When the Kimberley Process was being shaped in its formative years, India understood very clearly that remaining passive was not an option.
At that stage, many of the rules, definitions and operating structures were still evolving. Several countries involved in the discussions did not fully understand the complexity of India’s diamond manufacturing ecosystem, particularly the scale and sophistication of small-diamond processing in Surat and Mumbai. India therefore had to participate actively, not merely as an observer, but as a stakeholder whose industry depended heavily on the outcome of those discussions.
One issue I remember vividly concerned very small rough diamonds. There was an attempt in the initial stages to keep certain categories of small diamonds outside the scope of the Kimberley Process because many participants believed such goods were commercially insignificant. But India knew otherwise. Our industry was cutting and polishing extremely small goods at scale and creating value from categories the rest of the world barely understood. We had to explain that anything capable of being cut and polished should remain under the purview of the KP. It took considerable persuasion before this understanding was accepted. Had India not intervened at that stage, the framework may have taken far longer to come to fruition. That experience reinforced an important lesson: the Kimberley Process works best when all major stakeholders participate constructively and consistently.
Over the years, the KP has evolved into one of the most effective compliance systems the diamond industry has ever created. It brought monitoring and accountability into the rough diamond trade. More importantly, it restored confidence at a time when the industry was under intense global scrutiny over conflict diamonds. Then, the atmosphere was highly charged internationally. NGOs were vocal, media attention was intense, and the industry was under pressure to demonstrate that rough diamonds were not financing conflict or instability. The concerns were not entirely unfounded, and the KP brought discipline to that system, with India played a significant role during many of those difficult discussions.
One of the most challenging periods involved Zimbabwe. At the time, a substantial share of Zimbabwe’s rough was being processed in India, particularly lower-cost goods suited to India’s manufacturing strengths. When Zimbabwe was banned under the Kimberley Process due to concerns regarding compliance and political instability, India’s industry was directly affected. Yet India supported the ban because the integrity of the process itself was important.
Later, when review missions concluded that Zimbabwe had addressed several compliance concerns, divisions emerged within the international community over whether the ban should be lifted. Negotiations became extremely tense. Eventually, through extensive dialogue and redrafting, consensus was achieved. That episode demonstrated both the complexity and the importance of multilateral diplomacy within the KP framework.
What has always distinguished the Kimberley Process is that decisions require broad agreement. That consensus-based approach may sometimes appear slow, but it ensures legitimacy and shared responsibility.
India’s rise within global diamond organisations also changed the dynamics of international discussions. By the time Indian representatives became deeply involved in forums such as the World Diamond Council, WFDB, IDMA and the Kimberley Process, the Indian diamond industry itself had become impossible to ignore. India’s manufacturing growth, technical capability and scale earned global respect. Increasingly, no major decision affecting the diamond pipeline could be taken without India’s participation and perspective.
Today, the challenges facing the industry are different from those that shaped the KP’s origins. The conversation has expanded into areas such as traceability, digitisation, compliance standards and consumer confidence. The industry is adapting to a world where transparency expectations are far higher than before. In that context, the KP must continue evolving while remaining practical and inclusive.
At the same time, the industry should recognise that the Kimberley Process created a globally recognised framework that restored credibility to the rough diamond trade. Few international systems in any industry have managed to sustain that level of cooperation between governments, industry and civil society for over two decades.
As India hosts the 2026 Intersessional Meeting in Mumbai, it is also an opportunity to reflect on how far the process has come and how important active industry participation remains. The KP was not built by governments alone. It was shaped through constant engagement by people who understood the realities of the trade and recognised that the future of the industry depended on collective responsibility.