Recorded references to intoxicating drinks go back by 7,000 years at least, and the arguments against their excessive use have had a concomitant life — the emphasis being on the word “excessive.” With the advent of modern nation states and the universal acceptance of personal liberty as a consistent political goal, the desirable or tolerable extent of state control over individual autonomy of choice has been a matter of debate in recent centuries. Alcohol has been a battleground to test this question.
Health, religious morality, social costs associated with drinking and the effect on the economy are some of the main arguments for regulation or complete prohibition of alcohol. Large-scale production and distribution of alcoholic beverages that accompanied the Industrial Revolution created panic not only among religious moralists but also among those who identified it as a threat to productivity and social order. In an 1886 pamphlet, Prohibition , American writer David R. Locke, representing a current of public opinion that was getting stronger, wrote: “Evils are to be killed, not regulated. The question today is not whether the individual man shall have the right to poison himself, but whether an organisation shall have the right by means of a poison to demoralise mankind for profit … ”
The opinion gained ground, and in 1920, the United States imposed prohibition that soon led to the growth of a fearsome underground mafia that not only thrived on bootlegging but also indulged in a lot of allied illegalities. By the end of the decade, the U.S. was convinced that prohibition did not work; in 1933, it was revoked.
ADVERTISEMENT
Writing around the same time, also drawing from the American experience, Harold J. Laski wrote in
“… [When] a particular statute is regarded as foolish or obnoxious by a considerable body of persons, they will rejoice in breaking it. Illegal conduct becomes a matter of even pride.”
The discussions in the Constituent Assembly were influenced by Gandhi’s advocacy of prohibition. But the move to include prohibition in the Directive Principles of the Constitution 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 in large swathes of the country. Dr. Ambedkar intervened to clarify 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.
ADVERTISEMENT
B.H. Khardekar made the strongest case against prohibition, on the grounds of individual liberty, and quoting Laski. “… a little about the moral side of prohibition … In a free India, Sir, the development of personality to its fullest extent is our aim and by frustrations, prohibition, inhibitions, suppressions we are going to have a stunted growth in the young men. It does not mean that we should encourage them to drink but they will find their mistakes and ultimately liberty — I don’t mean by liberty licence — would be of considerable use. If you were to compare the life in a city like Bombay on dry days and wet days, Sir, on dry days you will find life really dry and dull … ,” he said causing considerable disquiet among the Gandhians.
“The Greeks had it. True philosophers know how to enjoy both worlds and the foundations of philosophy and science were laid by the Great Greeks.”
Both history and philosophy are against prohibition. If further proof is needed, trust Malayalis to provide that.