At a rally in Haryana earlier this week, Arvind Kejriwal promised that if his Aam Aadmi Party was voted to power, he would allow women to decide whether liquor stores could operate in their local communities.
Unlike free water and electricity in Delhi, this is one promise on which Kejriwal certainly cannot deliver, even if AAP does pull off an unlikely victory in the Lok Sabha election. That’s because liquor regulation is a state subject, over which the central government has little control.
Controlling alcohol is a pet project of politicians and social activists alike. Some see abstinence from liquor as a moral virtue, especially since Gandhi believed that drinking was a social evil. Others believe prohibition will control alcoholism. But it’s clear that attempts to ban liquor have seen little success. Haryana’s own foray into prohibition from 1996 to 1998 had to be cancelled after it was found that more liquor was available in the state after the ban than before it.
“These experiments with prohibition rarely work,” said Dr Vivek Benegal, a professor of psychiatry with the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences who studies the effects of substance abuse. “Just by pretending there is prohibition doesn’t mean there is any. It is difficult to implement unless all states band together.”
Benegal believes that prohibition is an ineffective solution to a highly emotional problem in India. Prohibition does not work for three reasons. One is that state borders are porous and allow for the sale of unregulated liquor. Besides, states are reluctant to lose the large revenues they earn from the liquor industry. In addition, prohibition frequently comes along with moral vigilantism.
Even though prohibition overtly limits freedom of choice, it is an attractive idea for many people, especially women. Between “80 to 90 per cent of all domestic abuse is caused by alcohol”, said Sawai Singh, president of the Rajasthan-based Samagra Seva Sangh. “It is ironic that while Indian women are among the few in the world who actively stay away from alcohol, they also suffer the most because of it.”
Two years ago, his organisation supported women in Jaipur who led a dharna against a family that was selling liquor. They forced shops in the area to shut down, only to see them open a few kilometres away. “Until liquor is completely banned across the country, nothing can happen,” said Singh.
Gujarat, Mizoram, Nagaland and Lakshadweep are the only states that have totally prohibited the sale and consumption of liquor, as have parts of Manipur.
This is not to say the policy has succeeded in these states. A study by the World Health Organisation said the association between prohibition and low levels of alcohol use was mixed. “For men there was no statistically significant evidence of an association,” it found, “but for women, it appeared that prohibition did reduce consumption.”
According to the report, most drinking happens in villages. Far more men than women admitted to consuming alcohol.
But in some places, even women don’t welcome prohibition. Richard Kamei, a researcher at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences who is studying prohibition in Manipur, said that when liquor was banned in some parts of the state, women in his tribal community continued to sell alcohol because that was their main source of livelihood. “They found it difficult to go into other areas” of employment, he said.
In most states, while urban areas are subject to state-level restrictions, villages have somewhat more autonomy in deciding whether to allow alcohol in their communities. The 1996 Panchayat Raj (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act gives gram sabhas “the power to enforce prohibition or to regulate or restrict the sale and consumption of any intoxicant.”
The act came into place after several ground-level campaigns against liquor. One of the largest movements took place in 1990, when women across 800 villages in Andhra Pradesh attacked liquor shops and alcoholics. They succeeded in getting prohibition enforced across the state from 1994 to 1997.
But since the liquor industry remains a huge revenue generator for all states, few government have seriously considered prohibition. Tamil Nadu, for example, which has a monopoly on the sale of liquor through the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, earned Rs 21,800 crore from alcohol in 2012. In many states, the liquor industry is the second-largest contributor to state coffers.
One of the few places where prohibition actually resulted in a decrease in alcohol consumption is Ralegan Siddhi, home to Kejriwal’s former mentor Anna Hazare. He has issued a blanket ban on the consumption and sale of liquor in the village. Hazare and his followers regularly whip those who drink liquor.
This is not to say that alcohol is not a serious problem. “When we drink at all, we tend to drink heavily,” said Benegal. “Most people in India drink at a level that people in other countries would call bingeing.”
He suggests other more nuanced solutions such as controlling liquor through prices and taxation, and reducing the number of outlets. He believes that unless the demand for alcohol goes down, its supply will continue to remain high.
“The problem of how you control liquor in a larger context is how to do it without bringing in fascist control,” said Benegal. “I fear that by making all these promises, civil liberties will get trampled.”
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Unlike free water and electricity in Delhi, this is one promise on which Kejriwal certainly cannot deliver, even if AAP does pull off an unlikely victory in the Lok Sabha election. That’s because liquor regulation is a state subject, over which the central government has little control.
Controlling alcohol is a pet project of politicians and social activists alike. Some see abstinence from liquor as a moral virtue, especially since Gandhi believed that drinking was a social evil. Others believe prohibition will control alcoholism. But it’s clear that attempts to ban liquor have seen little success. Haryana’s own foray into prohibition from 1996 to 1998 had to be cancelled after it was found that more liquor was available in the state after the ban than before it.
“These experiments with prohibition rarely work,” said Dr Vivek Benegal, a professor of psychiatry with the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences who studies the effects of substance abuse. “Just by pretending there is prohibition doesn’t mean there is any. It is difficult to implement unless all states band together.”
Benegal believes that prohibition is an ineffective solution to a highly emotional problem in India. Prohibition does not work for three reasons. One is that state borders are porous and allow for the sale of unregulated liquor. Besides, states are reluctant to lose the large revenues they earn from the liquor industry. In addition, prohibition frequently comes along with moral vigilantism.
Even though prohibition overtly limits freedom of choice, it is an attractive idea for many people, especially women. Between “80 to 90 per cent of all domestic abuse is caused by alcohol”, said Sawai Singh, president of the Rajasthan-based Samagra Seva Sangh. “It is ironic that while Indian women are among the few in the world who actively stay away from alcohol, they also suffer the most because of it.”
Two years ago, his organisation supported women in Jaipur who led a dharna against a family that was selling liquor. They forced shops in the area to shut down, only to see them open a few kilometres away. “Until liquor is completely banned across the country, nothing can happen,” said Singh.
Gujarat, Mizoram, Nagaland and Lakshadweep are the only states that have totally prohibited the sale and consumption of liquor, as have parts of Manipur.
This is not to say the policy has succeeded in these states. A study by the World Health Organisation said the association between prohibition and low levels of alcohol use was mixed. “For men there was no statistically significant evidence of an association,” it found, “but for women, it appeared that prohibition did reduce consumption.”
According to the report, most drinking happens in villages. Far more men than women admitted to consuming alcohol.
But in some places, even women don’t welcome prohibition. Richard Kamei, a researcher at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences who is studying prohibition in Manipur, said that when liquor was banned in some parts of the state, women in his tribal community continued to sell alcohol because that was their main source of livelihood. “They found it difficult to go into other areas” of employment, he said.
In most states, while urban areas are subject to state-level restrictions, villages have somewhat more autonomy in deciding whether to allow alcohol in their communities. The 1996 Panchayat Raj (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act gives gram sabhas “the power to enforce prohibition or to regulate or restrict the sale and consumption of any intoxicant.”
The act came into place after several ground-level campaigns against liquor. One of the largest movements took place in 1990, when women across 800 villages in Andhra Pradesh attacked liquor shops and alcoholics. They succeeded in getting prohibition enforced across the state from 1994 to 1997.
But since the liquor industry remains a huge revenue generator for all states, few government have seriously considered prohibition. Tamil Nadu, for example, which has a monopoly on the sale of liquor through the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, earned Rs 21,800 crore from alcohol in 2012. In many states, the liquor industry is the second-largest contributor to state coffers.
One of the few places where prohibition actually resulted in a decrease in alcohol consumption is Ralegan Siddhi, home to Kejriwal’s former mentor Anna Hazare. He has issued a blanket ban on the consumption and sale of liquor in the village. Hazare and his followers regularly whip those who drink liquor.
This is not to say that alcohol is not a serious problem. “When we drink at all, we tend to drink heavily,” said Benegal. “Most people in India drink at a level that people in other countries would call bingeing.”
He suggests other more nuanced solutions such as controlling liquor through prices and taxation, and reducing the number of outlets. He believes that unless the demand for alcohol goes down, its supply will continue to remain high.
“The problem of how you control liquor in a larger context is how to do it without bringing in fascist control,” said Benegal. “I fear that by making all these promises, civil liberties will get trampled.”