Why do some Indian states ban alcohol? What are its effects?

Preparing for UPSC? Use CRACKUPSC20 code here to get an extra 20% discount on Indian Express subscription.

Gandhi wrote, “Alcohol makes a man forget himself and while its effects last, he becomes utterly incapable of doing anything useful. Those who take to drinking, ruin themselves and ruin their people.”

We take a look at prohibition in India and its impact.

How the Indian constitution views alcohol

One of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) mentions that “in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.” While DPSPs are not in themselves legally enforceable, they set goals that the state should aspire towards to establish conditions under which citizens can lead a good life. Thus, alcohol is seen by the Constitution and by extension, the Indian state, as an undesirable evil that needs to be regulated.

However, according to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, alcohol is a state subject, i.e. state legislatures have the right and responsibility to draft laws regarding it, including “the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors.” Thus, laws regarding alcohol differ from state to state, falling in the whole spectrum between prohibition and private sale.

Why do all states not have prohibition?

While the Constitution sets prohibition on alcohol as a goal, for most states, it is very difficult to declare a ban on alcohol. This is primarily because liquor revenues are not easy to ignore and have consistently contributed a large share of state governments’ revenue.

For instance, in Maharashtra, state liquor revenues amounted to Rs 11,000 crore in April 2020 (during the nationwide Covid lockdown), compared with Rs 17,000 crore in March. The state government attributed much of this drop to the closure of liquor stores, later categorising them as an essential service, in part due to the industry’s contribution to tax revenues. The day liquor stores were reopened, the Maharashtra government collected Rs 11 crore revenue from liquor sales in a single day.

What are some of the places which currently have prohibition?

All states have some regulations with regards to alcohol consumption and sale (like age requirements or dry days). Currently, there are five states with total prohibition and some more with partial prohibition.

Bihar

Both the sale and consumption of liquor was completely banned by the Nitish Kumar government back in 2016, in keeping with a promise made to the women of Bihar by the chief minister ahead of the Assembly polls held the previous year. Severe punishments were imposed on those found to be flouting the ban, including heavy fines and prison sentences. Earlier this year, the Bihar government passed an amendment to its prohibition laws, which dials down on punishment to first-time “drinkers” and lets them get away with a fine rather than face arrest. This was done to unclog Bihar’s already overcrowded jails and focus the government’s attention on sellers and distributors rather than consumers of liquor.

Gujarat

Gujarat has had prohibition since it came into existence as a state in 1960. In the 62 years since prohibition has been around in Gujarat, the Act has seen several amendments. Notably, in 2009, then chief minister Narendra Modi introduced the death penalty for sellers/producers if their spurious alcohol caused deaths. However, Gujarat has provisions for special alcohol licences for hospitality establishments as well as individuals.

Lakshadweep

The Union Territory bans both the consumption and sale of alcohol keeping in mind the culture and sentiments of its predominantly Muslim population. However, the island of Bangram has a resort with a bar which is allowed to legally serve liquor.

Mizoram

In 2019, Mizoram became a “dry state” once again after the new government reintroduced prohibition that was repealed in 2015. Previously, Mizoram had seen prohibition for 18 years. The Mizo National Front (MNF) government had prohibition as one of its most important pre-poll promises. While announcing the reintroduction of prohibition, an MNF minister said “the loss of revenue is much less than the loss of human life and suffering. Larger societal benefit is more vital.” Only military personnel and those with “medical needs” are allowed to consume alcohol.

Nagaland

Nagaland introduced total prohibition in 1989 due to “moral and social” reasons, for the greater good of its citizens. However, in recent times, the Naga government has mulled partially lifting prohibition due to various reasons.

Some states with partial prohibition are Karnataka, which specifically banned country-made arrack in 2007, Maharashtra where the districts of Wardha and Gadhricholi have banned on production and sale of liquor, and Manipur, where districts of Bishnupur, Imphal East, Imphal West and Thoubal have prohibition.

In 2014, then chief minister Oomen Chandy announced that Kerala would implement prohibition in a phased manner. However, the state has since gone back on this promise.

Does prohibition work?

There is evidence to show that by and large, prohibition creates opportunities for a thriving underground economy that distributes liquor, outside the regulatory framework of the state. This creates its own problems, from strengthening organised crime groups (or mafias) to the distribution of spurious liquor.

In the case of Bihar, The Indian Express had earlier reported that a year after prohibition was enforced, there was a spike in substance abuse.

While the government made liquor more inaccessible, it is impossible to take it out of circulation completely.

Furthermore, prohibition disproportionately affects poorer sections of society with upper classes still being able to procure expensive (and safe) alcohol. Even in the case of Bihar, a majority of cases registered under its prohibition laws are on the less privileged.

However, prohibition might have some limited benefits as well. Various studies have provided evidence linking alcohol with domestic abuse or domestic violence. In India, prohibition has often been framed as a “women’s rights” issue. Nitish Kumar’s decision in Bihar was ostensibly made on these grounds. There is some evidence to suggest that prohibition has a positive impact in this case.

A report by the Sexual Violence Research Initiative says that after prohibition was introduced in 2016, “crimes against women have clearly declined both in terms of rate (registered cases per 100,000 female population) and incidence (absolute numbers).” While other factors may also be involved, other studies have shown marginal improvement in certain kinds of crime after prohibition.

Emily Owens, an economist at the University of California Irvine, argues that “prohibitions (in the US) were associated with lower murder rates” and lower crime overall, specifically when one looked at “alcohol and violence.” She said, “It (prohibition) affects family members, it affects kids, it affects violence that happens inside someone’s home.”