Indian media coverage from Cannes positioned the event as more of a fashion show than a film festival. So how important is India at Cannes? And what does the international community care about - the clothes or the cinema?

In the two weeks of the festival, the Indian media has written countless stories on the country's activities at this year's Cannes Film Festival held from May 17 to 28 in the French Riviera.

However, much of the focus has been on Bollywood actresses and their choice of a Roberto Cavalli gown over a Ritu Kumar ensemble. Leading Indian media websites are asking readers to rate outfits, comparing Aishwarya Rai to Preity Zinta, and turning the red carpet into a full-fledged runway.

The international press places an emphasis on cinema and commerce at Cannes. But for India, it is the opposite. And not without reason.

The Cannes Film Festival is an annual event that has come to highlight the best in cinema from around the world. The event has two main components - a competition section where films are evaluated by a chosen jury for the highest Cannes honour, and a market section where buyers and sellers congregate to view products and close deals.

India was first showcased, and awarded, at Cannes in 1956, with Satyajit Ray's "Pather Panchali". Several other Ray films were shown in the festival's competition or other official sections - "Parash Pather" in 1958, "Devi" in 1962, "Ghare Baire" in 1984 and "Ganashatru" in 1989.

Additionally, between 1974 and 1986, five other Indian films - M.S. Sathyu's "Garam Hawa", Shyam Benegal's "Nishant", Mrinal Sen's "Ek Din Pratidin", "Kharij" and "Genesis" - all competed at Cannes.

And in the late 1980's, two Indian features from first time directors - Mira Nair's "Salaam Bombay" and Shaji N. Karun's "Piravi" - left their own marks at the festival. Since then, only Murali Nair has competed in and won a Cannes prize with his "Marana Simhasanam" in 1999.

This is not to say that India was not represented at this year's festival.

Anirban Dutta was in the student competition with a short film, "Tetris". And Gitanjali Rao was in the Cannes Critics' Week with another short film, "Painted Rainbow". Dev Benegal was selected for the prestigious l'Atelier, a section at Cannes that helps selected filmmakers find co-production partners for their projects.

Guided by the Confederation of Indian Industry, the National Film Development Corporation and the ministry of information and broadcasting, India also set up an official India Pavilion in the International Village at Cannes.

Promoting a network of independent Indian filmmakers under the one umbrella, the India Pavilion sought to effectively present Indian projects for financing and distribution to the world market. But once again, the world's largest film producing nation was noticeably missing from the competition section at Cannes.

The lack of an Indian presence in the Cannes competition provides not a reason to criticise, but more an opportunity to examine the Indian market and its place in the global film community. How effective is India at Cannes? And what else can we do to cultivate a wider market for India - both at the festival and beyond?

The key issue for India is an understanding of its disparate markets - one Bollywood, the other not.

Bollywood films are a staple in India - they are what local audiences want and watch. They are also in demand around the globe - in the Middle East and Africa, Indonesia and Japan. India's song and dance cinema does well in the developing world and will continue to do so.

Bollywood in the West, however, is more of a trend than a staple. As much as these films will pack theatres in New York and California, their audience is mainly the Indian diaspora - and in global terms, Bollywood does not translate into international commerce.

Bollywood films will not be chosen for competition at Cannes or at most other festivals. They will not be picked up for international distribution by a major US studio or its independent specialty arm. Bollywood is not part of the international sensibility. However, it clearly commands a market and it should and will continue to strive.

The other market is what is seen as "art" cinema in India - and this is the cinema that will succeed in other parts of the world. Films such as "Raincoat" or "Hazaaron Khwahishein Aisi", if encouraged and promoted well, are the cinema that will provide India with ground on the global film map.

It is filmmakers like Rituparno Ghosh and Sudhir Mishra, Shonali Bose and others who should be supported by India and the Indian film industry. These are the filmmakers, and their films, that will cultivate a market for India internationally and at Cannes.

And so why weren't there any Indian films at Cannes this past year? Or the years before? It is not a lack of talent or exposure or even financing. It is instead about strategy and education, and about quality.

Indian filmmakers need to submit their films to festivals around the world - not just Cannes or even Venice or Berlin or Toronto. They need to represent at other festivals as they were this past year at Cannes - as a unified body that speaks to international tastes and sensibilities.

They need leadership and representation, from within the industry and the government, which is constant and aware and is able to interact with the global film community.

With a sustained presence at global festivals, no matter how big or small, not only will India get noticed but its own filmmakers will be exposed to cinema from around the world that has also cultivated its own global market.

By educating buyers about Indian cinema and that beyond Bollywood, India will slowly begin to create some momentum. It will produce content at par with international work - and instead of fashion taking the foreground at Cannes, it will be films.