Hi, longtime lurker here.
I understand your point. As a south asian--and just speaking for myself--there were times I could see my skin tone represented in characters like Iris, Hop, Leon, Nessa, Rose, Peony, etc. Are any of these characters meant to be south asian specifically? Maybe, but most likely not. As fictional characters, they are likely not meant to officially correspond to any actual ethnic group, whether they be light skinned or dark skinned, this hair color or that hair color.
But every fictional character's design does draw from real populations and people. In some way ethnicity does factor into character design choices. To see names like "Lance", "Steven", and "Cynthia", or maybe more broadly anglicized names and light skinned designs, as "normal", or rather presented without question for generations of Pokémon, and then to see the dark-skinned Iris and Leon and the possibly Indian-origin name "Geeta", I can't help but see a part of my identity and a group of people I identify with represented, especially since pop culture (I'm about to make a claim here with practically no evidence) doesn't often represent south asians (in itself a massively diverse group constituting 25% of the world's population) via fictional character designs. Does Geeta make every south asian feel represented? No, no individual character can do that for everyone. But the choice of naming her "Geeta" stands out to me and I cannot help but wonder its derivation or why she was designed the way she was. It's 100% possible that her physical appearance is primarily inspired by southern spain while also having such a name, whether it's from the same area or not. That should be ok with fictional characters. One purpose of character design is to better include the audience, and I think to many who are engaged in this debate, they feel represented at least in some small way by Geeta.
So I can get why people have the debate. I don't think it's a debate that will result in a canonical answer because it is just everyone on the internet throwing their opinion around after all, but I don't think it's absurd either. I can see why the debate can matter to some people, myself being from a group underrepresented in fiction (and maybe you're from one too). My personal hope is that Pokémon continues in this direction to design characters inspired from more parts of the globe. Even if that won't be the case, I'll still always be happy to play the games.
While Geeta is her name in english, her japanese name has nothing to do, nor does it have any resemblance to any ethnic group. What is more, her spanish name, Ságita, is not even a made up name, but an actual
word used in geometry and it also means arrow. Now regarding ethimologics, this isn't the first time some localization team has done whatever they want with seemingly intrascendent matters. For example, in one of the Xenoblades (Xenoblade 3), there's a character that has no defined genre. It isn't stated as male or female, not because said character is something else; no. It just isn't stated, that's all. The english localization team took that as an opporunity to make propaganda, purposefully utilized a "non binary actor", used the pronoum they, etcetera. This didnt happen in the spanish or japanese versions of the game (dont know about other languages).
Now, now, now. I'm old enough to have long time memories of how this world was decades ago. I remember a time when completely adult people would never, ever, not even in the deepest of imaginations or scenarios, talk about pronoums, genres or representation. It just wasn't a topic the world cared about. No. That's wrong. For the world to not care about, every single person had to know about it being a topic in the first place, then deliberately choose to ignore it. I'll reformule it: this kind of topics weren't even in the collective conciousness of society, because, in the end, no one cared about. They -we- cared about other topics, topics long forgotten, like this one will be over with when the time comes.
But this is not the place to talk about all of this. What I'd like to get at, is the "representation" point. You see, every single individual is different. We strive for different objectives and experiment satisfaction with different causes. I've never been interested in representation. This is becaus I've always been unable to emphatize with fictional characters based on the procedence or origins. I don't truly care about the character in terms of what their appearance is like. To take Iris as an example, as you mentionted it. I'm pretty sure when some people saw Iris for the first time, they inmediatly were concious of the fact that iris was black. It's irrelevant whatever they thought about it, if some of them liked it or not. I'm talking about the very fact of noticing it. I didn't. I'm so absolutely blind about this fact, and my interest on it is so genuinely low, that unless someone else makes me aware of it, i won't notice at all. To me, a character being indian, black, blue, an animal, a person, a concept, is so irrelevant, that it would be the same as someone randomly saying "ey, my name is Antonio and i like the blue color". Ok...?
I fully respect whoever feel something about characters based on their origins, specifically to whoever feel something like gratitude because of the representation. To me characters are characters and their value is purely based on what they have to offer in terms of writting. Every single time i've been identified with a fictional character, or i felt represented by one, was because their stories, their thinking or something about them reminded me of my own vital experiences. Its natural to get attached to a character that is undergoing drepresion, for example, when you've had experiences with it. But regarding the character procedence, if it is indian, spanish, english, orange, a cartoon or an actor. I don't truly care.
But to each their own, of course.