“If I was appointed dictator for one hour for all India, the first thing I would do would be to close without compensation all the liquor shops, destroy all the toddy palms,” said MK Gandhi.
“I shall not take intoxicants like liquor, drugs,” was one of the 22 pledges that BR Ambedkar took the day he converted to Buddhism.
These were two different men with very distinct ideas. But more on that later.
First, read this ground report by ThePrint’s Sagrika Kissu. She reports that in FY 2022-2023, Uttar Pradesh witnessed a staggering surge in excise revenue, soaring to an impressive Rs 42,250 crore. This remarkable threefold increase, from Rs 14,000 crore in 2017-18, the year the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Yogi Adityanath took the reins of power, underscores the state’s remarkable trajectory. UP has even outstripped traditionally strong contenders like Karnataka in this sector. This opulent growth is a testament to the strategic initiatives taken by the Yogi government, especially, the way it changed its excise policy.
Gujarat and Bihar are the only states in India that prohibit the sale, purchase, and consumption of alcohol and have a punitive system in place to punish the violators. It is very difficult to say how successful these laws are in banning the consumption of liquor, but one thing is certain: These states are incurring a huge loss in terms of excise revenue. Moreover, both the states are laggards in public health and education, and have done little to prioritise spending in these sectors.
Liquor bans enforced by various governments have sparked heated debates on the efficacy and consequences of such policies. Throughout Indian history, prohibition has been a contentious issue, championed by Gandhi and Gandhians like Ram Manohar Lohia in India, neo-puritans in the West, and various religious factions worldwide. It is essential to reevaluate this stance in the context of contemporary society.
Also read: Bihar continuing with liquor ban is an exercise in madness with no method
Born and died in the West
The anti-liquor movement in the West started during 18th-century religious revivalism. By 1829, temperance organisations had spread from the United States to Ireland, and eventually, globally. The movement, catalysed by churches, focused on education and lobbying for legislation prohibiting alcohol sale, transport, and consumption. Women’s groups played a significant role. In the 21st century, this movement is almost dead in the West—which has settled more or less in favour of personal choice.
As we navigate the complexities of modern life, it is imperative to recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be the most effective means to address the diverse needs and preferences of individuals. It’s important to note that Narendra Modi continued with the state policy of prohibition when he was the CM of Gujarat, but after becoming the Prime Minister in 2014, he never tried to push for the policy at a national level. Gujarat is just carrying on Gandhi’s legacy—for no reason. But as we know, in politics, perhaps some issues are just too sensitive to meddle with.
I support the sale of liquor within the bounds of law because prohibition comes with huge consequences, some of which are already being hotly discussed.
Consequences
Rise of underground markets: Liquor bans often lead to the emergence of illegal and unregulated markets, which can exacerbate the very problems the ban seeks to address. These underground markets may produce unsafe, adulterated, or counterfeit products, posing significant health risks to consumers. We have seen people perishing due to the consumption of spurious liquor in Bihar and Gujarat.
Loss of government revenue: Prohibiting the sale of alcohol results in significant losses in tax revenue, which could be used to fund public services, including healthcare, education, and infrastructure projects.
Economic impact on hospitality industry: This sector, which includes bars, restaurants, and hotels, can suffer severe economic losses, which may lead to job losses and economic instability in affected communities. People even travel to neighbouring states just to drink liquor.
Encouragement of illicit activities: Prohibition policies often encourage illegal activities, including bootlegging, smuggling, and other criminal enterprises. This not only strains law enforcement resources but also fuels organised crime.
Diminished personal freedom and autonomy: Individuals should have the right to make informed decisions about their lifestyle choices. Liquor bans restrict this personal autonomy.
Disproportionate impact on some groups: Prohibition can disproportionately affect lower-income individuals and communities. These groups may be more likely to turn to unsafe, illicit sources due to limited access to legal alternatives. In most cases, it is the poor who go to jail.
Potential for corruption and bribery: Such policies can create space for corruption within law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies. This can erode public trust in institutions and hinder effective governance.
Erosion of socio-cultural norms: In some societies, alcohol consumption is a part of cultural and social practices. Banning alcohol can disrupt these traditions, leading to social tension and alienation.
If the State wants to address the consequences of alcohol consumption, it can adopt other, more effective, measures. Educating the youth on the subject, providing treatment programmes, and strictly enforcing existing regulations can be more effective in addressing alcohol-related issues.
Gandhi vs Ambedkar
Coming back to the ideas of Ambedkar and Gandhi. We see that one was a quintessential democrat and pragmatist, and another a utopian with a dictatorial side to him. Ambedkar’s unwavering commitment to self-control and sobriety is a testament to his profound understanding of personal empowerment and societal progress. Unlike Gandhi’s call for dictatorial measures in the form of abrupt closures of all liquor shops, Ambedkar’s approach centres on individual agency and conscious choice.
Gandhi’s call for dictatorial action bypasses the democratic process. It raises questions about individual liberties. He held a particularly extremist stance on alcohol. “Liquor… is an invention of the devil. It not only robs the drinkers of their money but also of their reason,” he said.
Ambedkar’s decision to include the pledge against intoxicants as part of his conversion to Buddhism reflects his recognition of the transformative power of personal commitment. By taking responsibility for one’s actions and vowing to abstain from intoxicants, Ambedkar advocated for a path of self-improvement and moral strength. Gandhi’s approach ignores long-term solutions like education, awareness campaigns, and rehabilitation programmes.
Rather than resorting to drastic, coercive measures, Ambedkar’s approach is rooted in the belief that true change comes from within. This is the Buddhist idea of ‘Appo Dipo Bhava’ (Be thy own light). By promoting self-control and temperance, he sought to build a society of empowered individuals capable of making choices that contribute to their well-being and the betterment of society at large.
Forced liquor ban is a bad Gandhian idea. CM Yogi is doing the right thing by not shoving any such policy down UP’s throat. Bihar CM Nitish Kumar must rethink—Gujarat being a rich state can still pull resources from other sectors.
Dilip Mandal is the former managing editor of India Today Hindi Magazine, and has authored books on media and sociology. He tweets @Profdilipmandal. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)