Skip to main content

Navigating the Basmati Rice GI Tag Dispute: Perspectives from India and Pakistan

 


India has escalated its legal battle over Basmati rice by appealing to the European Court after the EU denied its request to access Pakistan's evidence regarding the rice's origin. This follows Pakistan's submission of proof to support its claim for a geographical indication (GI) tag, which the EU deemed sensitive for international relations. The ongoing dispute centers on India's application for exclusive GI status, which Pakistan opposes, fearing it could undermine its export interests in the EU market.


Geographical indication tag?

A Geographical Indication (GI) tag is a sign used on products that originate from a specific geographical location, indicating that the product possesses qualities or a reputation linked to that origin. The GI tag helps protect the unique characteristics of products, ensuring that only those produced in the designated area can use the name.

Key Points about GI Tags:

Legal Framework: In India, GI tags are regulated under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

Purpose: The primary aim is to prevent unauthorized use of the registered name, thereby safeguarding the interests of producers and ensuring consumers receive authentic products.

Examples: Notable examples of GI-tagged products include Darjeeling tea and Basmati rice.

GI tags play a crucial role in promoting local economies and preserving traditional practices associated with specific regions.


What are the main arguments India has used to support its claim for the GI tag for Basmati rice?

India's arguments for claiming a Geographical Indication (GI) tag for Basmati rice include:

Historical and Cultural Significance: India asserts that Basmati rice has been cultivated in the Indo-Gangetic Plains for centuries, forming part of its cultural heritage and culinary traditions16.

Unique Characteristics: The country emphasizes the distinct qualities of Indian Basmati, such as its long grains and aromatic properties, which are linked to specific agro-climatic conditions in northern India56.

Legal Compliance: India claims to have met the EU's regulatory requirements for GI protection, arguing that Basmati is produced in a defined geographical area that includes regions in India26.

Economic Impact: Securing the GI tag would enhance India's export potential, as Basmati fetches premium prices globally, thereby supporting local farmers and the economy25.

These points are central to India's ongoing dispute with Pakistan over the rice's origin and GI status.


How has Pakistan responded to India's application for the GI tag?

Pakistan has responded to India's application for a Geographical Indication (GI) tag for Basmati rice by vehemently opposing it. The Pakistani government has expressed its intent to challenge India's claim in the European Union (EU), asserting that both countries have a historical connection to Basmati cultivation. Pakistan argues that it should also be recognized for its production of Basmati rice, which is integral to its agricultural identity. Additionally, Pakistan has sought to establish its own GI status for Basmati, emphasizing the need to protect its interests in the international market.




What role does the EU's zero-tariff policy play in the Basmati rice dispute?

The EU's zero-tariff policy significantly impacts the Basmati rice dispute between India and Pakistan. Both countries benefit from zero import duties on specific Basmati varieties, which enhances their competitiveness in the EU market. However, this policy also


intensifies the rivalry as each nation seeks exclusive GI recognition to protect its economic interests.

Pakistan relies heavily on Basmati exports to the EU, with approximately 80% of its rice exports being super Basmati. Changes in the tariff regime could jeopardize its market position, especially if India secures exclusive GI rights, potentially leading to higher tariffs for Pakistani rice and economic losses for its farmers.


How might the re-publication of Pakistan's GI application affect the negotiations between India and the EU?

The re-publication of Pakistan's GI application by the EU may influence negotiations between India and the EU in several ways:

Strengthening India's Position: The EU's action is perceived as reinforcing India's claim to Basmati rice, suggesting that India is the primary holder of the GI rights. This could lead the EU to favor India's application during negotiations, potentially sidelining Pakistan's interests1.

Encouraging Bilateral Discussions: The EU may encourage India and Pakistan to engage in discussions regarding Basmati rice, particularly if it seeks a resolution that accommodates both parties. This could involve negotiating terms for joint recognition or registration of Basmati varieties12.

Impact on Export Dynamics: If India secures the GI tag, it could alter the competitive landscape for Basmati exports, affecting Pakistani exporters who rely on the EU market. This shift may necessitate adjustments in how both countries negotiate trade terms with the EU23.

Diplomatic Leverage: The situation may provide India with additional diplomatic leverage in its broader trade negotiations with the EU, particularly as both sides seek to establish mutually beneficial agreements on geographical indications3.

Overall, the re-publication could catalyze a more strategic approach to negotiations, emphasizing collaboration while protecting individual national interests.


What are the potential economic impacts for India and Pakistan if one country is granted the GI tag for Basmati rice?

If one country is granted the Geographical Indication (GI) tag for Basmati rice, the potential economic impacts for India and Pakistan could be significant:

For India

Market Exclusivity: India would gain exclusive rights to the Basmati name in the EU, enhancing its market position and allowing it to command higher prices for its exports. This could lead to increased revenue, as approximately 65% of EU Basmati imports currently come from India13.

Increased Exports: With GI protection, Indian exporters could potentially increase their market share in Europe, further solidifying their dominance in the premium rice segment3.

Brand Strengthening: The GI tag would strengthen India's brand identity for Basmati rice, reducing the risk of imitation and misuse by other countries1.

For Pakistan

Market Losses: If India secures the GI tag, Pakistan could face significant economic repercussions, as it may be unable to sell its Basmati rice in the EU market under that name. This could lead to a sharp decline in exports, which constitute about 80% of its rice exports to Europe25.

Impact on Farmers: The loss of access to the EU market could severely affect Pakistani farmers' livelihoods, leading to economic instability in rural areas that depend on Basmati cultivation24.

Reputation Damage: The inability to market its rice as "Basmati" could diminish the perceived value of Pakistani rice internationally, impacting its competitiveness against other rice-producing nations3.

In summary, securing the GI tag for either country would have profound implications on trade dynamics, farmer livelihoods, and national economies.


What are the legal grounds for Pakistan to oppose India's GI application?

Pakistan's opposition to India's application for a Geographical Indication (GI) tag for Basmati rice is based on several legal grounds outlined in the EU's regulations:

Joint Product Claim: Pakistan argues that Basmati rice is a joint product of both India and Pakistan, suggesting that it should not be exclusively registered by one country due to shared historical and agricultural ties5.

Failure to Meet Eligibility Requirements: Under Article 10(1)(a) of the EU Regulation, Pakistan may contend that India has not fulfilled the basic eligibility and product specification requirements necessary for GI protection, despite India's apparent compliance14.

Geographical Delimitation: Pakistan could challenge the specific geographical areas listed in India's application, arguing that they do not accurately represent the terroir associated with authentic Basmati production, which could dilute the quality associated with the GI tag12.

Incompatibility with Existing Names: Although this ground may be weak, Pakistan might explore whether India's proposed name conflicts with existing plant varieties or trademarks, as stipulated in Article 10(1)(b).

Legal Framework for GI Protection: With the enactment of its own GI (Registration and Protection) Act in 2020, Pakistan now has a legal framework to support its claim and oppose India's application more robustly25.

These grounds form the basis of Pakistan's strategy to contest India's claim and protect its own economic interests in the Basmati rice market.


Are there specific varieties of basmati rice grown in Pakistan that are not found in India?

Yes, there are specific varieties of Basmati rice grown in Pakistan that are not found in India. Some notable Pakistani Basmati varieties include:

Super Basmati: Known for its long grains and aromatic qualities, it is highly valued both domestically and for export.

PK 385: Another popular variety that is recognized for its quality and yield.

D-98: This variety is also cultivated in Pakistan and is distinct from Indian varieties.

While some varieties, like Basmati 370 and Basmati 386, are common to both countries, the unique Pakistani varieties contribute to the distinct characteristic of Basmati rice produced in Pakistan, setting them apart from Indian counterparts

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Famine by design, Silence by Choice: 90,000 children are dying and still the UN can't find it's Spine.

  ✍️ By Malik Mukhtar | July 22, 2025 📍 From the graveyard of global morality: Gaza Let’s be clear. If a three-month-old baby named Yehia dies of starvation in his mother’s arms at Nasser Hospital, that should be enough for the world to say: “Enough.” But in today’s U.N., apparently 90,000 malnourished children, daily starvation deaths, and food rotting at the Gaza border still don’t meet the “technical ” threshold for famine . Welcome to the age of data-driven genocide , where unless a corpse is tagged with the right IPC Level 5 barcode , it's not really dead enough to matter. 📉 No Data? No Problem. Just Ignore the Bones. Let’s break this down. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) — a bureaucratic tool forged in the fires of humanitarian intention — tells us that famine exists when: 20% of households face extreme food shortage, Acute malnutrition in children exceeds 30%, Deaths exceed 2 per 10,000 per day. But wait — Gaza’s under siege, aid...

💔 A Broken Heart Speaks: David Grossman and the Genocide in Gaza

.            David Grossman  📍 By Malik Mukhtar – blogger “ With immense pain and a broken heart —I now call it what it is: a genocide .” — David Grossman, interview in La Repubblica, August 1, 2025 When Israel’s conscience finally shouts genocide. Grossman— son lost to Israel’s wars , laureate of literature, beacon of moral clarity—has shattered his silence . He describes how he refused to use this word for years, until: “ What I’ve read… the images I’ve seen… speaking with people who were there” left him no choice. “ This word is an avalanche… it just keeps growing … and it brings even more destruction and suffering.” He also reflects: “ The occupation has corrupted us . I’m absolutely convinced that Israel’s curse began with the occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967.” And yet the false savior complex persists: “ Had they [Palestinians] been more politically mature … reality could have been completely different....

🏗️ Corporate Complicity in Genocide: The Global Economy Behind Gaza’s Ruin.

📅 July 5, 2025 “We are witnessing not just genocide in Gaza—but a genocide made profitable.” — UN Special Rapporteur, A/HRC/59/23 “This report is written from the heart of darkness . It is penned with a broken hand from a broken land for a broken people . But its words are not broken . They are the words of law and of longing . They are the words of those who are not yet silenced . It is written for Palestinians , first and foremost. It is also addressed to those who remain silent , indifferent or complicit . And it is a call to action for those who are not.” — Introduction, UN Report A/HRC/59/23 In an unprecedented and unflinching report to the UN Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory has laid bare the truth that much of the world’s corporate, academic, and financial architecture is actively complicit in Israel’s occupation, apartheid, and now, genocide in Gaza. This isn’t just about military aggression . This is about the mac...

“Starving to Death, But Very Politely” — Gaza’s Famine and the Theater of Moral Collapse

📍Blog: ainnbeen.blogspot.com ✍️ By Malik Mukhtar | July 25, 2025 Let us all pause and thank the New York Times . After 21 months of bombing , blockade, and bullets , we finally have permission — no, confirmation — from America’s journal of record that yes, Gazans are, in fact, dying of starvation. The paper even sent reporters to Haifa, Jerusalem, and London — not Gaza, of course — to deliver the news. Skeletal toddlers, lactating mothers without milk, IV drips rationed like treasure — all neatly documented, sanitized, and wrapped in diplomatic passive voice. But fear not. The famine is not the fault of any one side. It's simply the result of “human failings , ” the report says. Ah yes, the tragedy of equal blame . A little siege here, a little looting there — and voilà! Starvation appears like a natural disaster . Like a famine tsunami . No perpetrators. Just poor little victims. Meanwhile, Israel, the world’s most moral occupier™ , is gallantly uploading videos of...

"Globalize the Intifada”—Or How to Offend Power by Naming Its Crimes

  📰 The New York Times and the Art of Grieving Selectively ✍️ By Malik Mukhtar 📍 ainnbeen.blogspot.com 📅 July 2, 2025 Bret Stephens is upset. Again. Apparently, he’s still recovering from Café Moment. And Passover in Netanya. And that one horrific morning in 2004 when he saw carnage on Azza Street. And he has every right to grieve those losses. Every human does. But here’s the thing: Some corpses get columns. Others get erased. Stephens, perched on the prestigious opinion page of The New York Times , just spent a full-length sermon condemning Zohran Mamdani—not for what he said, but for what he refused to denounce: the phrase “ globalize the intifada.” According to Bret, refusing to ritually cleanse your political career with the holy water of pro-Israel respectability is now akin to blessing bus bombings. What “ globalize the intifada” really means, Mr. Stephens, is refusing to accept a world where genocide is livestreamed, and the world just shrugs. It means dari...