129

the social process of learning and sharing knowledge is unique to each indigenous culture which
lies at the very heart of its traditionality. Blake (2015), drawing from an extensive examination of
debates on TK, over a period of time asserts that TK is a comprehensive notion whose elements
are predominantly cultural in character, but the notion of culture when viewed in relation to TK is
not primarily an artistic or aesthetic construct but rather the whole way of life of a given society.
Brown (2005) among others examines the issue of misappropriation of TK and TCE. He points
out that misappropriation is wrong for two reasons: (a) disrespectful of the cultural values of the
source community, which rarely has sanctioned the imitation of its creations by outsiders, and (b)
subjects that community to material harm, either by denying it legitimate economic benefits or by
undermining shared understandings essential to its social health.
We observe the above insights are important to our case study of Gamosa. The whole
process of its creation of Gamosa is highly evolutionary and creative process. The social process
of learning and sharing knowledge till the final production of the artefact is unique to the
community i.e. the xhipinies. For xhipinies, it is the whole way of life which cannot just be seen
in the context of creation of a process but for creation of an artefact. The me-too power loom
products have been disrespectful to the cultural values of the source community (herein the people
of Assam who treat Gamosa as sacrosanct) and has subjected the community (herein xhipinies) to
material harm.
The entry of me too product has to be seen in a larger context. Gamosa has been losing its
value over a period of time and is becoming a ‘commodity’. Value derives from the recognition
of TK and TCE by the society at large which are users of this artefact (here the people of Assam).
During our interviews, we found considerable erosion of value attribution to this artefact
particularly by the younger generation. This we see as one of the important factor behind the me-
too power loom products which enables it to create a market in Assam. The consequence of the
entry of me-too power loom products has multiple facets. It has negatively impacted livelihood of
xhipinies of Assam. It also disconnects a community from the society and pushes them to look for
alternate means to earn their livelihood; a common feature seen for other TK products.
One of the possible ways that we can address this problem is by granting GI tag to this
product. The GI branding can be useful as: (a) it will attribute quality and reputation with the
source of origin, (b) can provide legal protection such as infringement suites and restriction on the
sale of counterfeit Gamosa, (c) can stop me too products to be called by the name Gamosa. Thus,

129
 130

GI can be a good distinguishing factor that can allow to place a premium on the traditional product
in comparison with me too products. However, even if GI is finally given to this artefact it can
only be a useful step forward. Proper safeguards have to be taken so that this tag is not misused.
GI would not be able to protect the ‘know how’ and possibly it would be useful to explore whether
Trade Secret protection can also be enabled. Non-disclosure agreement within the community
particularly seeing that tacit knowledge of the weaving process is not disclosed would ensure that
reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that knowledge has been kept secret; an essential
condition for invoking injunctions against infringement under trade secret protection. GI tag like
other IPRs generates value if there are proper institutional mechanisms that can help exploit the
value. Case in point is Darjeeling Tea. Support structure has been created which can challenge
infringement globally of products claiming source origin of Darjeeling. Other GIs from India do
not have this type of brand building and support structure and thus they have not been able to
create socio-economic sustenance for the community.
India has created various legislative instruments to protect TK such as National
Biodiversity Act which calls for benefit sharing and includes novel initiatives like The People’s
Biodiversity Registers (PBRs), in her patent act, it does not recognise invention which in effect, is
traditional knowledge or which is an aggregation or duplication of known properties of
traditionally known component or components (Section 3(P) of Indian Patent Act), GI, Protection
of plant varieties and farmers rights act. Traditional Knowledge Digital Library has emerged as an
important instrument for patent examiners for refuting claims of patents misappropriating Indian’s
traditional medicinal knowledge. India recently formulated The National Intellectual Property
Rights Policy, 2016 which calls for constructive engagement at various international forum to
develop legally binding international instruments to protect TK, genetic resource and TCE.
Another important initiative which this document calls for is documenting oral traditional
knowledge. Keeping all this in context, we feel that due to diversity of TK across the country,
different communities that have unique cultural expressions and artefacts, divergent socio
economic conditions, it is important to have State IPR Policy. One good exemplar is the IPR Policy
created by Kerala in 200821. Strong focus of this policy was on protecting TK, especially
Ayurveda, knowledge of which is deeply embedded within various communities in this state. This

21
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/in/in048en.pdf

130
 131

policy document has made some novel suggestions such as creation of Kerala Traditional
Knowledge Authority (KTKA), holders’ rights under common license, register of traditional
practitioners, codification of the whole process, etc. The National IPR Policy should support
creation of this type of policy for each state especially states with rich TK.
Key policy suggestions that emerge from this study are:
 Protecting a traditional artefact like Gamosa would require differentiating it from imitating
products. The paper proposes geographical indication as one of the key instruments that
can provide this differentiation. Also calls for exploring other instrument such as Trade
Secret that can provide additional protection.
 State support should include developing a long term strategy for creating new product
space for Gamosa by understanding changing consumer behaviour across different markets
including international market without violating the traditional production process.
 A state, such as Assam, should develop its own IPR policy that can link with National IPR
Policy. The policy need to make substantiated claims for granting GI to important artefacts
like Gamosa. It should also provide roadmaps for creating institutions that can provide
support system for holders of TK, market access, etc.

References
A. Mirza, ASSAM-The Natural and Cultural Paradise, Publisher Abbas Mirza,
1967

C.M. Bajpeyi, V.P. Naveen & S.N. Mishra, “Review of Silk Handloom Weaving in Assam”;
Textile Review, 2010. Available at http://www.fibre2fashion.com/industry-
article/25/2419/review-of-silk-handloom-weaving-in-assam1.asp (Accessed: 22 Feb
2012).

C.M. Correa. Issues and options surrounding the protection of traditional knowledge: A discussion
paper. Quaker United Nations Office Geneva, November 2001.

D. Bhuyan, “A world of changing views-Tezpur District Mahila Samiti and its work with women
and communities in Northeast India,” James Madison University, ProQuest, pp. 137-139,
2007.

E. Gait, A History of Assam, 2nd edition, Thacker, Spink & Co., Kolkata, 1926 Accessed on 22
Feb 2012.

131
 132

EU Background Note (2004). Why do geographical indications matter to us? Available at:
http://www.southcentre.org

F.A. Mir and F. Ain. “Legal Protection of GI in J&K-A Case Study of Kashmiri Handicrafts”,
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, vol. 15, pp. 220-227, 2010.

Guidelines of the Comprehensive Handloom Cluster Development Scheme: Mega Handloom

Cluster, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, 2009, Available at
http://texmin.nic.in/policy/Guidelines_of_development_of_mega_cluster_scheme_%20H
andloomnmcc_cs_20090312.pdf (Accessed on: 21 Feb 2012).

G. Zappaterra, “Europe: Traditional cultural expression and the fashion industry-inspiration or

misappropriation?”, 2016. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=30e06e32-
76e2-4e14-959e-b215329469f5 accessed on 28 April 2017

J. Blake, Intellectual Cultural Heritage Law. Oxford Press, UK. 2015.

K. Das, “Socio-economic Implications of Protecting Geographical Indications in India”, 2009.

Available at www.wtocentre.iift.ac.in/papers/gi_paper_cws_august%2009_revised.pdf
(Accessed on 20 Nov 2013).

L.Gogoi, Asomar Sanskriti-The Culture of Assam, Guwahati. Bharati Prakashan, 1982.

L. Vemsani, Krishna in history, thought, and culture: An encyclopaedia of the Hindu Lord of many
names. ABC CLIO, LLC, California, USA. 2016.

M. F. Brown, “Heritage Trouble-Recent work on the protection of intangible cultural property,”

International Journal of Cultural Property, vol. 12, pp. 40-61, 2005.

M. Dutta, “Craft as a pull factor for tourism-A case of few select villages in North East India,”
Tourism and Handicrafts-Challenges and opportunities for local economic development,
pp. 44-47. ISBN 978-93- 84388-00-3, 2014

M. Dutta and S. Bhattacharya. “Geographical indication as a business strategy for Gamosa.” Paper
presented in national seminar ‘Indigenous Knowledge for Sustainable Rural
Development’, National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Guwahati,
India, 2015.

M. E. Porter, The Competitive Advantage-Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. NY:

Free Press, 1985.

N. Bandelj and F.F. Wherry, “Introduction-An Inquiry into the Cultural Wealth of Nations”, The

Cultural Wealth of Nations, California, Stanford University Press, 2011.

132
View publication stats

133

N.C. Das, Development of handloom industry-Organisation, Production, Marketing, Deep & Deep
Publications, Guwahati, Assam, 2009.

P. Ganguli, “Intellectual Property Systems in Scientifically Capable Developing Countries-

Emerging Options”, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, vol. 9, pp. 24-33. 2003.

P.R. Jena & U. Grote, “Changing Institutions to Protect Regional Heritage-A Case for
Geographical Indications in the Indian Agrifood Sector”, Development Policy Review,
vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 217–236. 2010

R. A. Mashelkar, “Intellectual Property Rights and the Third World”, Current Science, vol. 81,
no. 8, pp. 955-965, 2001

W. Thomas, Economic competitiveness through geographic indications. International Journal of

Marketing, Financial Services & Management Research. Vol.2, No. 9, September 2013.

***

133