.jpg)
A Shyerhunlo Lorin
Concerned Citizen
The renewed debate on lifting the Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act raises serious moral, social, and policy questions. While arguments are being made in the name of revenue and regulation, I firmly do not support lifting the NLTP Act, because it contradicts public welfare, cultural values, and the ethical foundations upon which Nagaland stands.
Alcohol Is Not Merely an Economic Commodity: Alcohol cannot be treated like an ordinary market product. Its impact goes far beyond economics, directly affecting public health, family stability, and social order. Any revenue earned through legalising alcohol will inevitably be spent many times over on healthcare, law enforcement, and social rehabilitation.
A Question of Policy Consistency: Tobacco vs Alcohol: In India, including Nagaland, tobacco products are legally restricted from being sold near school premises because they are harmful to young minds/health and public health. This restriction exists despite tobacco being a major source of tax revenue for the government.
If the state can justify restricting tobacco to protect children, then a serious question arises:
Why should alcohol be legalised and promoted in a Christian-majority state like Nagaland, where its social harm is even more severe?
Alcohol contributes to domestic violence, accidents, crime, and social breakdown and financially ruin. The logic of public protection applied to tobacco must, therefore, apply even more strongly to alcohol.
Christianity and the Moral Responsibility of the State: Nagaland is widely recognised as a Christian-majority state, where governance has historically reflected moral accountability and social responsibility. Christianity teaches best version of oneself, self-control, care for families, and protection of the vulnerable. While personal freedom is respected, the state also has a moral duty not to legitimise or promote practices that harm society.
Legalising alcohol sends a contradictory message—one that economic interest is more important than moral responsibility. A Christian state cannot, in good conscience, institutionalise revenue generation through substances that destroy families and weaken communities.
Families and Communities Must Come First: The lived reality of alcohol abuse in Nagaland cannot be ignored. Many families suffer silently due to addiction, domestic violence, and financial ruin. Lifting the NLTP Act would normalise alcohol consumption and expand access, making these problems worse rather than better.
Failure of Enforcement Is Not Failure of the Law: Illegal liquor exists not because prohibition is wrong, but because enforcement has been weak and compromised. Corruption and lack of political will have allowed illegal trade to flourish. Repealing the NLTP Act would reward failure instead of correcting it.
Ethical Development Over Easy Revenue: If revenue is the concern, the government must explore ethical and sustainable alternatives—tourism, agriculture, local entrepreneurship, cultural industries, and skill-based employment. Development should uplift society, not exploit its vulnerabilities.
Conclusion: If tobacco cannot be sold near schools to protect children, then legalising alcohol in a Christian-majority state raises serious moral and policy contradictions. My opposition to lifting the NLTP Act is based on consistency in governance, protection of public welfare, and respect for the moral values of our society.
Nagaland can progress without sacrificing its principles. Reform and accountability—not repeal—must be the way forward.
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views and the author is not affiliated with or endorsed by any political party or organisation to which the author may belong
.jpg)
