NLTP Act, 1989: Repeal or Reform?

Honthah Buchem 

Much has been deliberated and vigorously debated across social media platforms and local newspapers concerning the NLTP Act, 1989. After profound contemplation, I wish to share my reflections on whether the complete repeal of the Act, or its stringent and sincere implementation, would better serve Naga society today.

The Act, as we are well aware, was not enacted in haste but emerged from careful and conscientious deliberation by our leaders, who foresaw the grave and far-reaching consequences alcohol could inflict upon Nagaland’s future. Under the initiative and moral guidance of the Nagaland Baptist Church Council (NBCC), the Act was passed by the Government of Nagaland and has remained in force for more than three decades. Yet, despite its continued existence, illegal liquor outlets persist and flourish in nearly every corner of the state.

There is no doubt that the Act’s implementation has, to a considerable extent, preserved lives and shielded countless families from moral, emotional, and financial devastation. It has empowered local communities and administrative machinery to confront illegal sales and has contributed to the reduction of alcohol-related crimes and social maladies, thereby fostering a healthier and more disciplined social environment.

Over the years, enormous quantities of alcohol have been seized and destroyed, resulting in substantial economic losses. In recent times, the state government, under the dynamic leadership of our Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio, partially relaxed the prohibition during the Hornbill Festival with the intention of promoting tourism and augmenting state revenue. Advocates for lifting the Act contend that legalisation would curb the circulation of adulterated liquor and generate revenue that could be utilised towards infrastructure development, sports facilities, commercial hubs, and employment generation particularly in response to the growing concern of unemployment in the state.

However, the fundamental questions remain unresolved: Can the government unequivocally guarantee that no illegal liquor shops will operate? Can every single bottle be subjected to rigorous quality control to prevent adulteration? Can uncompromising law and order be maintained to regulate public drinking, drinking and driving, and alcohol-induced violence that gravely endanger public safety?

Even with the NLTP Act firmly in place, we have witnessed innumerable broken homes, extra-marital affairs, children deprived of education due to alcoholic parents, persistent domestic unrest, and countless alcohol-related accidents. If such social decay exists despite prohibition, can we honestly believe that repealing the Act will rectify these problems? I personally do not believe so. On the contrary, these afflictions are likely to proliferate manifold.

Across the globe, governments have taken firm stances after witnessing the catastrophic impact of substance abuse on society. A few years ago, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte rose to power on a campaign pledge to eradicate drugs that were destroying the nation’s youth and families. Upon assuming office in 2016, he launched a highly controversial anti-drug campaign that reportedly resulted in the deaths of between 12,000 and 30,000 individuals. While his methods were widely criticised, his election reflected a public outcry for decisive leadership against social destruction caused by narcotics.

Likewise, even the United States of America, the most powerful nation in the world recently revised its federal dietary guidelines by removing the long-standing recommendation that limited alcohol consumption to two drinks per day for men and one for women. Although a complete ban remains constitutionally constrained under the 21st Amendment, which vests regulatory authority with individual states, this revision underscores the prioritisation of public health over revenue considerations, even in highly developed societies.

Another stark example is the recent arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro under allegations of drug trafficking into the United States during the presidency of Donald Trump. This episode clearly illustrates the seriousness of governments with regard to the profound social destruction wrought by drugs and substance abuse.

In contrast, our government appears to be focusing more on short term revenue generation rather than safeguarding society from long-term moral and social deterioration. If alcohol or drugs were genuine solution for sustainable economic growth, global leaders such as Rodrigo Duterte or Donald Trump would have promoted them as principal revenue drivers. Instead, they opted for regulation and restriction, fully cognisant of their devastating consequences.

Some argue that even if alcohol remains prohibited in Nagaland, individuals can simply travel to Assam or other neighbouring states where liquor is readily available and return intoxicated, thereby rendering the Act ineffective. However, this argument overlooks a crucial reality, not everyone can afford to travel frequently to another state merely to consume alcohol especially those residing in rural and remote villages.

Over the past decade, I have personally observed numerous young people being exposed to alcohol at a very early age, mainly because it was easily available within their own homes. Should the Act be repealed, alcohol would be available within minutes, no different from ordinary grocery items. Prices would inevitably decline, making it affordable to almost everyone. Before they can establish a meaningful future, imagine how many of Nagaland’s youth destined to shape and lead the state would be led astray if liquor shops were permitted to operate freely at every corner. Ultimately, Nagaland could face social crises similar to those seen in countries like the Philippines and Indonesia, including entrenched poverty, corruption, rising divorce rates, single-parent households, early marriages, hunger, and exponential population growth.

When viewed through a broader lens, it becomes clear that Nagaland possesses far more sustainable, and ethical revenue generating opportunities than alcohol. Alcohol only breeds fractured families, fatherless homes, and enduring social damage that far outweigh any financial gains it might yield.

Therefore, rather than repealing the NLTP Act, the government must focus on fortifying its implementation and sealing the loopholes that allow illegal liquor trade to thrive. The persistence of illegal shops is not indicative of the Act’s failure but rather a manifestation of weak enforcement and inadequate accountability at higher administrative levels. Greater emphasis must be placed on awareness campaigns, rehabilitation programmes for addicts, and the promotion of healthier, purpose driven lifestyles.

Simultaneously, the government should explore alternative revenue streams such as eco-tourism, entrepreneurship, and sustainable agriculture. Enhanced subsidy schemes and borrower-friendly loan mechanisms that are easy to avail and easy to repay.

Comprehensive authority must be delegated from the grassroots to the highest administrative levels across every district of Nagaland. Colony leaders and village chairmen should be empowered, entry points strictly monitored, and enforcement mechanisms strengthened at the highest levels. Only then can we secure and safeguard a future for Nagaland that genuinely embodies and honours the slogan, “Nagaland for Christ.”

May God bless Nagaland.