Why not have nationwide prohibition? -Governance Now

Why not have nationwide prohibition?

Revenues earned from alcohol sales are justified neither morally nor economically given the state spending on health as well as crime control

Ashish Mehta | January 3, 2019 | Delhi

#liquor #Mahatma Gandhi #prohibition #alcohol ban #Gujarat

Illustration: Ashish Asthana

What would be the one thing you would do if you are prime minister for the time it takes to throw a lemon up in the air and catch it? Mahatma Gandhi’s answer, the anecdote goes, was that he’d ban alcohol. The notion of the whole country quitting on liquor is not as outrageous as it may seem at first blush.

Following Gandhi, one of the directive principles of state policy in the constitution says, “The State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”

India has a long history of consuming various forms of liquor, but it was the colonial rulers who promoted it solely with an eye on revenue. Today, revenue has become the first line of defence argument against prohibition, without taking its moral price into account. It was during the British Rule that women protested and led temperance movements. In recent times, it is this push from women that has led to prohibition in Bihar. And statistics say crime in general and incidences of violence against women in particular have come down in Bihar since 2016.

Think

Prohibition is advised by a directive principle of state policy, no less
. . .
Revenues earned from alcohol sales are justified neither morally nor economically given the state spending on health as well as crime control
. . .
A countrywide ban is bound to be more effective than state-wide ban

Another argument against prohibition has been that it is never hundred percent effective, and liquor finds its ways to an underground market helped by corrupt officials. In Gujarat, where the ban has been in place since the state was formed in 1960, underground markets are well developed. True, but a big part of the reason is that liquor is officially available in each neighbouring state: what if there was no liquor legally available to divert across the border? Ineffective implementation of prohibition in the few states is actually a strong argument to ban it across the board.

This also means that instead of banning things (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) at the user end, better results can be ensured if things are banned at the manufacturing end. The state cannot ban the consumption on one hand and grant licences to manufactures on the other. Extending that argument, we could ask: is the state not being hypocritical by warning people through public health campaigns about the dangers of alcoholism, smoking, and tobacco consumption while at the same time allowing tobacco and liquor giants to conduct business?

Finally comes the ace-card argument from the liberal camp: the state intervention in private life, be it in the name of morality or national security, is evil. Alcohol is unhealthy, and so is sugar or salt. An adult citizen should have freedom to decide his or her life choices. But it’s a tricky argument: the so-called nanny state has to intervene when the matter (road safety, for example) goes beyond an individual’s life choices – and alcohol abuse is indeed a social matter. The state is also responsible towards young adults. In Gujarat, for a teenager inclined to a ‘rite of passage’ to adulthood, a smoke would be the default choice rather than alcohol.

Reality Check

The directive principles of state policy, unfortunately, are not always practical. Dismantling a thriving industry is next impossible. A ban can unwittingly promote more dangerous moonshine. The state experience has shown that the key to effective implementation is policing, and the police force in India is woefully short on numbers as well as scruples – something the Mahatma had not foreseen.

[email protected]

(This article appears in January 15, 2019 edition)

Comments

Other News

India faces critical shortage of skin donors amid rising burn cases

India reports nearly 70 lakh burn injury cases every year, resulting in approximately 1.4 lakh deaths annually. Experts estimate that up to 50% of these lives could be saved with adequate access to skin donations. A significant concern is that around 70% of burn victims fall wi

Not just politics, let`s discuss policies too

Why public policy matters Most days, India`s loudest debates stop at the ballot box. We can name every major leader and recall every campaign slogan. Still, far fewer of us can explain why a widow`s pension is delayed or how a government school`s budget is actually approved. That

When algorithms decide and children die

The images have not left me, of dead and wounded children being carried in the arms of the medics and relatives to the ambulances and hospitals. On February 28, at the start of Operation Epic Fury, cruise missiles struck the Shajareh Tayyebeh school – officially named a girls’ school, in Minab,

The economics of representation: Why women in power matter

India’s democracy has grown in scale, but not quite in balance. Women today are active participants in elections, influencing outcomes in ways that were not as visible earlier. Yet their presence in legislative institutions continues to lag behind. The Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam was meant to addres

India will be powerful, not aggressive: Bhaiyyaji

India is poised to emerge as a global power but will remain rooted in its civilisational ethos of non-aggression and harmony, former RSS General Secretary Suresh `Bhaiyyaji` Joshi has said. He was speaking at the launch of “Rashtrabhav,” a book by Ravindra Sathe

AI: Code, Control, Conquer

India today stands at a critical juncture in the area of artificial intelligence. While the country is among the fastest adopters of AI in the world, it remains heavily reliant on technologies developed elsewhere. This paradox, experts warn, cannot persist if India seeks technological sovereignty.