Bihar prohibition: A decade of dry law

On April 5, 2016, Bihar embarked on an ambitious and morally charged experiment, complete prohibition. Conceived as a transformative social reform aimed at curbing alcohol abuse, empowering women, and fostering public health, the policy was hailed as a bold assertion of political will. Ten years on, however, the moment calls less for celebration and more for introspection. Has prohibition delivered on its promises, or has it unravelled into a complex web of unintended consequences?

The origins of this policy lie in the political churn of 2015, when Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, responding to sustained demands from women's groups, pledged to enforce a complete ban on alcohol if returned to power. True to his word, the government implemented prohibition in phases-initially on April 1, 2016, followed by a comprehensive ban on April 5. Rooted in Gandhian ideals and Directive Principles of State Policy, the move carried both moral and constitutional resonance.

Yet, the policy marked a dramatic reversal from the state's earlier fiscal strategy. In 2005, Bihar's budget stood at a modest INR 27,000 crore, with limited revenue streams. To augment income, the government had expanded liquor retail aggressively. The number of liquor outlets rose from 3,436 in 2006-07 to 5,467 in 2012-13, with rural areas witnessing an increase of over 200 percent. Consequently, excise revenue surged from INR 500 crore in 2006 to nearly INR 6,000 crore by 2015. Alcohol had, in effect, become a fiscal mainstay. Prohibition, therefore, came at a steep economic cost. In 2015-16, Bihar earned INR 3,142 crore from excise duties. Within a year of the ban, this plummeted to a mere INR 46 crore, and by 2017-18, it was virtually nil. The state is estimated to have suffered an annual revenue loss of around INR 4,000 crore since then. Meanwhile, neighboring states such as Jharkhand and West Bengal reaped indirect benefits. Jharkhand's excise revenue rose from INR 912 crore in 2015-16 to INR 1,600 crore in 2017-18, while West Bengal's collections climbed from INR 4,014 crore to INR 5,781 crore over the same period. The implication is evident: demand did not disappear-it merely crossed borders.

Legally, the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act was among the most stringent in the country. Early provisions included collective fines and even the arrest of all adult family members in a household where alcohol was found. Over time, however, the law underwent three amendments, softening its harshest edges. First-time offenders can now be released upon paying fines ranging from INR 2,000 to INR 5,000. These revisions reflect the administrative and ethical challenges inherent in enforcing such a sweeping ban. Despite the rigidity of the law, illicit trade has flourished. The persistence of bootlegging networks and recurrent tragedies involving spurious liquor underscore a critical failure of enforcement.

Rather than eliminating consumption, prohibition appears to have driven it underground, exacerbating risks to both law enforcement and public health.

Equally concerning is the shift in patterns of substance abuse.

A 2017 pilot study conducted by a team of doctors revealed that over 25 percent of habitual drinkers turned to alternatives such as toddy, cannabis, and hashish following the ban. Data from the Narcotics Control Bureau corroborates this trend. Seizures of cannabis in Bihar rose dramatically from 14 kilograms in 2015 to 10,800 kilograms in 2016, and further to 27,395 kilograms by 2021-an increase of nearly 2,700 percent. Similarly, hashish seizures, which were negligible in 2015, climbed to 115 kilograms in 2016 and 363 kilograms in 2021. These figures suggest not a decline in addiction, but its mutation into other, often more insidious forms. The state's response to rehabilitation has been, at best, modest. Plans to establish de-addiction centres across all 38 districts, each with a capacity of 10 beds, amount to a total of just 380 beds. This is manifestly inadequate for a state grappling with widespread substance dependency, raising questions about the comprehensiveness of the policy framework. From a social standpoint, the results are equally ambiguous.

One of the principal objectives of prohibition was to reduce domestic violence and improve women's safety. Yet, data offers little evidence of substantive progress. The proportion of women experiencing domestic violence rose marginally from 40.2 percent in 2015-16 to 40.6 percent in 2019-20. Reported crimes against women also increased from 13,891 cases in 2015 to 17,950 in 2021. These trends underscore a crucial point: deep-rooted social issues cannot be resolved through a singular legislative intervention.

Moreover, prohibition has had a disproportionate economic impact on marginalised communities. Sections such as the Mahadalits, who were traditionally engaged in the production of local liquor, lost a vital source of livelihood. Instead of integrating these groups into alternative economic frameworks, the policy inadvertently pushed them further to the margins, raising concerns about equity and social justice.

Even today, prohibition remains more aspirational than absolute. Estimates suggest that nearly 17 percent of men (NFHS-5 Data) in Bihar continue to consume alcohol, indicating persistent gaps in enforcement and compliance. This disconnect between policy intent and ground reality reveals the inherent limitations of prohibition as a tool of governance.

In conclusion, Bihar's decade-long experiment with prohibition stands as a compelling case study in public policy. It reflects the tension between moral aspiration and practical governance, between political will and societal complexity. While the intent behind the policy was undeniably noble, its outcomes have been mixed, if not contradictory.

The way forward lies not in rigid adherence or outright abandonment, but in recalibration. A nuanced approach-combining regulation, awareness, robust rehabilitation mechanisms, and economic alternatives for affected communities-may prove more effective.

Bihar's experience serves as a reminder that complex social challenges demand equally sophisticated and adaptive solutions. Policies, after all, must ultimately be judged not by their intent, but by their impact.

The writer, a recipient of the Society Development Award 2018 and the Bharat Leadership Award 2018 is an Advocate based in New Delhi ; views are personal