Liquor ban in Bihar leaves questions unanswered
The ongoing debate on the efficacy of liquor prohibition in Bihar reminds us of an Urdu couplet, “Tabsara kar rahe hain duniya par/ chand bacche sharabkhane mein (Sitting in a tavern/ juveniles are interpreting the world). The latest hooch tragedy is another reminder that booze flows as readily in Bihar as in any other state despite tall claims of effective implementation of liquor ban by the Nitish Kumar-led government.
The Chief Minister seems to have decided a fait accompli for all Biharis who like their drinks; “If you will drink, you will die”. Wish those who lost their lives were also told the same by him! A people’s campaign to drive home the message of prohibition to ordinary households could have averted this disaster. They deserved to be sensitized about the fact that drinking could potentially lead to death.
However, you cannot sermonize over 70 bereaving families at a time when what they need is sympathy. There has always been a political consensus in the state over this issue. No party has ever taken a stand against the ban. But one cannot use this tragedy to vindicate your point of view.
The rampant sale of liquor in most parts of Bihar is no secret. No political party is oblivious to this fact. But while other parties come and leave power corridors, Nitish Kumar has always been a constant for the past 17 years. This is why he cannot escape the responsibility for this disaster.
The Chief Minister has gone beyond his “If you drink, you will die” statement by declaring there will be no compensation for the victims’ families. It sounds more like hubris than a principled stand. Does Nitish Kumar need reminding that he leads the land of Buddha who preached hatred for none? If at all, this consternation should be saved for the crime and not the criminals themselves. Has crime ever ended by targeting criminals? You have to uproot the cause of the crime.
Habitual liquor intake is wrong and addicts cannot be justified. But they are still not murderers and don’t deserve to die. It would not be wrong to say that they have been murdered in this case. Who are their killers?
-The sellers of spurious liquor?
-What about those who allowed the distribution and selling of this poison?
-Can Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and his government escape the blame?
-Should Nitish Kumar’s current and former allies should also not share the responsibility?
The Chief Minister’s logic that compensating the bereaved families will promote the use of liquor is symptomatic of ideological bankruptcy. Compensation is a right, not a charity. It is not for the person who has died but to sustain those who are left behind. It is also the responsibility of any democratic government. You can also see compensation as a sort of atonement for the government’s mistakes or a symbol of its commitment and responsibility towards the people.
Nitish Kumar must understand that his government cannot behave like insurance companies that often deny compensation on the pretext of the circumstances of a tragedy. People have died because there are gaps in the reinforcement of prohibition, which is the government’s duty. Therefore, it is liable for compensation. One can argue a robust helping gesture to the affected families would only highlight the state government’s commitment towards prohibition.
Questions have been raised over the continuation of the liquor ban in the state when its implementation is so weak. Bihar is among India’s five states that have such a law in place. Gujarat is one among them. The moral conundrum, in this case, is whether such hooch tragedies should be a cause for strengthening the ban or throwing it out of the window.
The National Family Sample Survey suggests Bihar trumps many large states in liquor consumption. Nearly 15.4 per cent of its population is into this habit as compared to 11 per cent, 13.9 per cent and 14.5 per cent in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra respectively.
It is worth mentioning here that prohibition has led to a decrease in the total number of people consuming liquor in the state. A look at the data of the decade before the implementation of the liquor ban law and the five years that followed the decision reveals this fact. The effect of prohibition on consumption habits is most pronounced in the age group of 20-34 years. As compared to just 3.7 per cent of people who quit drinking in the decade before the liquor ban, the figure rose to 15.6 per cent in the next five years in this age group.
The government data also reveals the registration of 3.5 lakh cases under the prohibition law during the period between 2016 and October 2021. The state government is estimated to have lost an annual revenue of anywhere around 10,000 crores to 50,000 crores during the period.
We need to keep in mind that an overwhelming majority of people at the receiving end of this law are from poor communities. It is also true that the ban has given rise to a parallel illicit liquor economy. But if it is still leading to people quitting this menacing habit, then should we not focus instead on effective ways to reinforce the law instead of doing away with it?
We have seen hooch tragedies in states where there is no liquor ban. Spurious liquor is manufactured, and distributed and causes deaths there as well. It seems to have no direct correlation with the prohibition. One way of looking at it could be to try prohibition laws even in these states. Could it lead to an improvement in the situation?
The latest tragedy is a lesson for the entire country. Passing prohibition law is the job half done; reinforcing it is the real task. Any policy that spurts the production of poisonous liquor needs to be rethought. Nobody can disagree that habitual liquor drinking is threatening the well-being of our youth. As many as 2.6 lakh people die every year due to liquor-related causes. It is high time we find effective ways to deal with this problem.
