Fin on the foot

The USP of the their process, the duo claim, is that unlike conventional tanning, it is less polluting. ‘‘We haven’t used the toxic chemicals used in tanneries,’’ says Das. This in turn lowers the biological oxygen and the chemical oxygen demands of the effluents.

Moreover, it is a way to convert waste to wealth, say the youngsters. If the process is undertaken on a large scale, it could be an ecofriendly way of tackling the menace of waste disposal. They also suggested that if taken up seriously, fish-skin processing could become a small-scale industry in itself.

Fish skin is a more commercially viable option, being cheaper and more readily available than cow or goat hide. The students reckon that the cost of raw stock would be 55 percent lower than that of cow or goat hide.

The duo acknowledge the able guidance of their teacher and associate Buddhadeb Sinha, an artist and a footwear technologist. ‘‘We had been experimenting with different things but it was ‘Sir’ who first suggested that we work with fish skin,’’ said Dey. Sinha had played a key role in moulding the leather into finished products like shoes and wallets.

The young innovators had to scout places like fast-food outlets and kitchens at wedding parties to find bulk fish skin, especially those of bhekti, aar, boyal, telia and shartin. Over a period of time, and after much experimentation, they succeeded in tanning these to end up with a leather-like fabric.

Chemical treatment gave the finished product a tensile strength of 170-200 kg per sq cm—which is comparable with that of finished cow leather. However, it’s not all gung-ho. ‘‘There are a couple of disadvantages,’’ say Das and Dey. ‘‘First it was difficult to get a smooth finish for the leather and also for the final products. Then, it is also difficult to get the exactly same pattern for two pairs.’’

Not everyone, of course, is taken by the idea of fish leather. Dr D Chakrabarty, chief scientist, West Bengal Pollution Control Board, chooses to reserve comment on what is claimed to be less polluting process. He says, ‘‘Tanning is polluting. There is a high organic load in the effluents which pollute the water courses they take. It is not merely sulphides or compounds of chromium which are toxic. So we cannot comment on the claim of the students unless we get the details of the chemical process.’’

Unfazed, Das and Dey are keen to get a patent for their product. “But that is a long drawn process requiring a lot of money,’’ they said. But they add that the Fisheries Department of the West Bengal government has assured them of sponsorship in R&D projects.

As for the suitability of fish skin for shoes, Gouranga Dhar, product development manager, Bata India, says: ‘‘I have my doubts if the venture is commercially viable. No less than 55,000 pairs of shoes are produced at our factory in Batanagar. The large-scale supply of fish is still a distant thought. Of course, this leather could be used for making designer shoes and handbags but for general purpose shoes, I don’t think it will be durable enough.’’

Maybe two innovators could get to boast that their product graces ramps and boutique shelves—and nothing fishy about that either.