Between the Govt selling and people consuming liquor, morals get pipped by the moolah involved
Bihar has problems managing prohibition. The Patna High Court recently wondered if the State police and excise officials were “in connivance with liquor smugglers”. Delhi, meanwhile, has its own set of issues. Its new excise policy is silent on the Government’s grand announcement lowering the drinking age from 25 to 21. That is because the municipal elections are around the corner and the Opposition parties opposed the move. Madhya Pradesh has a new excise policy, too, allowing liquor sale in airports and select malls apart from granting home bar licences to those earning `1 crore or more annually. Liquor will also be in the news till February as police raids in election-bound States lead to the seizure of alcohol allegedly meant for luring voters. However, the crisis here is not about the illegal liquor business. It is about the morality versus revenue binary that has hijacked the debate on the sale of liquor in India. And money has always won over morals. India makes and consumes the maximum liquor in the world. The sales from around 10 million retail outlets and over five lakh bars and pubs bring in around `2.6 trillion in annual revenue. The States get roughly the same amount in taxes. Around 600 million Indians are over the drinking age. Over 50 per cent of Indians fall in the 18-45 age group which the liquor industry targets. Rapid urbanisation and favourable demographics drive the trade today.
The rising purchasing power among the lower and upper middle classes is the biggest contributor. Modern trends and changing social norms have made liquor consumption acceptable even in family environments. More women consume liquor today. The industry targets Tier I and Tier II cities where the maximum demand is. The preference is shifting to quality alcohol and demand is growing for premium and imported liquor. Beer and wine are necessary aperitifs and trendy drinks for young adults. The Indian irony is that the liquor business and moral pangs are ageing simultaneously. The Constitution asks the Government to “bring about prohibition” but the country’s economy asks the Government to look the other way. Prohibition, therefore, is mostly in the mind than on paper, except in Gujarat and, more recently, in Bihar. The dichotomy makes our parties and leaders cringe from taking any clear stand. And we end up in bizarre situations. An 18-year-old can smoke and vote but cannot drink till 25. An addict in Bihar spends more money than before prohibition because he has to go all the way to the State’s border to access liquor. The solution is not banning liquor but drinking responsibly. The question is who will determine it for the people? Do the States have the right to impinge on individual freedom on the ground of public health? Can they impose moral restrictions on drinking when they are highly dependent on the revenue the business brings in? Or do we simply evade the problem?
