Speaker 1: In today's episode, we look at why farmers in Rajasthan
Speaker 1: are challenging the GI tags granted to Unja Jira and
Speaker 1: Unja Fenel. We also talk about a proposed railway expansion
Speaker 1: through the Sathpuda mail Card Tiger landscape, where questions remain
Speaker 1: over its impact on a crucial wildlife corridor. But first
Speaker 1: we talk about India's decision to keep the Indus Waters
Speaker 1: Treaty with Pakistan on hold and how that has moved
Speaker 1: one of the world's most important water sharing agreements into
Speaker 1: one of its most uncertain phases. Hi am Atchasharma and
Speaker 1: you're listening to three Things the Indian Express new show.
Speaker 1: The Indus Water Treaty, signed in nineteen sixty has often
Speaker 1: been described as a rare success in India Pakistan relations
Speaker 1: because it has survived repeated conflicts. But India is now
Speaker 1: our that the pact can no longer be treated as
Speaker 1: a static arrangement because the ground realities have changed sharply.
Speaker 2: So India has put the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance,
Speaker 2: which basically means that India says that we are no
Speaker 2: longer bound by the provisions of this treaty and this
Speaker 2: happened after the Pehlgam terrorist attack last year.
Speaker 1: That's the Indian Express is Amatav Senha who reports on environment,
Speaker 1: climate change and water for the.
Speaker 2: Newspaper, and even before that, and our listeners would probably
Speaker 2: remember that a similar sort of a situation had arisen
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen after the terrorist attack in Uri, and
Speaker 2: at that time Prime Minister and Aranromodi had made that
Speaker 2: famous statement saying kun or panisatsat nehibehengi, no blood and
Speaker 2: water cannot flow together. So that twenty sixteen is actually
Speaker 2: the start of the present sort of imbroglio that we
Speaker 2: see on Indus Waters Treaty, which has continued till now.
Speaker 2: So it's been ten years now that twenty sixteen event
Speaker 2: had happened and India had decided to use Indus Waters
Speaker 2: Treaty as some sort of leverage, which we had not
Speaker 2: done earlier.
Speaker 1: Now that's central to understanding why this treaty lasted as
Speaker 1: long as it did.
Speaker 2: One of the main reasons why it has survived so
Speaker 2: long is the fact that under the treaty, because India
Speaker 2: is the upper Ryparian state, most of the obligations and
Speaker 2: the responsibilities are on India and not on Pakistan. So
Speaker 2: it was India's responsibility to allow the waters to flow,
Speaker 2: not to disrupt the flow, not to change the floor,
Speaker 2: not to do anything which sort of is errupts the
Speaker 2: flow down to Pakistan.
Speaker 3: And that's natural.
Speaker 2: That would always be the responsibility of the Upper Riparian state.
Speaker 2: So the main reason why the treaty has continued for
Speaker 2: so long and it's been a success is the fact
Speaker 2: that India actually abided by the provisions of the treaty
Speaker 2: in good faith despite the provocations from Pakistan. And this
Speaker 2: is not very well appreciated when this point is made
Speaker 2: that the treaty has survived wars and tensions and terrorist attacks.
Speaker 2: It has survived because India continued to abide by the
Speaker 2: Indus Waters Treaty and did not disrupt it at any
Speaker 2: point of time, despite all the provocations that happened from
Speaker 2: Pakistani side regarding terrorist attacks and wars.
Speaker 1: Amatap says that the treaty divides the Indus Basin rivers
Speaker 1: in an unusual way. The western rivers Indus Jalam Chaina
Speaker 1: are for Pakistan's use. India has to let their waters
Speaker 1: flow into Pakistan, though it can use some of the
Speaker 1: water for irrigation and hydro power under certain conditions. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, the eastern rivers, the sutlerge Brs and
Speaker 1: Ravi are allocated to India, though Pakistan can use whatever
Speaker 1: water from these rivers that flows into its territory. This
Speaker 1: structure is also why the treaty has been described by
Speaker 1: experts not as a normal sharing arrangement. Because most water
Speaker 1: sharing treaties allocate volumes or percentages of flow. The Indus
Speaker 1: Waters Treaty assigns entire rivers to one side or the other.
Speaker 1: So the Indian argument now is that this model is
Speaker 1: too rigid for the present moment.
Speaker 2: Because there are official reasons and there are the actual
Speaker 2: reasons behind it. The official reason, of course India says
Speaker 2: that the ground situation has changed and there is a
Speaker 2: lot of truth in it, and there have been recent
Speaker 2: studies as well which point out to the fact that
Speaker 2: the situation is drastically different from what it was in
Speaker 2: the nineteen fifties and nineteen sixties and the conditions under
Speaker 2: which the treaty was negotiated and finalized. That situation no
Speaker 2: longer exists and we are talking not in security terms
Speaker 2: but in terms of water demand, in terms of the
Speaker 2: number of people who are dependent on this water, in
Speaker 2: terms of the climate change, in terms of new uses
Speaker 2: of water coming up, so the ground situation has changed completely.
Speaker 2: And India's point is that look, sixty sixty five years
Speaker 2: is a long time to review a water sharing arrangement
Speaker 2: and let us renegotiate this treaty now.
Speaker 1: One of the things missing from the treaty is groundwater.
Speaker 1: Even though aquifiers, which are basically an underground layer of
Speaker 1: permeable rock or gravel that store and transmit groundwater, do
Speaker 1: not follow political borders.
Speaker 2: So a lot of these modern water sharing arrangements they
Speaker 2: do take into account groundwater resources as well. Because groundwater
Speaker 2: resources are also transboundary, they have an effect. They are
Speaker 2: very directly related to the surface waters. In fact, they
Speaker 2: form the same system. So in this water's treaty talks
Speaker 2: only about surface waters and not about the groundwaters. There
Speaker 2: are lots of other things that a modern water sharing
Speaker 2: treaty would have, for example, environmental flows, for example, pollution
Speaker 2: load and some of these things even Pakistan, especially on
Speaker 2: what can be dumped into a river and not those
Speaker 2: kind of things that even Pakistan has raised concerns about
Speaker 2: in the past. So a modern water sharing agreement would
Speaker 2: be very different from what the Indus Waters Treaty is
Speaker 2: because new techniques have come up, new methods for collaborative
Speaker 2: you know, water management systems, they have come up. There
Speaker 2: is new technology that have come up. So if we
Speaker 2: have a newer treaty, which is what India is making
Speaker 2: an argument for, then we can go in for a
Speaker 2: very different sort of a more modern and more efficient
Speaker 2: water management system in this basin.
Speaker 1: But Amatab says climate is only one part of the problem.
Speaker 2: Now we mentioned the fact that this current situation can
Speaker 2: be traced back to the twenty sixteen event, the attack
Speaker 2: in Uri and the Prime Minister's statement.
Speaker 3: Now, after that.
Speaker 2: Things seemed to have normalized, but not quite. It was
Speaker 2: at that point that India realized that the time was
Speaker 2: actually up and it was probably you know, the Indus
Speaker 2: Waters Treaty should be used as a leverage or not
Speaker 2: the treaty itself, but the fact that India was an
Speaker 2: Upper Raperian state should be used as a leverage. If
Speaker 2: Pakistan continues to support cross bowder terrorism or to send
Speaker 2: terrorists into the Indian side or carry out terrorists strikes
Speaker 2: in India.
Speaker 1: India has formally issued notices to Pakistan seeking modification or
Speaker 1: renegotiation of the treaty, but Pakistan has still not responded
Speaker 1: to India's notices, even though it has made strong public statements,
Speaker 1: organized and international conference on the treaty and warned of
Speaker 1: consequences if river flows are disrupted.
Speaker 2: So Pakistan has not responded to this specific request about
Speaker 2: renegotiating the treaty. But it is not that there has
Speaker 2: been no communication between the two countries. In fact, there
Speaker 2: have been multiple communications, mostly about the sharing of data. Now,
Speaker 2: as our listeners would know, under the Indus Waters Treaty,
Speaker 2: there was a permanent mechanism that was set up called
Speaker 2: the Permanent Indus Commission, and there used to be an
Speaker 2: Indus Commissioner in both the countries who used to meet
Speaker 2: every year to oversee the implementation of the treaty and
Speaker 2: also share data.
Speaker 1: Since India put the Treaty in abeyance, the Permanent Indus
Speaker 1: Commission has effectively stopped functioning from India's perspective. However, communication
Speaker 1: between the two countries has not completely stopped. India has
Speaker 1: continued to share some water related data with Pakistan through
Speaker 1: diplomatic channels, including the Indian High Commission in Islamabad. This
Speaker 1: is especially done when heavy rainfall or high river flows
Speaker 1: could require warnings. But this is no longer happening through
Speaker 1: the treaty's regular system, so the flow of information is
Speaker 1: not as regular or systematic as it was before. Now.
Speaker 1: Another issue that Amitab highlights is institutional design.
Speaker 2: Now there are lots of water sharing treaty across the world,
Speaker 2: over eight hundred I think treaties. They exist across the
Speaker 2: world on a cross boundary water sharing and a lot
Speaker 2: of them, at least the ones that have been negotiated
Speaker 2: in modern times in the last couple of decades to
Speaker 2: three four decades, or even the ones that were done earlier.
Speaker 2: Most of them have in built clauses to review the
Speaker 2: working of the treaty after a certain period or have
Speaker 2: some other mechanisms in which allows the participating countries to
Speaker 2: have a relook at the treaty and amend the provisions
Speaker 2: as needed. Because water sharing and the amount of water
Speaker 2: flowing rivers is not constant, it keeps changing with time,
Speaker 2: and in a lot of similar kind of treaties around
Speaker 2: the world, there are inbuilt provisions to have a review
Speaker 2: after a certain period of time. The Indus Waters Treaty
Speaker 2: does not have that, and though there are things that
Speaker 2: can be done with the consent of the two countries,
Speaker 2: but there is no sort of inbuilt review mechanism after
Speaker 2: a certain time period as there is in India's other
Speaker 2: water sharing agreement, the one that it has with Bangladesh,
Speaker 2: for example, over the Ganga River. No, India and Bangladesh
Speaker 2: have shared fifty four rivers between them, there is a treaty,
Speaker 2: a water sharing agreement only on one of them, that
Speaker 2: is the Ganga River. And that Ganga River treaty that
Speaker 2: happened in nineteen ninety six, and it has an inbuilt
Speaker 2: mechanism which says we'll review the treaty after thirty years.
Speaker 2: So this year, the Ganga Waters Treaty with Bangladesh is
Speaker 2: coming to an end and it is up for review,
Speaker 2: and a lot of others also have it. So Indus
Speaker 2: did not have it. And what India is saying is, look,
Speaker 2: the ground conditions have changed and therefore let's renegotiate the treaty.
Speaker 1: And so the deeper question is what renegosi actually means here.
Speaker 2: Okay, So let's be very clear here. When India is
Speaker 2: talking about renegotiation of the treaty. It is actually talking
Speaker 2: about a completely new treaty. It's not about amending the
Speaker 2: provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty. Now, these are the
Speaker 2: kind of things that India will not say on record
Speaker 2: and its official briefings and all. But it's very clear
Speaker 2: that as far as India is concerned, and if we
Speaker 2: just drop our editorial precautions also for a second, what
Speaker 2: the current position means is that the Indus Waters Treaty
Speaker 2: is dead, at least as far as India is concerned.
Speaker 2: Number two, this is something An entirely new treaty is
Speaker 2: something that is going to be very difficult for Pakistan
Speaker 2: to accept. In fact, it would be unacceptable to Pakistan
Speaker 2: because even as it routinely complains about the treaty being
Speaker 2: unfair to it, the fact is that even Pakistan realizes
Speaker 2: that this is a very good arrangement that it got
Speaker 2: and this is the best that it can ever have
Speaker 2: have and any future water sharing arrangement or a treaty
Speaker 2: with India probably would not be as good as the
Speaker 2: current provisions of Indus Waters Treaty is. So, if the
Speaker 2: talk is about a new treaty, which is what India.
Speaker 2: Means now it would almost be completely unacceptable to Pakistan.
Speaker 1: An Amatam say is India's push for any new arrangement
Speaker 1: would be for one that is strictly bilateral.
Speaker 2: As our listeners would know, the current Indus Waters Treaty
Speaker 2: has a third party as well, the World Bank, which
Speaker 2: facilitated the negotiations and which is the guaranteer of the treaty,
Speaker 2: which is also sort of a facilitator in a dispute resolution.
Speaker 2: So India would want any few treaty as a strictly
Speaker 2: bilateral treaty against something that Pakistan would find it very,
Speaker 2: very difficult to accept. Pakistan always finds comfort in the
Speaker 2: fact that there is a third party involved to deal
Speaker 2: with its relations with India, So any future treaty that
Speaker 2: is going to be strictly bilateral would be difficult for
Speaker 2: Pakistan to accept. So this is the situation as of now,
Speaker 2: and it seems again dropping the precautions for a second,
Speaker 2: as it seems that the Indus Waters Treaty one would
Speaker 2: never be back to its original state as we had
Speaker 2: seen a couple of years ago, and even a new
Speaker 2: treaty might not be there to replace it.
Speaker 1: So what that means is that we will remain in
Speaker 1: the current situation where the two sides continue to share
Speaker 1: river water without a formal agreement. But Amitav says this
Speaker 1: is not unusual at.
Speaker 2: There are hundreds of rivers which are shared across countries,
Speaker 2: which flow across boundaries of countries over which there are
Speaker 2: no water sharing arrangements. A very good case in point
Speaker 2: is the transboundary rivers between India and China. We do
Speaker 2: not have a proper treaty over water sharing of these
Speaker 2: rivers over Brahmaputray and other rivers, even though we coordinate
Speaker 2: and we share data with each other, but we do
Speaker 2: not have a water sharing agreement. Similarly, as we mentioned
Speaker 2: earlier with Bangladesh, we have an agreement only on Ganga,
Speaker 2: whereas there are a lot many other rivers that flow
Speaker 2: between the two countries. So it's not an unusual situation
Speaker 2: wherein the river waters continue to flow across the two
Speaker 2: countries without the two countries having a formal water sharing arrangement.
Speaker 1: Now, another question that arises is what if Pakistan agrees
Speaker 1: to renegotiate.
Speaker 2: So even if let's say tomorrow Pakistan comes back and
Speaker 2: says okay, let's renegotiate. You made the offer, we accept it.
Speaker 2: The renegotiation is unlikely to begin anytime soon. Firstly because
Speaker 2: India's decision to hold the treaty in a byans is
Speaker 2: contingent on Pakistan stopping its support for cross border terrorism. Now,
Speaker 2: if that happens overnight, that Pakistan, you know, stops supporting terrorism,
Speaker 2: that would be a miracle, you know, So that's unlikely
Speaker 2: to happen. So you know, this decision is not going
Speaker 2: anywhere as unlikely to be changed. But even if supposing,
Speaker 2: you know, a miracle happens, and you know, Pakistan stops
Speaker 2: supporting cross border terrorism, as to the satisfaction of the
Speaker 2: Indian side, even then, you know, India right now is
Speaker 2: more concerned with finishing a lot of projects in Jerman Kashmir,
Speaker 2: which had been held up for years because of Pakistan's
Speaker 2: repeated objections in working the clauses of the Indus Waters Treaty.
Speaker 2: And now because we no longer consider ourselves bound by
Speaker 2: the provisions of Induswater's Treaty, we are going ahead in
Speaker 2: completing those projects, and there are at least eight projects
Speaker 2: that are under construction right now. We would ideally like
Speaker 2: to finish them, all of them in the next three
Speaker 2: to four years and till that time as these projects
Speaker 2: are completed. Frankly, we are not even interested in having
Speaker 2: a new treaty in place. Primary concern is to somehow
Speaker 2: get those projects completed in the next three to four years.
Speaker 2: There is an investment of almost topia fifty thousand corod
Speaker 2: that has been involved in this and we would like
Speaker 2: to get that completed first.
Speaker 1: And next we talk about the problem that farmers from
Speaker 1: Rajasthan have with a particular GI or Geographical Indication tag,
Speaker 1: this time awarded by the Geographical Indications Registry is given
Speaker 1: to products that come from a specific geographical region and
Speaker 1: have unique characteristics or qualities. This essentially works like a
Speaker 1: trademark in the international market. Think of tea from dadgelaying
Speaker 1: apples from kinnor silk from Mysore or Majuli masks from Asam.
Speaker 1: All of these have received GI tags. The idea is
Speaker 1: to protect the interests of local growers and artisans by
Speaker 1: preventing imitation and unauthorized sales of these products. Now recently,
Speaker 1: the Unja region in Gujarat's Mesana District received a GI
Speaker 1: tag in the name of the agricultural produced Market Committee.
Speaker 1: The tag is for the region's Jira andsoft cuman and
Speaker 1: fennel seeds, but farmers in the neighboring state of Rajasthan
Speaker 1: are unhappy with this GI tag. They argue that Unja
Speaker 1: is primarily a marketing center rather than a production hub
Speaker 1: for these two major seed spices. Further understand their argument
Speaker 1: and what impact it could have on the sale of
Speaker 1: their produce, Michael Aharaka Nanda speaks to the indiet Expresses
Speaker 1: Rural Affairs editor.
Speaker 4: So Haj what is this dispute over GI tags for
Speaker 4: Unja Jira and Unja Fenil.
Speaker 5: And why are Rajasthans farmers opposing them?
Speaker 3: So, the entire problem comes from the fact that Unja
Speaker 3: doesn't seem to be a big place of production of
Speaker 3: either Jura or either Jira or for that matter, Jira
Speaker 3: is basically cuman seed and or off of that matter,
Speaker 3: storms which is basically final. So Unja is known as
Speaker 3: a place of marketing. It's probably the world's biggest market
Speaker 3: for these seeds sprices. This is probably one of the
Speaker 3: first cases where produce, you know, GI is being given
Speaker 3: to a produce not from where it has grown, but
Speaker 3: from but where it is marketed and it is definitely
Speaker 3: being marketed in a very big way, There's no doubt
Speaker 3: about it, you know. And I think that is where
Speaker 3: the farmers from Rajasthan have raised an objection. There is
Speaker 3: also a second problem, which according to me, seems to
Speaker 3: be more authentic. You know. See, it's crucible that you know,
Speaker 3: jira cultivation originated in Unja and the nearby areas. You know,
Speaker 3: so when we say Unja and the nearby areas, it
Speaker 3: would mean Meisana district, Okay. But in this case, what
Speaker 3: they have done is, you know, they've applied for the
Speaker 3: GI and this GA covers almost half of Gujarat. You know,
Speaker 3: it's not just Messana district. You know, Unja is in
Speaker 3: Nassana district. It also includes you know nearby districts you know, Banas,
Speaker 3: Contact Patan, Gadhima there and goes all the way to Cutch. More.
Speaker 3: We which seems a little real problem. So what farmers
Speaker 3: in Rajasthan are saying that there are many parts in
Speaker 3: Rajasthan where we are growing jira and songs and which
Speaker 3: are closer to Unja market than absolutely distant places within
Speaker 3: Gujarat and Arish.
Speaker 4: Who grants these GI tags is there any specific organization
Speaker 4: for this task.
Speaker 3: Ideally, when you grant a geographical indication, you know, they
Speaker 3: should be some validation from a third party, from a
Speaker 3: third party which is independent, you know and has the
Speaker 3: domain expertise. Whereas here, I think the validation they have
Speaker 3: taken from you know, entirely institutions within Gujarat, like for example,
Speaker 3: the Dantewada Agricultural University in Barnas contacts and the Directorate
Speaker 3: of Horticulture Environment of Gujarat, you know, and then Entrepreneurship
Speaker 3: Development Institute of India, you know, Gujarat. So when the
Speaker 3: GI Registry in Jena, which is at all an all
Speaker 3: India organization, when they grant the geographical indication, they should
Speaker 3: be looking at, you know, who is authenticating all these data,
Speaker 3: the information and all these things. So ideally, I think
Speaker 3: maybe in the case of Unja Jira and Unja songs,
Speaker 3: you know, to show that this is very unique, you know,
Speaker 3: it's not grown anywhere. It is indigenous, So maybe we
Speaker 3: should have taken the opinion of saying an institution like
Speaker 3: the ICA, you know, the Indian Council for agul Cultural Research,
Speaker 3: so ICR has even an institute you know, it's called
Speaker 3: the National Research Center on Seat Spicies, which is a
Speaker 3: nudgemir you know, so some kind of a third party
Speaker 3: certification is required. You know. See, ultimately, when we are
Speaker 3: giving out a GI for anything, the world has to
Speaker 3: respect it, right, the world has to say, hey, okay,
Speaker 3: ounda gira blasma TV dazzling tea. Yeah, this has been
Speaker 3: based on, you know, some kind of an independent validation.
Speaker 4: And how does this GI tag impact farmers who are
Speaker 4: growing this funnel and human what is its significance?
Speaker 3: So I think what farmers in Rajasthan are spared is
Speaker 3: that next time when they go to sell you know,
Speaker 3: gira or some their prices will be beaten down. See
Speaker 3: what does a GI do. GI basically confers a premium
Speaker 3: to the produce of a particular region. Right, so the
Speaker 3: farmer is scared that, you know, the traders will say, no,
Speaker 3: you're a Gira is not Unja gira. It is basically
Speaker 3: Rajasthan gira.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: So farmers are afraid that they'll be a marking down
Speaker 3: when it comes to the price. You know. So farmers
Speaker 3: are definitely worried that they produce will be discounted. Whereas
Speaker 3: any gra which has grown in any part of Gujarat,
Speaker 3: you know, very wide GI area within that will fetch
Speaker 3: a premium. Why are we granting GI? We are granting
Speaker 3: GI so that the producers of something, you know, which
Speaker 3: is unique, they are able to fetch a premium right
Speaker 3: when they sell, whether in the domestic market or in
Speaker 3: the world market. Right like Scott's whisky will always command
Speaker 3: a premium over regular whiskey, even if it is a
Speaker 3: single mold whiskey. Right. So, since everything ultimately has to
Speaker 3: do with valuation, you know, see, a trademark brand GI
Speaker 3: always ultimately is what it is, basically fetching you a premium. Right.
Speaker 4: But then what evidence did the unja APMC rely on
Speaker 4: to secure these GI registrations.
Speaker 3: See, they seem to have submitted a lot of data
Speaker 3: showing about gira and about sound, but these seem to
Speaker 3: be general you know, I don't know whether they have
Speaker 3: been able to establish that this Gira is very different
Speaker 3: from the gira which is being grown in Rajasthan or
Speaker 3: just the adjoining district. You know, So I think again,
Speaker 3: you know, even if they have submitted has all this
Speaker 3: data and all this information, has it been subject to
Speaker 3: third party validation?
Speaker 5: You know, and how has apm C responded to the objections.
Speaker 3: So I think the objections have been raised for the
Speaker 3: first time through Indian Express, you know, our Indian Express report,
Speaker 3: because this GI was granted sometime in March or something,
Speaker 3: you know. And then and then I think the trade
Speaker 3: in Rajasthan farmers organizations et cetera came to know about
Speaker 3: this whole thing, you know, because I think it is
Speaker 3: even publicized. I think about a month back, you know,
Speaker 3: and and I think the Gujura Chief Minister, everybody tweeted
Speaker 3: about it, you know, they talked about it. Indiancy says
Speaker 3: that the jira cultivation started in Unja only before it
Speaker 3: spread to other places, you know. And they're saying that
Speaker 3: we want the Sunjai area to again start growing jira
Speaker 3: in a big way, and one way to do it
Speaker 3: is through the GI claim, you know. And they claim
Speaker 3: that you know, now this Gunja jira will give a
Speaker 3: huge spurt in for cultivation and that farmers will and
Speaker 3: Unja will now become again also a major cultivation center.
Speaker 3: That's what they are saying.
Speaker 4: But if Rajastan produces a significant share of India's cumin
Speaker 4: and fennel, why didn't it to see the g I
Speaker 4: tag instead.
Speaker 3: Probably because they never applied for it, though I'm told
Speaker 3: that there are some people who are trying to push
Speaker 3: for Barmeir JIRA kind of a thing, you know, so
Speaker 3: since probably Barmeir is probably one of the largest growing
Speaker 3: JIRA districts in India, so I think they have been
Speaker 3: planning to apply. But I think we should be very
Speaker 3: careful about granting GIS to every single product then, you know,
Speaker 3: I think a lot of thinking should go into this thing,
Speaker 3: you know, And I think this is a test case
Speaker 3: and hopefully there will be a rethink on all these things,
Speaker 3: you know, because ultimately, you know, it is all about credibility, right.
Speaker 5: So haris what happens next?
Speaker 4: Is there a mechanism to challenge and already granted GI registration.
Speaker 5: And what should we watch for in the upcoming months.
Speaker 3: I'm sure it can be challenged in a courte of law.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure whether there is an appeal system within
Speaker 3: the GI registry, you know. From what I know, I
Speaker 3: think they published this in one of their journals and
Speaker 3: it is supposed to invite objections within a three month period,
Speaker 3: so I'm not sure whether they published it much earlier
Speaker 3: or whatever it is, you know, but whatever it is,
Speaker 3: I think they will have to invite objections and it
Speaker 3: has to be heard, so either heard by the registry
Speaker 3: itself or maybe I don't know, I was supposed to
Speaker 3: go to regular courtes, you know, whether a High court
Speaker 3: or something. Definitely any grant of whether it is a
Speaker 3: a trademark or say you can challenge it. I mean,
Speaker 3: nothing stops anyone from challenging. For example, in the case
Speaker 3: of I think some Linen or probably an inner Way
Speaker 3: company used it for their product and then a move
Speaker 3: went and challenged it, right, I mean, so I'm sure
Speaker 3: this can be challenge and I would be surprised if
Speaker 3: it is challenged. And ideally this should not become a
Speaker 3: political thing, you know, and so maybe the government of
Speaker 3: India can play a neutral role in this, you know,
Speaker 3: in trying to arbitrate between the farmers of two states.
Speaker 3: You know, it's better that it doesn't go to the
Speaker 3: courts and it becomes an unnecessary war, which ultimately, you know,
Speaker 3: they'll pre India's own reputation, right, and people will start
Speaker 3: asking questions on take, do you have a purpose system
Speaker 3: for crafting GI and this kind of a thing. So
Speaker 3: ultimately I think this is connected also with India's reputation,
Speaker 3: you know, in terms of providing intellectual property protection right
Speaker 3: and GA is nothing but an IPI. It is an
Speaker 3: intellectual property right.
Speaker 1: And in the end we talk about a proposed railway
Speaker 1: expansion through one of Central India's most important tiger landscapes,
Speaker 1: which has received in principal wildlife clearance despite concerns that
Speaker 1: it could fragment the corridor connecting the Sathpuddha and mail
Speaker 1: Card tiger reserves. The Standing Committee of the National Board
Speaker 1: for Wildlife has recommended clearance for a third railway line
Speaker 1: between Jijharpur and Chichonda in Matya Pradesh. As reported by
Speaker 1: The Indian Express is Nikil Ghannaker. The alignment will pass
Speaker 1: through two notified tiger corridors and an eco sensitive zone
Speaker 1: in the Satpurda mail Card landscape. Now, these corridors are
Speaker 1: not used by tigers alone. They allow leopards, sloth bears,
Speaker 1: herbivores and other species to move between habitats while also
Speaker 1: supporting dispersal and genetic exchange between wildlife populations. The one
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty kilometers second is part of a large
Speaker 1: proposal to add third and fourth lines along the busy
Speaker 1: Attsi Nakpur railway route. The project requires more than two
Speaker 1: hundred and six hectares of land within the notified corridor,
Speaker 1: including nearly seventy five hectares of forest land. Nickel highlights
Speaker 1: that what makes the approval significant, however, is the condition
Speaker 1: attached to it. Central Railway has proposed thirty four wildlife
Speaker 1: overpasses to help animals cross the railway alignment safely, but
Speaker 1: an inspection committee found that these locations were selected largely
Speaker 1: using information from frontline forest staff and wildlife mortality records,
Speaker 1: rather than through a detailed scientific assessment. The committee also
Speaker 1: noted that the engineering designs for these structures had not
Speaker 1: been finalized, while a broader study examining the project's landscape
Speaker 1: level impact was still awaited. The Wildlife Board has therefore
Speaker 1: said the overpasses must be reviewed and redesigned on the
Speaker 1: basis of some scientific evidence and proper engineering studies. Once
Speaker 1: the relevant data is examined, the inspection committee must revisit
Speaker 1: the project area and make final recommendations concerning the structure's location, size, design,
Speaker 1: and connectivity. So while the railway project has moved one
Speaker 1: step closer to approval, its final mitigation plan remains unsettled.
Speaker 1: Nikol notes that the central question is whether wildlife crossings
Speaker 1: added after the alignment has been approved can genuinely preserve
Speaker 1: a corridor that conservation officials themselves have described as a
Speaker 1: lifeline for the wider Satpuda page mail Guard landscape. You
Speaker 1: were listening to Three Things by the Indiet Express. Today's
Speaker 1: show was edited and mixed by Sish Pavar and produced
Speaker 1: by an Ahurakananda and me Ichasharma. If you like the show,
Speaker 1: do subscribe to us wherever you get your podcast. You
Speaker 1: can also recommend it to someone you think may like it,
Speaker 1: with a friend or in your family. This is the
Speaker 1: best way for people to get to know about us.
Speaker 1: You can also tweet us at Express podcast or write
Speaker 1: to us at podcast at Indian Express dot com.