Nirmalya Dutta

Sticking to one of his pre-election promises, Bihar Assembly elections, CM Nitish Kumar announced that alcohol will be banned in Bihar from April 1, 2016 which will be rather a cruel joke on alcohol-loving Biharis. The promise to ban alcohol was made to woo women voters who have been at the forefront of protests against rising liquor consumption in rural areas of the state. Bihar’s Excise and Prohibition Minister in Nitish’s cabinet, Abdul Jalil Mastan had said after taking office: “We will start work to impose a ban on liquor in Bihar. It would be visible in the next six months.”

Before anyone cries that such a move is unconstitutional, it’s actually not. Alcohol is a state-subject and each state governments has the right to decide whether they want to ban it or not. The last state to bring in a liquor ban was Kerala, which decided to phase out hard liquor in the next ten years. Meanwhile, the consumption of liquor is already banned in states like Gujarat, Manipur, Nagaland and the union territory of Lakshadweep.

The alcohol issue in Bihar

The alcohol issue in Bihar stemmed from the Nitish Kumar government’s decision to liberalise the state’s liquor policy in 2007 which helped shore up the funds. Big business arrived in the state, but the move was extremely unpopular in various areas. In 2013, the women in Rohtas district, led by Sunita Singh, started the ‘Pragatisheel Mahila Sangh’ to campaign against liquor shops in the state. Alcoholism was a significant problem in the region and even children would get addicted.

She was quoted saying by Catch News: “We found that there are over 100 widows in villages like Karwandiya, Bansa and Sitabigha. Most of them had lost husbands due to alcohol addictions. We came to the conclusion that fighting petty vendors is not enough – we will have to wage a political struggle.”

The agitation in turn reached Nitish Kumar who promised to ban alcohol if his government came to power. Sadly, we’ve learned the hard way that liquor bans seldom work.

Why a ban won’t work

While the issue raised by the women about liquor consumption is valid, we’ve learnt over the years that bans seldom work. They just push the alcohol consumption underground which then brings the criminal element into the picture. In the US, alcohol was prohibited from 1920 to 1933, an era known as Prohibition which showed why the banning was never a solution. People still got drunk, drunken driving was still a problem, men still beat up women and their child.

There was the added issue of people drinking contraband alcohol which led to deaths sometimes from methyl alcohol poisoning and the law-enforcement officers were stretched thin trying to catch the people who sold contraband liquor (though it did lead to an awesome movie like The Untouchables).

The Prohibition also accelerated the rise of the Italian Mafia (romanticised by the likes of Mario Puzo and Hollywood), who made supplying contraband their business and once alcohol was legalised moved on to a host of other avenues.

Who it will hurt the most

The ban on alcohol usually hurts the lowest strata of society the most. In 2015 in Mumbai over a hundred people were killed after consuming illegal hooch. In the last decade, over a thousand people have died due to hooch-related issues in West Bengal (156 people in 2011), Gujarat (136 people in 2009), Karnataka and Tamil Nadu (180 dead in 2008), Odisha ( 200 dead in 1992) and the worst Karnataka in 1981 when over 300 people died due to methyl alcohol poisoning. As we can see from the Gujarat example, a state which has had prohibition since its inception, the idea never worked.

Sadly, Nitish Kumar’s hands were tied, and just as he had to include Yadav brothers in his cabinet, this was a pre-poll promise that he had to fulfill.

Disclaimer:The views expressed above are the author’s own