‘Prohibition in Bihar’
‘Prohibition in Bihar’
Adv. Paromita Goswami/Dr. Kalyan Kumar ‘Prohibition in Bihar’ is the first policy announcement made by Nitish Kumar’s newly formed government. He justified the move as keeping an election promise he made to the women of Bihar, a section that contributed significantly to his victory. Strangely, the English media, both press and electronic, which covered the election from every angle possible, did not place much importance to Nitish’s promise for prohibition. In fact, generally the English media avoids reporting on prohibition even though the demand for prohibition is a wave across the country, in states such as Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Chhatisgarh, and Tamil Nadu. People have lost lives over this issue – Sasi Perumal in Tamil Nadu, … in Rajasthan and yet the English media is distinctly uncomfortable in reporting this issue head on.
An important reason for this avoidance rises from
the fact that the English media has imagined a particular profile of
its audience as comprising of the urban, English educated, middle –to
– upper class, liberal, modern, professional. It further imagines
this audience as uninterested in or even largely opposed to prohibition
and therefore it either avoids reporting the prohibition issue or reports
it with a twist. For instance, the arrest of prohibition activist ….
was reported by a major English magazine with an emphasis on the outrageousness
of using the sedition charge. A second reason is that there are senior
journalists who are fundamentally opposed to bans of any kind. Shekhar
Gupta for instance coined the word ‘banomania’ to describe what
he perceives as the penchant for governments to ban this or that thereby
treating the symptom rather than attacking the disease. Caught in this
symptom/disease bind the media ends up investigating neither. The abhorrence
for bans prevents them from either picking up the issue during their
intense election-coverage tours or analyzing it in-depth.
It is not just the media but the intellectual class
itself refuses to deal with this issue. Serious scholars who analyse
the impact of fuelwood collection by women on the domestic economy do
not discuss the impact of liquor on the domestic economy. Feminist scholars
who write about women’s right to land and livelihood do not want to
interrogate the impact of liquor on the lives of rural women. Somehow
the liquor issue is no-go area for the intellectual class - it is seen
as illiberal, backward, embarrassing even. By avoiding the issue
they lose out on understanding the complexities associated with it –
complexities that go beyond the loss of revenue and the liberal paranoia
of bans.
The question to ask is why are people demanding prohibition
across the country, especially in the rural areas? A straightforward
answer is of course that liquor is leads to health problems and roadkills.
It is associated not only with violence against women and girls inside
the homes and outside. It prevents women from accessing public spaces
– one reason why women don’t attend general gram sabhas is the presence
of drunken men who don’t allow them to speak. Men not only fritter
away meager wages on liquor, women across the country will narrate how
men sell mangalsutras, utensils, clothes, even shoes for it. In extreme
cases they hand over precious land documents and cheque books to the daruwala. Scuffles even
murders happen around liquor. Liquor further impoverishes the rural
poor and the brunt is undoubtedly borne by the women who are left to
fend for the family. Women know by experience what the WHO reports through
survey – that the age at which men are starting to drink is coming
down. They see their sons and grandsons barely in their teens getting
drunk. This, combined with a loosening of rural social norms that prevented
people in the past from drinking in front of their elders, leads to
immense misery and torture for parents.
Beyond these adverse effects, the most significant
aspect of the problem is the mushrooming of licensed liquor stores in
rural areas. The excise policy of State Governments is aimed at increasing
the sale of liquor in order increase revenue. In Chandrapur district
of Maharashtra the ratio of licensed liquor shops (including country
liquor, beer bars and wine shops) to male population was …. before
the district went dry in April 2015. Licenses are of course given to
the karyakartas of the ruling
party who is also a neta of the area. In due
course the entire politics of the area starts revolving around liquor.
An excise policy geared towards increasing liquor supply could be tempered
with adequate regulation of the substance. But regulation is completely
missing. Provisions such as restricting sale to people over a certain
age, to people with drinking permits, in certain hours of the day, observance
of certain dry days are never followed. Similarly, provisions regarding
location of stores at a certain distance from educational institutions
and places of worship are rampantly violated. License holders who are
supposed to sell within shop premises are known to create smuggling
networks over large areas. The excise department which is supposed to
ensure these regulations is always missing in action. In fact,
in keeping with the policy, the excise department interprets its primary
function as ensuring a steady and increasing supply rather than regulating
the flow of liquor. Excise officials are issued notices if the consumption
falls in a district – god forbid!
In Maharashtra, the State Government has given certain
powers to the women’s Gram Sabhas to pass resolutions regarding closing
down of liquor stores, bars and wine shops in their village. However,
we have first- hand experience that these provisions are next to impossible
to implement and are structured to ensure that women fail in meeting
the required conditions. Even when they do succeed against all odds,
either the Excise Commissioner, the Excise Minister or the High Court
overturns the Gram Sabha decisions and things continue as before. State
Governments refuse to revisit their excise policy even in the face of
crises. The Committee on Regional Backlogs headed by eminent economist
Dr. Vijay Kelkar noted that liquor is an important factor contributing
to farmers’ suicides in Western Vidarbha. In spite of this the government
is yet to respond to the demand for prohibition in that area.
Given this situation where all the odds are stacked
against them, people who demand prohibition have no option but to do
so. Faced with the terrible impact of alcohol and the state’s skewed
policy, they realize prohibition is the best available option. Instead
of brushing the issue aside as banomania or illiberal the political
economy of liquor ought to be approached with a social justice perspective.
Meanwhile, congratulations to women of Bihar for thrusting this issue
on the political platform and to Nitish Kumar for his backing his assurances
with action.
