PI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury may have caused some embarrassment to the State leadership of his party and the Opposition Left Democratic Front (LDF) with his statement that the front will not reopen the bars that have been shut down by the Oommen Chandy government, but he may well have nudged the alliance away from the kind of dilemma that it was faced with in 1996 when it came to power after a strident campaign against closure of arrack outlets across the State by the 1995-96 A.K. Antony government.
The State CPI(M) leaders, along with the rest of the LDF leadership, have been speaking in vague terms about what they would do about the shut down of liquor bars with the insistence that the policy of the LDF is promotion of abstinence rather than prohibition.
The Opposition leaders have been insisting that prohibition is no solution to liquor menace and that the only pragmatic solution is to encourage drinkers to abstain from drinking liquor. In practical terms, this could only mean a more relaxed liquor policy, though the LDF leaders did not say so, which could see more bars being opened in the State.
What the CPI(M) general secretary has done with his categorical statement in New Delhi on Friday is to end the LDF leadership’s ambivalence over the issue.
In 1996, the CPI(M) and the LDF had come out strongly against the Antony government’s decision to shut down the arrack outlets on the argument that it would lead to illicit brewing even as it threw thousands of arrack shop workers out of employment.
The State had witnessed suicide by a few arrack shop workers and a strong agitation by workers, who took heart from the LDF leaders’ promise that they would take a serious look at the Antony government’s decision. However, once it came to power, the LDF government found that it could not roll back that decision and the only support that the arrack shop workers got was some ex gratia payments and employment for some in the State-run retail liquor outlets.
That the party which had taken a strong position against reopening of the closed arrack outlets in 1996 was the CPI. However, this time round, the CPI has been most articulate about the abstinence option. The party has taken the stand that liquor policy is something to be decided on a year-to-year basis. The CPI(M) leadership has also taken a similar stand. Mr. Yechury’s effort appears to be to create a hedge against any negative fallout from their stand on the liquor bar issue even at the cost of giving the UDF something to gloat about.
