By Ajay Srivastava, Founder, Global Trade Research Initiative
When luxury Italian fashion house Prada showcased sandals resembling Kolhapuri chappals in its Spring/Summer 2026 men’s collection—selling them as luxury items without acknowledging their Indian origin or the artisans behind them—it triggered a swift backlash in India, including legal notices, social media outrage, and a public interest case. Although Prada denied violating Geographical Indication (GI) rules, it later explored working with Indian artisans.
The controversy sparked a debate over foreign brands using India’s heritage and GI products, but it reveals a bigger issue: While Indian designs inspire global luxury markets, India rarely captures the premium value they generate.
GIs are meant to prevent precisely this. A GI certifies that a product originates in a specific place and derives its distinctive qualities, reputation, or characteristics from that geography. Climate, soil, traditional knowledge, and local craftsmanship all play a role.
GIs cover agricultural products, food items, natural goods, and manufactured products. In theory, they protect authenticity and ensure that value accrues to local producers. In practice, India’s GI system remains under-leveraged.
India today has around 650 registered GI products, a sharp increase since Darjeeling tea became the country’s first GI-tagged product in 2004-05. Yet the global comparison is sobering. The European Union has more than 3,400 GI registrations, spanning food, wine, and spirits, while China leads the world with over 7,200 GI products.
More importantly, these regions have succeeded in turning GIs into global premium brands. Champagne alone accounted for about €7 billion within France’s exports in 2024. Tequila has become synonymous with Mexico, and Roquefort cheese commands global recognition and price premiums.
India’s GI list is rich and diverse. Darjeeling tea is globally known for its muscatel flavour. Kanchipuram and Mysore silks are celebrated for craftsmanship and purity. Kashmiri saffron is prized as the world’s most expensive spice. Basmati rice enjoys a premium reputation for aroma and taste. Tirupati laddus carry religious and cultural exclusivity. Odisha’s rasagola reflects regional culinary excellence. These products carry deep cultural meaning and offer income opportunities for rural communities. Yet, most remain trapped in niche markets—under-branded and underpriced.
The problem is not quantity but positioning. Indian GIs often lack global brand recognition, consistent quality control, and professional marketing. Many are sold as commodities rather than heritage products. Quality varies across producers, traceability is weak, and packaging rarely signals premium value.
Unlike France or Italy, where GI consortia tightly manage standards and storytelling, India’s GI ecosystem is fragmented. As a result, Indian GIs inspire global designers and chefs, but the premium is captured elsewhere.
The Indian government recognises this gap. The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade has taken steps to promote GI products through international fairs, branding initiatives, quality upgrades, and legal protection. E-commerce platforms are increasingly seen as channels to reach global consumers directly. These efforts are necessary but insufficient. What India needs is a shift in mindset—from protecting GIs as legal certificates to building them as global brands.
Shifting Mindset
First, India must impose strict quality control and traceability systems aligned with international standards. Premium markets pay for consistency and authenticity. Without reliable certification and enforcement, GI tags lose credibility abroad. Second, export visibility must improve. Creating dedicated 10-digit Harmonised System (HS) codes for GI products would generate accurate trade data. Today, only a few GIs such as Darjeeling tea and Basmati rice have clear HS codes. For most others, the absence of data makes it impossible to assess export performance or design targeted strategies.
Third, branding must be intentional. Each high-potential GI needs a clear global narrative—origin, history, craft, and use—tailored to specific markets. Champagne did not become premium by accident; it was marketed relentlessly as heritage in a bottle. Top Indian GIs require similar storytelling, supported by modern packaging and certification marks that signal authenticity to foreign consumers. Digital platforms can accelerate this process by allowing artisans and producer groups to connect directly with global buyers.
Fourth, partnerships matter. Government agencies, industry bodies, exporters, and farmer producer organisations must work together, not in silos. India’s fragmented artisan base needs institutional support to negotiate with global brands rather than merely inspire them.
Finally, realism is essential. Not all GI products can or should be global stars. India should classify its GIs into three categories based on growth potential. The top tier—products with clear global appeal—should receive the bulk of branding budgets, export facilitation, and policy attention. Others may remain regionally important but need different strategies. Focus, not dilution, will drive results.
The Prada-Kolhapuri episode should be seen not as a loss but as a wake-up call. It revealed global appetite for Indian designs—and India’s failure to monetise them. As global consumers increasingly seek authentic, traceable, and heritage-rich products, India has a rare opportunity.
By repositioning its GI products from niche curiosities to premium global brands, India can generate higher incomes for artisans, preserve cultural heritage, and claim its rightful place in the global value chain. The world already values Indian tradition. India must now learn to price it.