Imkong Walling
The issue of liquor proliferation has risen once again in a place where it is forbidden by law but a failed one. It has pitted morals against materialism- the church’s justification versus the state’s revenue/economic interest.
The latter though has hardly been verbal, let alone act, choosing to be a mute spectator, while allowing the debate to carry on without a key player in the mix.
In recent times, the Dimapur Naga Students Union (DNSU) has been quite vocal about the Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act, in force since 1989, seeking the government’s attention to give it a relook given the failure of enforcement.
Continuing on with its earlier demands, the students’ body, in its latest representation has demanded a thorough review of the NLTP Act by a “Committee/Commission” set up by the government.
There is little hope the government would garner enough courage to seize the issue by the horns, but if one is to take sides, the demand has reasonable grounding.
First and foremost, the Act has been a total failure and that is reason enough for review.
Secondly, there is the innate human propensity to consume, which translates into demand. Demand implies suppliers (bootleggers) profiting, which further implies tons of untaxed cash for the suppliers to ‘grease palms’ of both God-fearing government authorities and extra-constitutional entities, ensuring a steady supply chain.
The suppliers also happen to be God-fearing people, who seem to have a misplaced notion of atonement, making generous donations out of religiosity.
There is the issue of health, but has legalized sale of liquor reduced consumption? As per a National Sample Survey data, dating to 2011-12, Nagaland ranked higher than Meghalaya in liquor consumption per capita per week.
There is also the moral, to be precise, the religious basis, yet one also cannot write off conscious personal choice.
It is not that only atheists and sinners drink. People, who pray and worship enjoy their drinks, too, the spectre of divine justice notwithstanding.
The downside of prohibition is apparent and so is the economic benefit of legalizing and regulating liquor.
It is a known fact the Act has been a failure. The policy-makers are well aware, but apprehensive, perhaps not wanting to risk their comfortable positions.
It only needs will, a governmental will to assert that the NLTP has not stopped consumption and will not.
As for the church, making it a moral contest is unjustified. Legalising liquor does not imply it would be a free-for-all. There will certainly be imposed checks and limits.
If it really wants teetotalism, it might as well go back to the flock, get proactive, engage directly, enabling the sheep comprehend the ills of alcoholism than passing responsibility on the government.
Investing revenue from alcohol for better schools, roads, medical care, water et cetera sure looks like a better way out than allowing a few unscrupulous lot get rich and richer tax free.
At the same time, the government must also be held accountable, ensuring transparency in its financial dealings.
The writer is a Principal Correspondent at The Morung Express. Comments can be sent to imkongwalls@gmail.com
