India pays dearly for cheap hooch
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - A bootleg liquor tragedy in the southern Indian states of Karnataka
and Tamil Nadu last week claimed the lives of over 180 people. At least 80 of
the victims were from slums in Bangalore, capital of the state of Karnataka and
India's technology hub. Another 30 were from rural suburbs around the city and
the rest in neighboring districts. Deaths were reported from Tamil Nadu as
well, mainly in districts bordering Bangalore.
The illicit liquor tragedy, among the worst in Karnataka in recent years,
occurred in the midst of elections to the state assembly. In
India, bars and shops selling liquor are shut during elections to avert brawls
and maintain law and order, and to prevent politicians from handing out liquor
to win votes. Politicians in India distribute liquor not only to win votes from
the poor but also supply it to workers who help with campaigning.
With authorized shops shut, bootleggers, smelling opportunity, moved in. They
stepped up production of illicitly brewed liquor (or hooch [1] as it is called
by local English-speakers - in the Kannada language it is called batti sarai)
and pushed sales in the slums.
Deaths from hooch are frequent in Indian villages and towns. The brew is often
spiked with pesticides or chemicals like methyl alcohol and even battery acid
to increase the kick. It is a lethal cocktail that causes blindness and damages
vital organs resulting in death.
Bangalore has suffered several hooch tragedies. In 1981, 323 people died after
consuming brew laced with poisonous chemicals. In April 2005, 22 people died
after drinking the killer brew on the city's outskirts. Another major hooch
tragedy happened in the city's Srirampura slum in 2006.
Most poor people drink arrack or country liquor, which used to be sold
at about US$0.25 per 100 milliliters (ml)through government-licensed shops.
Then in 2007, the Karnataka government banned the manufacture and sale of arrack
, arguing that it was a financial drain on the poor.
In the run up to the ban, apprehensions were raised on two counts. One was that
it would lead to a sharp fall in the state's revenue as cash from arrack
sales accounted for 50% of the excise revenue. The other fear was that it would
give a fillip to the manufacture and consumption of illicit liquor, as the poor
would not be able to afford the higher priced, branded Indian Made Liquor
(IML).
Still, the government went ahead with the ban.
With arrack off the shelves, drinking among the poor was not reduced. Arrack
drinkers simply moved to IML or illicit liquor. What the ban on arrack did
was to make poor consumers willing to fork out twice the amount for their daily
drink. The cheapest brand of IML costs about $0.63 per 180 ml bottle.
Alongside the spurt in demand for IML, demand for illicit liquor too soared.
Manufacture of illicit liquor skyrocketed. The tragedy was waiting to happen.
Karnataka's Excise Department officials and police claim they were vigilant and
had registered about 1,000 cases against hooch brewers and confiscated some
47,484 liters since the ban in July.
But last week's tragedy indicates that they were not vigilant enough.
Following the 1981 tragedy, the government set up a commission of enquiry. An
extensive probe followed and several bootleggers were held responsible for the
tragedy. But no convictions were made.
That has been the experience in the scores of hooch tragedies that have
followed since. The bootlegging business thrives under police protection and
the patronage of politicians.
The tragedy, coming as it did in the middle of assembly elections, triggered
the familiar political blame game. Politicians blamed Bharatiya Janata Party
leader and Karnataka's new chief minister, B S Yediyurappa, for the tragedy,
claiming that it was his decision to ban arrack that resulted in the
growing demand for illicit liquor. Yediyurappa was deputy chief minister in
charge of the excise portfolio and the architect of the arrack ban.
Following his party's victory in the election, Yediyurappa has announced that
his government would not lift the arrack ban.
For the government, it does not make economic sense to do so.
Contrary to fears that the arrack ban would result in a dip in revenues,
the move led to a spurt in IML sales which has more than made up for the fall
in revenues from arrack.
The ban on arrack in July resulted in a sharp increase in the sale of
IML. Sales doubled to over 3 million cases a month in Karnataka from an earlier
1.4 million cases.
In the year to March, 15.4 million cases of IML were sold. In the four months
following the ban, the state saw sales of 11.1 million cases. In fact, by
November, Karnataka toppled neighboring Andhra Pradesh to emerge as India's
number one consumer of IML. Karnataka's population being far smaller than that
of Andhra means that per capita consumption in Karnataka is far higher as well.
It is widely believed that the arrack ban was put in place under
pressure from women's groups and religious institutions. However, liquor
companies appear to have played a role in the decision.
Karnataka has a powerful liquor lobby. Liquor companies are known to donate
massive amounts of money to political parties and in return manage to get
industry-friendly policies in place. The Congress party is known to draw
considerable support from arrack manufacturers and traders.
While the involvement of some liquor barons and bootleggers in politics is
shadowy, two of Karnataka's biggest liquor barons openly participate in
politics. Vijay Mallya, chairman of United Breweries, which enjoys a near
monopoly over India's brewing market, is with the Janata Party and a member of
India's Upper House of parliament. Hari Khoday of the Khoday Group launched his
own political outfit in 2004. Bootlegger Marimuthu or the "Hooch Queen" as she
proudly calls herself was until recently an elected member of the city council.
She was among those named in connection with the 1981 hooch tragedy but was
never convicted on any related charges.
The influence of the liquor lobby shrank somewhat in 2003 when the government
stopped the sale of "seconds" - industry jargon which refers to the 70% of
liquor that was being sold without payment of excise duties.
And in the years since, the liquor lobby's influence in politics has
diminished, especially in comparison to that of the state's mining and real
estate lobbies.
Still, its clout is considerable, as is that of the illicit liquor mafia, which
is known to have close links with politicians and policemen.
With business booming after arrack was taken off the racks, neither the
liquor barons nor the bootleggers will want to see the ban lifted. And with
revenue pouring in from sale of IML, there is little reason for the government
to lift the ban on arrack either.
The ban on arrack was ostensibly to help the poor. It didn't. It has
resulted in draining their already limited income by pushing them to IML or put
their health and lives at risk by driving them to illicit liquor.
Note
1. Hooch: "cheap whiskey", 1897, shortened form of Hoochinoo (1877) "liquor
made by Alaskan Indians", from the name of a native tribe in Alaska whose
distilled liquor was a favorite with miners in 1898 Klondike gold rush; the
tribe's name is from Tlingit Hutsnuwu, literally "grizzly bear fort". (Online
Etymology Dictionary.)
Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in
Bangalore.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
