>Alcohol and elections seem to be the two great signifiers of Indian politics as they both mark its deep sense of hypocrisy, populism, cynicism and realism. In fact, the talk of prohibition reminds one of the debates in our Constituent Assembly. Prohibition, more than khadi, was often the ideological plank Gandhians identified themselves with. During the Constituent Assembly debates, the Gandhians, in their puritanical way, wanted to introduce prohibition as part of the Directive Principles of the Constitution. In this, they, the Gandhians, were almost strict and correct in their attitudes.
But it did not go unchallenged. “… this … is a vicious one. It seeks to interfere with my religious right. Whether you put it in the Constitution or not, I am not prepared to give up my religious privileges,” tribal member Jaipal Singh said during the debate on November 24, 1948, mentioning the fact that consumption of liquor brewed from rice was part of a tribal religious tradition. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified that any future law on prohibition would be applicable in tribal areas only according to the restrictions imposed by the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
My friend, the scientist C.V. Seshadri, once said that one has to look at alcohol consumption especially in a slum with a different eye. He reminded me that humans have benefitted from the process of alcohol fermentation for thousands of years and that it is one of those wonderful science discoveries. The very chemical process of fermentation which provides koor is also what adds nutritious value to rice batter preparations. Fermentation is a “great slum science”. It is just that it is an uncontrolled science and a bootlegger tends to adulterate drink with other ingredients which results in an almost toxic commodity. Dr. Seshadri advocated that testing laboratories be set up to check the quality of alcohol.
Politics of democracy, poverty I remember an activist friend of mine, a Marxist, making a case for alcohol. He mentioned how labourers heaved and carried enormous sacks in a godown and challenged me to do this. His argument was that in order to lift such a heavy object, you have to numb your senses. Without the numbness alcohol induces, you cannot be a labourer, he argued.
I began with these examples with a purpose — to argue that while drink is a part of folklore, prohibition has a different logic. It is a part of the Indian politics of democracy and the politics of poverty that we must try and understand. Prohibition seeks to ban the production and consumption of alcohol in an attempt to control the social consequences of alcoholism. Banning the consumption of alcohol has been a part of electoral politics. Many people falsely locate it as a vestige of Gandhian ideology. Prohibition is part of the symbolic politics of India where we create official diktats in order to conceal a series of epic violations. But the logic and hypocrisy of prohibition lies in the fact that it helps get electoral support, especially that of women. It is often contended that the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and founder of the All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam M.G. Ramachandran rode to power as he was aware of the nuances of prohibition politics.
Yet, >prohibition creates a sort of backstage where the curtains need to be drawn back and the reality examined. I remember a well-known film hero in Tamil Nadu whose life is a rags-to-riches story. Once asked what profession he would have chosen had he not become a star, his quick reply was, “a bootlegger or a smuggler.” It is these two trades, if one can call them so, that have created the great economies of the Indian slum. The impact on corruption has also been deep. Along with mining, smuggling and trafficking, prohibition also created the great trades of the informal economy. It was even a part of Bollywood, where the “Rolex watch” and the “Johnnie Walker bottle” were identified as two prominent symbols of politics. The slum too became the scene for this theatre. The pathos lay in the fact that the abuse of women’s rights became concomitant with alcohol consumption. Adulteration of alcohol became an issue too as a result of “hooch tragedies”.
There was also an ethnicisation of this crime. Minority groups unable to find employment took to bootlegging.
It’s policing, with loopholes Prohibition, as sociologists will tell you, never works completely. It is a policing system with too many loopholes. The story of Kerala’s efforts to introduce prohibition is a clear example. Let me elaborate. The >Kerala government introduced graded prohibition , arguing for the eventual idea of a liquor-free State. It did so by restricting the provision of liquor to be served only in five-star hotels. Yet, one could not quite decide whether liquor was the cause of Kerala’s social problems or a symptom of a wider social breakdown brought about by change. The Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision while contending that introducing prohibition was a difficult task. In fact, governments and politicians in the South present it like the new myth of Sisyphus where prohibition is introduced with fanfare only to be quietly withdrawn once it begins to affect the revenues of the State. In fact, prohibition has an electoral seasonality where politicians, like eager boy scouts, make the promise of prohibition only to abandon it later. The tourism industry is often cited as a rationale for withdrawing prohibition, but what liquor permits in five-star hotels do is to create, “a some are more equal than others” idea of alcohol consumption. The Kerala government bans the consumption of hard liquor but permits the consumption of beer and wine. The court itself read this decision as a two-step gateway to more consumption. It is clear that the government is caught between two constituencies — a civil society of social workers and religious groups afraid of familial breakdown on the one hand and a tourism industry afraid that tourists may stay away from a puritanical Kerala on the other.
Banning alcohol consumption also increases corruption. In Kerala, the bar owners, in their case before the Kerala government, argued that they had paid crores of rupees in the form of bribes to various leaders. In fact, prohibition becomes like a stylised governmental play which eventually borders on slapstick. Yet, what is interesting is that no one looks at the relationship between a breakdown of social norms and values, and alcoholism. Prohibition seems to be a pious, quick-fix solution which quickly comes apart, and then waits for someone to put it back together before the next election.
As electoral strategy Elections also bring out the “some are more pious than others” strategy of electoral politics. Politicians know that enforcing prohibition finds resonance with the large women constituency. There is always an element of populism. For example, Tamil Nadu took over the sale of alcohol. The enormous revenues accrued provide the support for its other subsidy programmes. In fact, piety and populism are what drive all parties. They realise that a reintroduction of prohibition will reopen a Pandora’s box, giving a huge lead to the party that proposes it first. All parties wish to tap votes around liquor tragedies; all parties also realise the farce of prohibition.
The problem of prohibition has become a governmental morality play. The government cannot play its populist games without the subsidies that the sale and consumption of alcohol provides. The general trend will be to move from prohibition to regulation. Regulation is a more flexible game where piety and populism can play out their respective parts in parallel silos.
It is in this context that Chief Minister >Nitish Kumar’s decision to introduce prohibition in his State, Bihar, has to be examined. Data from surveys done by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies show that Mr. Kumar’s political support base comprised largely of women. Women are in the forefront of the protests against the consumption of alcohol as it is they who usually experience firsthand the consequences such as domestic violence. Therefore, Mr. Kumar’s wish to consolidate this constituency is understandable. But there are problems of governance especially in a State not known for ideal law and order control. The danger of imposing prohibition will be to create a crime wave which consolidates itself around prohibition, as it happened previously around mining. Prohibition becomes a sham especially where bootleggers are concerned.
The moral rhetoric of prohibition is clear. The requirements of revenue are equally demanding. The real silence is about how to moderate the consequences of alcoholism. Civil society and state must enter into a new conversation that goes deep into an understanding of social life and its possibilities. Knee-jerk moralism or instrumental politics is the last thing the issue around the consumption of alcohol or governmentality needs.
Shiv Visvanathan is Professor, School of Law, O.P. Jindal Global University.
