The controversy over Basmati's DNA

Basmati, on the other hand, is one item which really doesn't need any promotion. It commands a premium over other varieties which it is steadily pushing off the table.Last year, its exports fetched Rs 3, 548 crore (Rs 35.48 billion) compared with Rs 2, 282 crore (Rs 22.82 billion) in 2006-07 and are projected to grow substantially since the area under this crop is increasing year on year. And here lies the rub: The DNA and geography of the rice are changing significantly, making it difficult for Basmati to fulfil the requirements for GI.This has stirred the pot once again because three years ago, Pusa 1121 was notified as a non-Basmati variety, a classification that the commerce ministry has stuck to despite lobbying by the export lobby. The problem is complex. Enticed by the export potential, the government has widened the definition of Basmati to include newer varieties, Pusa 1121 being the latest. The changing definition of Basmati, which now includes six traditional varieties and three hybrids, has in turn enlarged the geography of Basmati cultivation. From its original turf in Punjab (both sides of the India-Pakistan border), Haryana and UP, Basmati has now spread to Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh where farmers have taken enthusiastically to the new variety.It has a prized aroma, impeccabits pedigree and an awesome global reputation. None of this has helped Basmati to get the special label it deserves.

Basmati is to India -and Pakistan - what Champagne is to the French, Parma ham to the Italians and Scotch whiskey to the Scots.

This fragrant, long-grained rice from the Gangetic plain, which has become the most favoured variety in Europe and West Asia, is stuck in a sackful of grit that makes a geographical indications (GI) label elusive if not impossible for one of India's top export earners.

Conflicting perspectives of the ministries of agriculture and commerce, farmers' lobbies and the vested interests of millers have all combined to make the award of a GI tag a problematic issue. Add to this the complication of a cross-border dispute with Pakistan and the case for Basmati's GI status seems doomed.

Does a GI matter if these products are already top export earners? Yes, indeed. A GI is a form of intellectual property (IP) protection based on geography and tradition that is key to preserving a country's natural resources and cultural heritage along with some unique means of production.

Instituted by the WTO, GI identifies a product as originating from a particular place and whose quality, reputation or other characteristics are attributable to its geography. For the EU, it is a crucial trade tool. European communities, says an EU brief, have registered some 4,800 GIs, the bulk (4,200) of them for wines and spirits alone.

These products bring in sizeable export revenues. For instance, France's 593 GIs (466 for wines and spirits) generate �19 billion and "constitute a lifeline for 138,000 agricultural outfits".

In India, not much attention is paid to developing the market potential for GI products, although the tag is being handed out (indiscriminately, in my view) to a wide assortment of primary products and manufactured goods.

In the circumstances, can Basmati still claim purity of line and geographical exclusivity? The October 29 notification on Pusa 1121 by the agriculture ministry has only added to the confusion.

The ministry says Pusa 1121 can be called Basmati only if it is grown in Punjab and Haryana, although scientists say there is no rationale for this since the rice does not lose its innate characteristics if it is grown elsewhere. Was the ministry worrying about the implications on the GI front?

It's hard to tell since it is the commerce ministry which appears to be rooting for Basmati. In September, the Union Cabinet approved an amendment in the law to enable the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) - an autonomous statutory authority sponsored by the commerce ministry - to register and protect IP rights, including GIs, for certain special agriculture products, such as Basmati, in India and elsewhere.

The move to empower APEDA comes in the wake of an abortive attempt by the Heritage Foundation of Karnal to secure GI status for Basmati.

The 2004 application by the foundation, which represents rice millers and exporters, was turned down by the controller general of patents, design and trademarks ostensibly because it was technically flawed. One suspects though that the government did not wish the GI to be vested with a private trust that did not represent the primary stakeholders - the cultivators - adequately.

While this clears some of the ground, the bigger problem is getting Pakistan on board. There were reports that India and Pakistan had decided, and quite sensibly too, to seek a joint GI for Basmati globally.

A meeting of officials and scientists from the two countries was scheduled for early 2009 to sort out the grain from the chaff. But that report came before Pusa 1121 was notified. And it came before the terror strike on Mumbai. It's doubtful if the meeting will take place as scheduled. Basmati's GI status remains a sticky mess.