Prohibition doesn't work, even Gujarat doesn't want it
Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa's promise to voters to usher in total prohibition if voted to power is another instance of a politician going to any extremes to either acquire or cling on to political power. Prohibition, a name given to the policy of banning sale, consumption and possession of alcohol by the short-tenured Janata Party government at the Centre in 1977-79, has the longest history of failure.
Barring Gujarat, where liquor is not sold across the counter (this means it is sold both below and by other means) since the state's formation in 1960, every state and political leader has had to beat a hasty retreat and withdraw the prohibition law within a few years.
Somewhere during one of my interviews with Prime Minister Narendra Modi - he was chief minister then - I dared to ask if he would ever review the state's prohibition policy. I argued with him that everyone knew that if one had the right contacts, booze could be delivered at the doorstep. I did not though tell him that my first exposure to both legal and extra-legal means of spending a spirited evening was when some of us had gone to Gujarat to report on one of the Bharatiya Janata Party meetings in the late early 1990s. At the end of gruelling day when several of us scribes returned to the hotel where we were staying, a young volunteer, asked "Aap log kuch lete hain?" The real meaning of "kuch" was not lost!
 |
| Bihar CM Nitish Kumar (PTI) |
As the evening floated past us, the same volunteer who by then was joined by few couple others from the state and city units of the party, got us to sign a form each. "It will enable us to replenish our stock," he said as we filled the names of the sharabi, sharabi ke pita and sharabi ka pata. The young volunteer is today and accomplished party leader, fairly high in the hierarchy. I told Modi none of this but I don't think he would have been unaware that Gujarat is hardly a "dry state".
Over several minutes, Modi explained how prohibition was a "cultural thing" for Gujarat. This was a rare occasion, however, when his words didn't sound convincing. It appeared that if he could, he would opt out for practical reasons - though personally he is a sworn teetotaller - but is trapped in the moralistic yarn of the state.
How can liquor flow openly in the state of Gandhi's birth (though the Mahatma never sermonised against drinking alcohol)? Yet, Gujarat has steadily liberalised its liquor policy in recent years - and after my interaction with Modi - as a consequence of muted protests during the Vibrant Gujarat Summits. Using the Summit as a device, the administration liberalised certain sections which they felt had been due for long.
But alcohol is legally still not available to residents of the state and this has resulted in a thriving illegal trade running into thousands of crores of rupees. If one were to add the loss to the exchequer (no excise duty being paid to Gujarat government) and the resources of the law enforcing spent in ensuring discretion in the conduct of this trade - no illegal trade anywhere is possible without the police being aware - the total revenue shortfall will be astronomical.
Nitish Kumar owed his victory considerable to the debate over intolerance yet by "drying up" Bihar, he has been selectively intolerant. I have read that government officers were asked to take oath pledging that they shall never drink even a sip of any alcoholic drink. Come one, what a sham!
To what extent will India's politicos elevate hypocrisy? Just wait for a few months and Bihar's dry bottles will be filled again. Wait for a few years, the government will either have to withdraw the policy or look the other way when the parallel trade takes over like in Gujarat.
This assertion does not come from spite but from the history of past failures in other states. It is generally believed that those who are opposed to Bihar's policy and Jayalalithaa's promise have personal or professional reasons or interest, in states remaining "wet".
A clarification is in order due to this perception. Unlike in the past, I do not drink regularly but would still like an occasional drink with friends and family and even let my hair loose (though not much is left of this) occasionally.
But to move beyond the personal realm, it has often been argued by leaders like Nitish Kumar that prohibition has been introduced because women had to bear the brunt of alcoholism. The same was the case in all states, be it Haryana, Uttarakhand and Manipur. However, prohibition is all about controls and essential to maintain structures of a patriarchal system. In states where women's movements have been cited as reasons for enforcing prohibition, patriarchy has been sought to be replaced by another hierarchical system.
Legal and social systems of controls - prohibition is part of this - essentially reflects an Upper Caste desire to dominate. It has been historically established that communities have had their own system of cultivation and manufactures of wide range of products from alcohol to cannabis in various forms and managed to regulate use. But the Brahmanical order has clamped down on this. One has to just dip into Hindu culture or take a walk down the ghats of the Ganga River in Haridwar, Rishikesh or Varanasi and the smell (give it the adjective of your choice) from the chillams will waft through the air.
Gujarat's politicians are caught in a moralistic trap. One can only hope that others, from Nitish Kumar to Jayalalithaa see reason and do not get caught. If they do not, and pursue sectional populism, a parallel system - like it did in the 1920s in America when the Mafia took over large cities by selling liquor illegally - will come up in every "dry" state.
Ask any honest police officer in Gujarat if s(he) can survive if they comedown heavily on liquor traders and you will understand why prohibition can never work. If the law remains on paper despite this, it would be even more disastrous because the government would lose money. And, people would still get "corrupted" by alcohol!