Photo Courtesy: Image by LEEROY Agency from Pixabay | For representational purpose only
Meyu Changkiri
The recent deaths reported in Mokokchung and Tuensang, suspected to be linked to spurious or adulterated liquor, have once again brought the issue of alcohol into sharp focus in Nagaland. These tragedies remind us that this debate is not merely about law, morality or personal choice. It concerns human life, public health, family well-being and the responsibility we share in protecting our society.
The Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act, 1989, was enacted with the intention of restricting alcohol consumption and protecting people from its harmful consequences. Yet, after decades of prohibition, liquor remains available through illegal channels. This raises important questions about the law's effectiveness, its implementation and the measures needed to reduce alcohol-related harm.
The circumstances surrounding the recent deaths must be established through proper investigation. Beyond determining responsibility, we must ask what lessons these tragedies offer for protecting lives and preventing similar incidents.
The question before us is not simply whether prohibition should continue or be lifted. It is whether our present and proposed approaches genuinely serve the long-term interests of the people of Nagaland.
Prohibition, Regulation and the Public Interest
The Naga Council Dimapur and the NLTP Act Repeal Committee have renewed their demand to lift prohibition in Dimapur District and introduce a regulated, taxation-based system. They have also proposed a one-year trial period, with restrictions on matters such as sales hours, minimum age and purchase quantities.
Their concerns deserve serious consideration. Persistent violations raise legitimate questions about enforcement and practical effectiveness. However, the existence of an illegal market does not, by itself, prove that prohibition has no value. Equally, retaining a law without honestly assessing its outcomes is insufficient.
Regulation might improve oversight of licensed sales and product quality if properly designed and enforced. Yet legal availability alone cannot eliminate illicit supply, excessive consumption, alcohol dependence or family distress. Preventing the circulation of adulterated liquor is essential, but ensuring product safety and reducing the wider harms of alcohol are distinct responsibilities.
We must assess both the strengths and limitations of the existing law and the likely consequences of any proposed alternative. Public policy should be guided by evidence, practical safeguards and the well-being of the people, rather than by assumptions or ideological positions.
Dimapur and the Wider Implications for Nagaland
Dimapur's position as a major gateway and commercial centre of Nagaland makes the proposal to lift prohibition only in the district particularly significant. What happens in Dimapur may have implications beyond its boundaries.
This raises a fundamental question: Would lifting prohibition in Dimapur help contain the problem, or could it increase access to liquor across the state?
A regulated market may be easier to monitor than an illegal one, as its proponents argue. However, the government would need credible answers to practical questions. How would it prevent legally purchased liquor from being transported into districts where prohibition remains in force? What safeguards would prevent diversion into the illegal market? Would enforcement agencies have sufficient resources and accountability to monitor sales and distribution effectively?
The consequences cannot be assumed in advance. They would depend on the regulatory framework, enforcement capacity, transport routes and public behaviour. Nevertheless, the possibility of cross-district diversion makes this more than a local policy decision.
If a trial period is considered, it should have clearly defined objectives, independent monitoring and transparent evaluation. Its success should not be measured only by revenue or the availability of regulated products. The assessment should also consider alcohol-related illness, illicit sales, road safety, youth access, family distress and effects on neighbouring districts.
Before treating Dimapur as a solution to Nagaland's liquor problem, we must establish whether a district-specific policy can be effectively contained, regulated and shown to serve the wider public interest.
Enforcement, Accountability and Public Trust
Perhaps the most uncomfortable question is why illegal liquor continues to circulate despite the prohibition law. There are public concerns and allegations that influential individuals, including people in positions of power, may be involved in or benefit from the illegal liquor trade. Such serious allegations require impartial investigation and credible evidence. Anyone found responsible for illegal activities should be held accountable, regardless of position, influence or affiliation.
The recent response in Mokokchung deserves recognition. Following reports of deaths and hospitalisations linked to suspected spurious liquor, the district administration, under Deputy Commissioner Ajit Kumar Verma, declared zero tolerance towards the sale, transportation, manufacture and storage of liquor. It moved to intensify checks and raids in coordination with the police, village councils and other local stakeholders.
This timely and coordinated response reflects the importance of administrative leadership and community cooperation in addressing a serious public-safety concern. The willingness of local institutions and community stakeholders to work together in protecting lives is particularly significant. Such collective action demonstrates that public safety is a shared responsibility and that cooperation between the administration and the people can make an important contribution to addressing urgent social problems.
At the same time, emergency measures must be followed by sustained and impartial enforcement, proper investigation into the sources of illicit liquor, and accountability wherever wrongdoing is established. The longer-term test is whether these efforts can prevent further tragedies and address the networks that enable illegal sales. Mokokchung's experience should be recognised not only as an immediate response to a crisis, but also as an opportunity to strengthen cooperation, public trust and the consistent implementation of the law.
If enforcement is selective, ineffective or compromised by vested interests, the problem extends beyond the law itself. It becomes a question of governance, institutional integrity and public trust. A law cannot achieve its intended purpose if violations go unchecked or those responsible are perceived to enjoy immunity.
If prohibition is retained, its implementation must be fair and effective. If regulation is introduced, safeguards must prevent corruption, unauthorised distribution and the continuation of existing illegal networks under a different arrangement. Neither prohibition nor regulation can succeed without accountability.
The Human Dimension of Alcohol Dependence
The public debate must also recognise the people and families affected by alcohol dependence. Recovery is possible, but sustaining it can be difficult. Detoxification may be an important first step, while long-term recovery often requires continuing care, supportive relationships and an environment that encourages healthier choices. Familiar social circles and established drinking habits can make recovery more challenging.
Families may invest considerable time, resources and emotional energy in supporting a loved one, only to face the distress of a return to drinking. Such experiences remind us that alcohol dependence should not be addressed through condemnation alone. Personal responsibility matters, but so do appropriate treatment, rehabilitation, continuing support and community understanding.
Families cannot carry this burden alone. Health services, trained professionals, community organisations and recovery-support networks all have a role to play. Churches and Christian organisations can contribute through education, pastoral care, prevention programmes and support for affected families, working alongside qualified health professionals where appropriate.
The church's role, however, should not be confused with the government's responsibility to enforce the law. These responsibilities are distinct, but they can complement one another in protecting the common good.
Choosing the Path That Best Serves Our People
Nagaland needs an honest, evidence-informed and inclusive assessment of the NLTP Act and its implementation. Such an assessment should examine what the law has achieved, where enforcement has failed, how the illegal market operates and which interventions are most likely to protect the public.
If prohibition is continued, it must be accompanied by credible enforcement, transparency, prevention and accessible treatment. If a regulated system is proposed, it must be assessed against clear public-health objectives, effective safeguards, independent oversight and the capacity to prevent corruption and reduce harm.
The voices of families affected by alcohol dependence, health professionals, young people, community leaders, civil society organisations and people working in recovery deserve to be heard alongside those of policymakers and enforcement agencies. Any decision will affect not only the liquor trade but also the health, safety and social well-being of communities throughout Nagaland.
We should resist the temptation to frame this debate as a contest between morality and practicality. A mature public discussion must acknowledge legitimate concerns on different sides, examine the evidence and remain open to approaches that demonstrably protect people.
The recent tragedies call for more than temporary outrage. They demand transparent investigations, accountability wherever wrongdoing is established and a sustained commitment to preventing further harm. They also remind us that public policy must never place political convenience, institutional interests or commercial gain above human welfare.
Ultimately, the measure of any liquor policy should be its contribution to saving lives, strengthening families, reducing harm and protecting future generations. Nagaland does not simply need a debate about liquor. It needs a deeper conversation about the kind of society we want to build - and the responsibilities we must share to protect the dignity, health and future of our people.
