By KN Kumar
Lakadong turmeric is characterised by its high curcumin content and distinctive flavour. It received a Geographical Indication (GI) tag in 2024, marking a significant milestone for the nearly 12,000 farmers who rely on it for their livelihoods. However, how much does this GI tag benefit them? This question is crucial not only in Meghalaya but also for other farmers across India who possess products with GI tags, such as Darjeeling tea and Basmati rice. Through this article, I aim to raise several questions regarding the GI process, our perception of GI, how GI protection operates, and what the government can do to support the farmers.
The GI tag for Lakadong turmeric, awarded on 31 March 2024, acknowledges the spice’s unique quality linked to the region’s specific conditions. The Lakadong Mission, initiated by the Meghalaya government in 2018, has benefited farmers by enhancing the brand and improving their access to markets. Farmers anticipate better marketing opportunities with the GI tag, allowing them to sell authentic products at higher prices. There are already signs that interest in Lakadong turmeric is increasing, benefitting around 30,000 individuals involved in its production, logistics, and trade.
That said, the GI tag does not guarantee success on its own. Its effectiveness relies on strong marketing, improved supply chains, and legal protections. Farmers face challenges such as consumer awareness, competition from cheaper and sometimes adulterated turmeric, and the need for hygienic processing facilities. To make the GI tag effective, these issues must be addressed.
The impact of GI protection varies across the country. For instance, Darjeeling tea, the first Indian product to get a GI tag in 2004, has seen its reputation grow, and it now fetches higher prices. There have been legal actions against fake tea operators to help keep the quality of Darjeeling Tea intact. But many small tea growers still struggle with high costs and limited access to export markets, indicating that the benefits aren’t always shared equally. Basmati rice has also thrived since getting its GI tag, with exports increasing thanks to good infrastructure in certain states. But disputes over what counts as “real” Basmati have caused conflicts among farmers, which points to the need for clear guidelines. On the other hand, Navara rice in Kerala faced issues when the GI tag was given to just one farmers’ group, leaving others out and leading to protests. This serves as a warning as to why the GI process needs to be fair and inclusive. Meanwhile, Kadaknath chicken from Madhya Pradesh has shown a positive side of GI tagging. Since getting its tag in 2018, farmers from the Bhil tribe have been able to access better markets and boost their incomes, thanks to cooperative efforts and support from the government. The Geographical Indications of Goods Act of 1999 provides a robust legal framework to address GI violations. Civil remedies include halting infringement activities and compensating farmers for their losses. For example, someone selling turmeric under the name “Lakadong” without permission could find themselves in legal trouble and compelled to pay damages. There are also stringent criminal penalties for falsely labelling products. Offenders could face imprisonment from six months to three years and substantial fines. These regulations aim to protect both consumers and producers from fraud. The Act covers instances where producers misrepresent their products as GI-protected, which is particularly important for traditional communities that lack the resources to obtain their own GI tags but require protection against unfair competition.
There have been notable legal victories in protecting Indian GI tags. The Darjeeling Tea Board has successfully prosecuted counterfeit tea operations. In one 2010 case, the Tea Board took ITC Limited to court for using “Darjeeling Lounge” for its hotel, showing how serious the issue of protecting GI terms can be. Similarly, there have been crackdowns on companies wrongly labelling rice as Basmati. Notably, the challenge against RiceTec’s attempt to trademark “Texmati” in the UK helped to defend Basmati’s GI status. These cases highlight the judicial system’s critical role in protecting agricultural products, even though such actions can be very costly for smaller farming groups.
The Central government has been proactive in promoting GI products, but appears to be clueless about the methods of protecting the farmers/GI holders. The Ministry of Commerce has hosted events and set up pavilions to showcase GI products, boosting visibility. Government support for facilities, like the Pineapple-Pack house in Kerala, benefits GI producers. But I do not see much action to generate wider awareness to farmers about how to protect their respective GIs. The Agriculture Departments of state governments also do not seem to be much aware of how to protect the GIs of their states. To strengthen GI protection, the government should (1) Strengthen Enforcement: Train police to handle GI violations and work with customs to stop unauthorized exports, (2) Run campaigns to educate consumers about GI tags to drive demand for genuine products (3) Promote International Recognition: Work on agreements to protect Indian GIs abroad, similar to what was done for Basmati in the EU.
While Northeast India boasts GI-tagged farmer products like Lakadong turmeric, Mizo Chilli, Assam Orthodox Tea, Khasi Mandarin, and Tripura Queen Pineapple, no specific legal cases are documented for unauthorized GI violations as of May 2025. That is not to say that there have been no violations. I have found several websites selling Lakadong Turmeric on Amazon. A few of them were from Meghalaya, but many were not. That means violations are taking place as we speak. The lack of cases in the Northeast likely stems from recent GI registrations, localized markets, and resource constraints rather than an absence of violations. Strengthening awareness, funding legal support, and improving monitoring can empower Northeast farmers to protect their GI rights, ensuring economic benefits and cultural preservation. This contrasts with high-profile cases like Darjeeling Tea and Basmati Rice, where institutional support and market scale have driven enforcement. For Lakadong turmeric, proactive measures like those in the Lakadong Mission can pre-empt violations, but vigilance is needed as its market grows. With solid legal protection and proactive government action, Meghalaya Lakadong farmers can be better supported in preserving their agricultural heritage and securing their livelihoods. The GI tag for Lakadong turmeric has the potential to benefit Meghalaya’s farmers, much like it has for products like Darjeeling Tea and Kadaknath chicken. But its success depends on overcoming challenges like enforcement and ensuring that everyone benefits fairly. The Department of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare of Meghalaya should create a mechanism to protect the Lakadong Farmers in defending their GI. Farmers do not go to courts, they only know how to produce. Then whose duty is it to protect them? For the policymakers, I will only say one thing: When a farmer fails, the country fails. Mind this.
(The writer is a former IAS officer)