As the 2027 Assembly elections approach, Punjab’s drug menace has once again become a political battleground. But after years of failed promises and missed deadlines, parties across the spectrum must answer a more fundamental question: who will accept responsibility for the crisis?
Punjab’s drug crisis presents a troubling paradox - it has remained a defining concern through successive governments, yet political accountability for it has never been clearly established. Every party that comes to power promises to break the drug networks, rescue the state’s youth, and deliver a Punjab free of narcotics. When those promises remain unfulfilled, the blame shifts to the government that preceded it. As the 2027 Assembly elections approach, the familiar cycle has begun again. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is under attack over its record, the Opposition is presenting the crisis as evidence of governmental failure, and the BJP is promising a drug-free Punjab if given an opportunity to govern. But after years of political assurances, the question is no longer who can make the strongest promise. It is who is willing to accept responsibility for what has gone wrong.
The persistence of the problem is itself an indictment of the political class. Punjab has witnessed changes in government, successive anti-drug campaigns, repeated deadlines, and extensive enforcement drives. Yet the crisis continues to intrude into ordinary lives, from families struggling with addiction to communities worried about the availability of drugs and the safety of those who challenge suspected suppliers. The issue has moved beyond the realm of election rhetoric. It has become a test of governance, institutional credibility, and the ability of the state to protect its people.
The latest incidents have sharpened that test. The killing of anti-drug activist Parvinder Singh Jhota in Mansa, the death of Gulzar Singh after he reportedly consumed a poisonous substance for questioning a Minister, and other disturbing cases involving people who raised concerns about the drug trade have intensified public anger. Jagseer Singh’s reported suicide attempt after accusing the police of failing to act on complaints against suspected suppliers has added to questions about institutional responsiveness. Now, the suspected drug-overdose death of 17-year-old Abhijot Singh in Fazilka has brought the human cost into even sharper focus. Reports said he had returned from a de-addiction centre shortly before his death.
The precise circumstances of these cases must be established through impartial investigations, but their cumulative impact has made it increasingly difficult for political leaders to treat the drug crisis as just another issue in the electoral contest. For AAP, the scrutiny is particularly severe because the party made the eradication of drugs a central promise of its 2022 election campaign. It presented itself as a break from the political establishment that had failed to resolve the problem. Four deadlines later, that promise remains unfulfilled. Before the 2022 elections, party supremo Arvind Kejriwal promised to eliminate drugs within six months, at one point suggesting the task could be accomplished sooner. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann subsequently promised a blueprint and success by the following Independence Day. In 2024, another target of December 31 was announced. The government’s Yudh Nasheyan Virudh campaign, launched in March 2025, set May 31 that year as another deadline.
Each date raised expectations. None delivered the promised drug-free Punjab. The government has continued to publicise arrests, seizures, and action against alleged traffickers. Such measures are necessary, and their value should be assessed on the evidence. But enforcement statistics cannot, by themselves, establish whether drugs have become less accessible, whether major supply networks have been dismantled, or whether fewer young people are falling into addiction. The more meaningful test is whether the crisis is becoming less visible in people’s lives, whether families can access treatment, whether rehabilitation leads to sustained recovery, whether complaints are acted upon, and whether those who report suspected trafficking feel safe.
AAP cannot indefinitely answer questions about its own record by pointing to the failures of previous governments. As the party in power, it has immediate responsibility for the functioning of the state police and administration. It must explain what its campaigns have achieved, where they have fallen short and what will change. Its electoral mandate makes accountability more pressing, not less.
But the Opposition’s criticism must also be examined against its own history. The Congress came to power in 2017 after Capt Amarinder Singh promised to eradicate drugs within four weeks. The Shiromani Akali Dal-BJP alliance governed Punjab from 2007 to 2017, when the drug menace had already become a major public concern. Both formations now attack AAP over its failure to contain the crisis. Yet neither can credibly suggest that the problem began with the present government.
The BJP’s latest campaign has added a new dimension to the contest. Its Nasha Mukt Punjab Yatra covered nearly 4,000 km through four parallel routes across the state’s 117 Assembly constituencies. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has visited families affected by the drug menace and promised to make Punjab drug-free by December 31, 2029, if the BJP comes to power. The party has sought to turn drugs and law and order into central issues ahead of the 2027 elections, putting AAP on the defensive over a promise that was central to its own rise.
The BJP is entitled to question the state government’s record. But a fresh deadline is not, by itself, a policy. Having shared power in Punjab for a decade, it must also explain why the problem persisted during the SAD-BJP years and what concrete measures would make its proposed approach different. The Congress, too, must answer for its time in office. The SAD cannot separate itself from the years in which it governed. A party does not become free of responsibility simply because it is now in Opposition.
This is where Punjab’s political debate repeatedly fails the public. Parties acknowledge the scale of the problem when attacking their rivals, but the discussion rarely extends to a full accounting of their own records. AAP invokes the failures of previous governments; Congress points to AAP’s unmet promises; the BJP highlights the state government’s record while presenting itself as the alternative. Responsibility becomes something to be transferred rather than exercised.
The distinction between the Centre’s and the state’s roles is important, but it should not become another excuse. Drug trafficking can involve cross-border supply, interstate networks, local distribution, and organised crime. The Centre has responsibilities in national narcotics control and border security, while the State Government is directly responsible for policing, investigation, public order, and the delivery of treatment and rehabilitation services. These responsibilities are different, but complementary. Neither level of government can use the other’s shortcomings to evade scrutiny of its own performance.
Nor can the crisis be resolved through policing alone. Traffickers and organised supply networks must face effective action, but addiction also requires accessible treatment, sustained rehabilitation, family support, and measures to prevent relapse. The reported circumstances surrounding Abhijot’s death underline the importance of examining not just access to treatment, but also continuity of care after a person leaves a de-addiction facility. His case cannot, on its own, establish a failure in treatment, but it raises a broader question about whether recovery services are adequately supported and sustained.
A credible strategy must also protect those who report suspected drug activity and ensure that complaints are investigated promptly and impartially. Public confidence cannot be restored through political assurances alone. It depends on whether people see institutions responding effectively, whether investigations establish the truth, and whether officials are held accountable when they fail in their duties.
The state needs transparent measures by which progress can be judged: changes in drug availability, successful prosecutions of major suppliers, access to treatment, sustained recovery, and timely action on complaints. It needs a long-term strategy that continues beyond an election cycle, with regular public reporting and scrutiny. Every party seeking power should be required to explain its past record, identify what it would do differently, and set out how it would measure success.
Punjab’s drug crisis is not simply a contest between AAP and the Opposition. It is a test of whether political leadership can move beyond blame and accept the obligations of governance. The government in office must answer for what is happening now; parties that governed earlier must answer for what they did - and failed to do - during their tenure. Neither electoral promises nor the failures of rivals can substitute for that accounting.
Punjab has heard the promises and watched the deadlines pass. Its people cannot afford another cycle in which a new government inherits the crisis, announces another target and eventually passes the blame to its successor.
Public confidence cannot be restored through political assurances alone. It depends on whether people see institutions responding effectively, whether investigations establish the truth, and whether officials are held accountable when they fail in their duties.
Monika Malik is the Chief Reporter, The Pioneer, Chandigarh; Views presented are personal.