Is India being bullied?

That's what Charles MacLean, arguably "Scotland's foremost whisky writer", seems to think.

In Sunday's The Telegraph (Calcutta India), Charles MacLean, was interviewed in regard to the long-running, and imminent sale of Whyte & Mackay to the UB group.

MacLean also said the “Scottish Whisky Association has been trying to bully the Indian government” into lowering tariffs — and he forecast this, too, would happen since lower taxes would be good both for the Indian government and the Scottish whisky industry.

Wow. Does MacLean really view the very reasonable attempts by the SWA to get tariffs lowered as "bullying"?

---

<UPDATE 1: If Mr. MacLean was misquoted by the Indian Press, I certainly invite him to let everyone know that fact here on The Scotch Blog and demand a retraction from the Telegraph!>

---

Perhaps it is MacLean's existing business relationship with Mallya that is coloring his views:

In November, UB flew him to India for a hectic tour of Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Goa during when his mission was to speak about Black Dog, a brand first made by Whyte & Mackay in 1879 but now owned and marketed by Mallya.

“When someone as astute and as close to the levers of power as Vijay Mallya starts looking to secure spirit supply by buying Scotch distilleries and brands and promoting his own Scotch, Black Dog, which I helped with last November, then the writing is on the wall,” said MacLean.

MacLean must have also bought into the propaganda of the Indian government/media/beverage industry triumvirate and accepted the Indian claim that this molasses-based distilled beverage is, in fact, whisky, and not the more appropriately named "rum".

MacLean pointed out. “Bear in mind that India is the largest consumer of whisky in the world by a long chalk — 70 million cases per annum; global sales of Scotch amount to a mere 85.5 million cases. All but less that one per cent of the whisky drunk in India is locally made.”

The regulations of most nations do not agree that it can be called whisky - and every legal definition of the countries which do not allow the India spirit to be imported dictate that whisky is a distillate made from grains.

The sun never sets...

Mr. Mallya has made a ridiculous correlation between the SWA's protection of the Scottish Whisky industry and 19th century "British imperialism".

"This imposition of British imperialism is unacceptable," Mr Mallya was quoted as saying last year. "The SWA has to understand there are two sides to the coin. They have double standards. I will continue to oppose SWA coming to India until they allow us to sell in England and Scotland."

The SWA has NO desire to "go to India" they simply want to allow Scotch whisky to have a fair shot at being sold in Asia. Campbell Evans' quote from yesterday's story was on the money:

"This is often dressed up as an issue for the Scottish industry, but there are 70 countries around the world that have legal definitions that whisky be made from cereals.

If you've read The Scotch Blog in the past, you'll know that I appreciate what the SWA does on many fronts, and I disagree with them on as many. On this one, I am 150% behind them.

Fallout?

If you thought the saga of the purchase of W&M was interesting, wait until the purchase actually happens - which according to sources will (barring last-minute problems) be announced tomorrow in Glasgow for somewhere around £610m.

Will Mallya withdraw Whyte & Mackay as an SWA member? Will the SWA extend an olive branch - by way of a council seat to Mallya? Will there be a talent flight from W&M?

---

<UPDATE 2: When a member company's ownership changes, under SWA rules, that company ceases to be a member of the Association.  Anyone who is a distiller, bottler, or blender of Scotch Whisky, who is prepared to sign up to the terms of membership, can apply to join.>

---

Two things are for sure.

1. Resumes are being freshened up at Dalmore House, and
2. Willie Tait and Richard Paterson will be told not to talk to me anymore :).

Comments

[kallaskander]

Hi there,

methinks Charlie has been ripped out of the context in which he spoke and was misquoted. Means I do not really think that this are his opinions. Send him an email and ask what he has to say about the matter.

Greetings
kallaskander

[Japanesewhisky]

I don`t know about Charles MacLean`s views but it seems a reasonable first step to hold him to account for the quote in the Telegraph with an open invitation for a response (which I am sure will be forthcoming). Otherwise the response clouds the initial statement.

But, going back to the initial statement, it isn`t completely laughable, in the wider context of general freemarket pressure, to say India is being "bullied". Quickly developing countries like India have to hold a delicate balance between opening their markets and allowing their indigenous industries to thrive in the newly competitive market. There is always heavy pressure from already developed countries to open up to the free market.

Half of me feels that the Scotch industry could take a very relaxed view of this Indian "whisky" because what would happen is poor, non whisky whiskies would come onto the market and Indian whisky would forever destroy its name as a premium spirits producer. That is the laissez faire attitude which I think organisations like the SWA would be highly unlikely to to adopt, given that their role is partly about regulation and control. From this more buttoned up perspective, it does seem fair to demarcate Indian "whisky" from Scotch and other forms of quite different spirits, which have spent years trying to establishing what they are for consumers. It seems unfair to make them rename something they have regarded as whisky for generations into something else. Like making Bourbon Whiskey makers rename their spirit to "Bourbon yellow distilled spirit" or something. So how about revisiting one of your great posts about labeling terminology (ie. the pure/vatted malt debate). Maybe the label should have to say:

"Molasses based whisky"
"Indian Style whisky"
Or perhaps something short and sweet:
"Whiskiy"

[Kevin Erskine]

Hey Chris,
Interesting comments...but I'll point you to another of my posts, from a year ago called "Just because you keep saying it, it doesn't make it true...(May 04, 2006)"

"I can take crack cocaine and call it rock candy - but that doesn't mean I can sell it in candy stores."

Also it is very important to note that the SWA may protect the definitions of whisky for the UK...but every other country has legal and regulatory definitions for what is and is not whisky.

This is NOT an issue of the SWA versus India. It's India's refusal to accept that whisky is considered, world-wide, to be a grain based distillate.

[Japanesewhisky]

I should make clear that I am not disagreeing with your post here, just rambling on beyond its scope:

Neither am I saying the SWA is in the wrong but, if I were an Indian, I might see all this relentless pressure to open markets (which is happening on all fronts, not just the whisky market) as "bullying", and perhaps Maclean`s contact with Indians has given him that perspective (better wait and let the man talk for himself. He may just have been misquoted by the Telegraph). They probably do have immature industries that need protecting in the short term and perhaps this issue about their "whisky" not being whisky illustrates that vulnerability. The reason I am banging on about this is that in Japan you meet a certain generation of people, who went through the bruising argy bargy with the US and Europe during their emergence into the big league in the 80s, who were quite scarred by the whole experience and definitely thought there was a lot of "bullying" going on.

I also feel that the renaming thing, while completely reasonable from the Scotch perspective, might seem a bit of an imposition to an Indian who has been drinking the stuff for years and calling it whisky. In India, that molasses based drink is whisky (I am writing this in complete ignorance, so I am probably misunderstanding the real situation). It is a bit like that thing about having to rename British chocolate because it wasn:t proper chocolate from a European perspective. So we are faced with a ticklish problem: internationally it isn't whisky, but within India it most definitely is. Surely, there is a need for some kind of compromise. I don't expect the "whiskiy" suggestion would be accepted in reality, although it appeals to me as the least jargony alternative. So what about: "Indian molasses based whisky", or "Indian Style whisky" or something. This kind of compromise would surely be in the long run interests of the Indian whisky industry, because it would be able to develop its own niche on its own terms, and also those Indian distillers that are producing conventional grain based whisky would not be undermined by drinks that would be seen as impostors. I think they already make some good quality malts in India and it would be a shame for those guys to be squashed.

[Kevin Erskine]

You make great points.

People should know that not all Indian "whisky" is molasses-based, nor is it all prevented from selling in the European Union or the US

There IS ne whisky produced in India which sells in the UK (and perhaps some other places). It is a single malt called "Amrut" and meets the EU definition of"whisky".

I had it at the London Whisky Live a year or so ago, and while I didn't love it,I was surprised.

[shyam]

Well great comments. Whatever said Mallya has grabbed Whyte and will have a big chunk of the scotch market in India and neighbouring countries. As to wheter he will us it as a tool to bring in Indian whisky to europe is to be seen. Mallya also has the clout to bring in the french wine. Its hot galore in the whisky world