‘Limiting’ temperance

On October 9, the Dimapur Naga Students’ Union (DNSU) urged the State Government and all stakeholders to “thoroughly study the boon and bane of NLTP Act 1989” and suggested for either bringing in some strict regulations to legalise the sale of liquor or to amend the Act.

In March, the Naga Mothers Association (NMA) also called for a review of the Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act and asked the State Government to initiate a proper debate involving all concerned stakeholders.  

No doubt, the Prohibition then was a response to address a challenging social issue “in the midst of armed conflict and people dying due to alcoholism,” as argued by the NMA, one of its strong votaries. The temperance movement which gained momentum in the run-up also contributed to the passage of the NLTP Act in the Nagaland Legislative Assembly in 1989.

Thereafter, Nagaland became a ‘dry state’ and instead of drinking legally, people started drinking ‘illegally,’ this column had commented earlier. 

As the years roll on, however, several questions have been raised–moral, religious, social and economics, with proponents and opponent, citing the aforesaid arguments to buttress their points.

Has Prohibition ever worked, then? The ‘noble experiment’ in the United States in the early 1900s is always used as a good case study. 

The Prohibition in the US was attributed to ‘temperance movement’ – described by the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a movement “dedicated to promoting moderation and, more often, complete abstinence in the use of intoxicating liquor” that gained momentum in 1800, rapidly under the influence of the churches.  

It resulted in the Volstead Act, formally National Prohibition Act, enacted in 1919 and enforced from 1930 “to provide enforcement for the Eighteenth Amendment, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages.”

The ‘noble experiment’ has been widely considered to be a failure, which among others, unintentionally, created the system bootlegging and led to the establishment of organised crime, a problem that long persisted after the repeal of the Act in 1933. Conversely, it created corruption amongst law enforcement agencies while the sale of spurious products increased, without a corresponding decrease in consumption after initial years.

Writing in the American Journal of Public Health (2006) Jack S. Blocker Jr stated that the  “conclusive proof of Prohibition’s failure is, of course, the fact that the Eighteenth Amendment became the only constitutional amendment to be repealed,” though he argued for analysing the matter holistically rather than unequivocally terming it as a case of outright failure.

However, it did serve as a cautionary tale for others, though the implementation of Prohibition is a case of the prevailing of perceived immediate gain– political, social and religious- over unintended consequences discussed above.

Looking at Nagaland, some issues are clear.  Consumption has not stopped while implementation, at best, is lax due to various factors.  Ironically, the continuation of Prohibition serves the case of both bootlegger and proponents – the former, a pyrrhic moral victory; the latter a thriving business as demand for alcohol, obviously, is inelastic.

Most importantly, it perpetuates the deeply rooted and pervasive hypocrisy in the Naga society on various grounds, particularly, on the matter of consumption, implementation and enforcement.  

Focus on other measures, rather than continuing what is evidently a failed Act. An alternative mechanism is imperative along with alcohol-control programme and awareness.