Exploring the Rich Tapestry of Traditional Cultural Expressions

India is home to one of the world’s most extraordinary repositories of living cultural heritage. From the oral epics recited by Baul singers in rural Bengal to the intricate Warli paintings of Maharashtra’s tribal communities, these expressions are far more than artistic curiosities – they are the living proof of identity, memory, and belonging. Collectively, they are known as Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs), and understanding what falls within their scope is the first step toward appreciating why their protection matters so deeply in today’s world.

What are traditional cultural expressions? 🔗

According to WIPO, TCEs – also referred to as “expressions of folklore” – are the tangible and intangible forms in which traditional culture and knowledge are expressed, communicated, or manifested. They are integral to the cultural and social identities of indigenous and local communities, embody skills and know-how, and transmit core values and beliefs across generations. Crucially, the protection of TCEs is directly linked to the promotion of creativity, cultural diversity, and the preservation of cultural heritage.

For many communities in India and globally, TCEs do not exist in isolation. They intertwine with traditional knowledge systems and even genetic resources to form a single, integrated heritage. A tribal healing song, for instance, may simultaneously be a TCE (a musical expression), a carrier of traditional knowledge (medicinal practices), and a living cultural ritual. This interconnectedness is precisely what makes TCEs so richly layered – and so legally complex to protect.

The four main categories of TCEs 🔗

TCEs are broadly classified into four categories: verbal expressions, musical expressions, expressions by action, and tangible expressions. These categories often overlap and blend – a ceremonial performance might be simultaneously musical, action-based, and verbally transmitted. Together, they map the full spectrum of how communities express their cultural identity.

Verbal expressions 🔗

Verbal TCEs include stories, epics, legends, folk tales, poetry, riddles, proverbs, and other oral narratives, along with words, signs, names, and symbols. In India, this category is exceptionally rich. The oral recitation of the Ramayana across communities in northeast India, the Panchatantra tales passed down through generations, or the riddles embedded in tribal folklore – all of these are verbal TCEs. What makes them distinctive is that they are rarely the creation of a single, identifiable author. They emerge from a community over time, shaped and reshaped by countless voices. As scholars have noted, this collective, anonymous quality makes them deeply resistant to conventional copyright frameworks that require a fixed creator and a defined starting point.

Musical expressions 🔗

Musical TCEs encompass folk songs, devotional music, and instrumental traditions – whether or not they have ever been written down or recorded. In India, this category is staggeringly diverse. Baul music from Bengal, Carnatic folk traditions from Tamil Nadu, the Dhrupad style of classical singing with its roots in medieval temple music, tribal songs of the Gondi communities – all qualify. A particularly contentious space in recent years has been the commercial use of folk songs in Bollywood. Research published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights has examined the widespread remixing and commercial exploitation of Indian folk songs by the music industry, often without any credit or compensation flowing back to the source communities that created and preserved them.

Expressions by action 🔗

Action-based TCEs cover dances, plays, ceremonies, rituals, and other performances. These are the most visibly communal of all TCEs – they require collective participation and are inseparable from the social occasions that give them meaning. India’s classical dance forms that have folk origins, tribal ceremonial dances, wedding rituals, and harvest festivals all belong here. Legal commentators have pointed out that many such expressions are context-bound – a ritual dance performed at a funeral or a birth ceremony carries sacred significance that is violated when removed from its setting and performed as commercial entertainment. The challenge for any protection framework is to capture not just the form of these expressions but also the conditions under which they may legitimately be used.

Tangible expressions 🔗

Tangible TCEs are those that can be touched, held, and physically reproduced – drawings, paintings, carvings, sculptures, pottery, textiles, jewellery, basketry, woodwork, metalware, musical instruments, costumes, and architectural forms. This category includes iconic Indian art forms such as Warli painting, terracotta work, and handloomed textiles. India’s handicraft traditions – from Madhubani paintings to Kutchi embroidery – are a major element of this category. Many of these have gained protection through Geographical Indications (GIs), such as Darjeeling tea, Pashmina shawls, and Mysore silk, but GI protection covers only the regional identity of products, not the underlying cultural methods and meanings that give them their true value.

Architectural forms also fall within this category. Traditional building styles – such as the wooden havelis of Rajasthan or the bamboo structures of the northeast – carry cultural knowledge about local materials, climate, and community life that has been refined over centuries.

What makes a TCE eligible for protection? 🔗

Not every traditional practice qualifies automatically as a protectable TCE. WIPO’s Draft Articles on TCE protection set out three key eligibility criteria: the expression must be the result of creative intellectual activity; it must be distinctive of, or associated with, the cultural and social identity of an indigenous or local community; and it must be held, maintained, used, or developed as part of that community’s cultural heritage. These criteria are deliberately broad to capture the enormous variety of what communities produce, while excluding expressions that have no meaningful connection to a living cultural tradition.

The terminology used to describe protected subject matter is also left to national law under the WIPO framework, acknowledging that different countries will approach definition differently. This matters for India, which has been an active participant in WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) negotiations, consistently advocating for a legally binding and flexible international instrument for TCE protection.

The dynamic and evolving nature of TCEs 🔗

One of the most important – and often misunderstood – features of TCEs is that they are not frozen in time. As legal scholarship emphasises, TCEs are constantly being recreated, modified, and adapted within source communities. A folk song performed today may differ from the version sung three generations ago. A textile pattern may incorporate new dyes or motifs while retaining its essential cultural character. This evolutionary quality is not a weakness – it is the very mechanism by which living cultures survive and stay relevant.

TCEs are, in essence, living and dynamic systems that define community identity, spiritual life, and intergenerational survival. They change and acquire new forms without losing their core essence. This is precisely what conventional IP law struggles to accommodate – systems built around individual authorship, fixed works, and time-limited protection simply cannot map onto expressions that are collectively owned, perpetually evolving, and culturally sacred.

The interplay between tradition and modernity is visible across India’s cultural landscape. Tribal drummers from Jharkhand incorporating electronic beats into ceremonial music, or Kutchi artisans adapting traditional embroidery patterns for contemporary fashion markets – these are examples of TCEs evolving in real time. Such adaptations help communities maintain economic relevance and cultural pride simultaneously. But they also raise complex questions: at what point does adaptation by outsiders without consent cross the line into misappropriation? The well-documented controversy over Bollywood’s use of the Bengali folk song “Genda Phool” without credit to its original folk singer is one such example that drew national attention to this gap.

TCEs and cultural diversity: why the scope matters 🔗

WIPO’s policy framework recognises that TCEs serve as a source of inspiration for other creators and innovators. The fashion industry, film, music, design, and tourism sectors all draw substantially from traditional cultural expressions. This is not inherently problematic – cultural exchange and inspiration are natural. The issue arises when this use is extractive: when a global fashion brand prints tribal motifs on luxury garments, or when a pharmaceutical company patents a formula derived from traditional knowledge, without any acknowledgment of – or benefit-sharing with – the communities of origin.

Defining the scope of TCEs as broadly and precisely as possible is therefore not an academic exercise. Research published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights makes a compelling case that the collective, dynamic, and sacred characteristics of Indian TCEs demand a dedicated sui generis legal framework – one that goes beyond retrofitting copyright law and instead builds a system around community-based ownership, intergenerational custodianship, and cultural sovereignty. Without a clear understanding of what TCEs include, such a framework cannot be effectively designed or enforced.

International negotiations at WIPO’s IGC continue to grapple with these exact questions – who qualifies as a beneficiary, what acts require prior informed consent, and how national laws can harmonise with any eventual international instrument. India’s participation in these negotiations underscores the country’s recognition that its vast and diverse TCE landscape requires systematic legal protection, not just occasional GI registrations.

TCEs as a source of innovation and identity 🔗

It would be a mistake to view TCEs purely through a defensive lens – as heritage to be protected from exploitation. They are equally powerful as sources of ongoing creativity and economic opportunity. Community-based tourism, for instance, generates income directly for communities that share their dance forms, musical traditions, and tangible crafts with visitors. When communities retain control over how their TCEs are shared and commercialised, the economic benefits flow back to the people who created and maintained them.

Broader still, TCEs contribute to the very fabric of cultural diversity that makes societies innovative and resilient. A world in which indigenous oral traditions are lost, tribal art forms are homogenised, and folk music is stripped of its community context is not just a culturally poorer world – it is one that loses the very diversity of perspectives and knowledge systems that fuel human creativity. Protecting the full scope of TCEs – verbal, musical, action-based, and tangible – is therefore both a legal imperative and a civilisational one.

What do you think? Given that TCEs evolve continuously within communities, where should the law draw the line between a community’s right to control its cultural expressions and the broader public interest in cultural exchange and creative inspiration? And with India’s Copyright Act still lacking dedicated provisions for TCEs, is a standalone sui generis law the only realistic path forward for protecting the country’s extraordinary cultural heritage?

References

1. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/traditional-knowledge/traditional-cultural-expressions/index
2. https://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/issuebrieftce.pdf
3. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1667712/traditional-knowledge-and-public-domain-in-india-protecting-cultural-assets
4. https://nopr.niscpr.res.in/bitstream/123456789/64200/1/JIPR-29(4)%20314-324.pdf
5. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a806fd78-711e-4811-a881-ed269533b635
6. https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1654104/traditional-knowledge-and-cultural-expressions-the-missing-link-in-indias-ip-regime
7. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_22/wipo_grtkf_ic_22_ref_facilitators_text.pdf
8. https://www.cnlu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Protecting-Traditional-Cultural-Expressions-Unravelling-the-Significance-Justification-and-Approaches-to-Protection-by-Sreenath-K-P.pdf
9. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-933-2020-en-intellectual-property-and-genetic-resources-traditional-knowledge-and-traditional-cultural-expressions.pdf
10. https://or.niscpr.res.in/index.php/JIPR/article/view/12814
11. https://iwgia.org/en/world-intellectual-property-organization-wipo/5161-iw-2023-wipo.html