The battle over expanding the geographical indication (GI) area for Basmati rice to include Madhya Pradesh has intensified, with the All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) formally opposing any expansion at its general body meeting held earlier this week in Sonipat, Haryana, according to a report by The Hindu BusinessLine.
AIREA passed a resolution against including new areas for Basmati GI, directly challenging Madhya Pradesh’s demand. The resolution reflects “growing resistance from the trade” to Madhya Pradesh’s claim, which has been opposed by traditional Basmati-producing states led by Haryana and Punjab. Trade sources said even some exporters who had earlier expressed support for Madhya Pradesh’s inclusion did not object to the resolution, suggesting a “broadening consensus within the export industry against expanding the GI area at this stage.”
Key Stakeholders and Positions
The issue is highly emotive in Madhya Pradesh. It was first raised by Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan when he was chief minister. The state government filed a case in the GI registry for inclusion. Under the GI law, because Basmati rice already has a GI tag, farmers growing Basmati varieties outside the demarcated area cannot sell it as Basmati, making exports difficult.
| Stakeholder | Position |
|---|---|
| AIREA | Opposes expansion; passed resolution against it. |
| Madhya Pradesh government | Seeks inclusion; filed case in GI registry. |
| Traditional Basmati states (Haryana, Punjab) | Oppose expansion. |
| Congress leader Digvijaya Singh | Supports inclusion; threatened hunger strike in March; met Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal in May. |
| Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan | Previously championed inclusion but now declines comment, citing sub-judice matter. |
| APEDA (Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority) | Holds GI mandate for Basmati; chairman Abhishek Dev consulted stakeholders. |
Political and Legal Developments
Congress leader Digvijaya Singh met Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal in May, calling the previous stand of APEDA a “mistake” that “should be corrected now,” sources said. Singh is believed to have suggested an impartial expert committee be set up to revisit the issue. Kedar Sirohi, head of the farmer cell of the Congress party in Madhya Pradesh, said APEDA should decide the GI issue “as the agri-export promotion body it should not be a party to interest of any particular state.” Sirohi has also taken up the issue with scientists from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).
“Since the GI mandate for Basmati rice is with APEDA, it has to decide if it wants inclusion of Madhya Pradesh or not. Once it agrees, a solution can be found when concerned people discuss the issue,” Sirohi said.
On the other hand, an anonymous expert questioned India opposing Pakistan’s move to expand Basmati area at global forums like the European Union, asking how India could “emulate the neighbouring country’s wrong model.” The expert argued that status quo should be maintained until a judicial verdict is reached.
Legal Status
The GI certificate for Basmati rice was issued by the Chennai-based GI registry in February 2016 to APEDA, covering some districts of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh was not included. The matter is currently pending before the Madras High Court. A senior Commerce Ministry official held stakeholder consultations earlier this week, and APEDA Chairman Abhishek Dev discussed the GI issue with legal experts.
Implications for Commodity Traders
For commodity traders and exporters, the dispute creates uncertainty about the supply of Basmati rice from Madhya Pradesh. If the GI area is not expanded, farmers in Madhya Pradesh growing Basmati varieties cannot legally export their produce as Basmati, potentially reducing overall Basmati export volumes from India and supporting prices for GI-certified Basmati from traditional regions. Conversely, if inclusion is granted, it could increase supply and pressure prices. The resolution by AIREA suggests the export industry leans toward maintaining the status quo, but political pressure from Madhya Pradesh remains strong. Traders should watch for further legal rulings and APEDA’s stance, as these will directly impact certification, export premiums, and sourcing strategies.
Sources:
