One will agree that the seizure of IMLF by the Dimapur East Police Station on August 20 is only a grim reflection of the flourishing bootlegging of alcohol, which dates back to the early 1990’s when Nagaland was declared a ‘Dry State.’ The nature of prohibition has gone off the direction, where the perpetual circle of cause-effect has somehow betrayed the true intent and the initial reasoning of why prohibition itself was imposed in the first place.
Every action has consequences and every consequence breeds further consequences, and this circle continues until it reaches a stage where the consequences itself becomes the cause. The prohibition debate in the Naga context seems to reflect this dilemma which is unable to distinguish the action from its consequences. This vicious cycle has in part been caused by the lack of dialogue and understanding around issues of prohibition; and largely due to the absence of any genuine interest addressing the consequences of prohibition, and its impact on society.
The chain of consequences has now come to a complete circle, where the consequences of alcohol use itself seem to be the rationale for prohibition. Subsequently, prohibition has come to mean not the absence of alcohol, but the social stigma it generates on those who consume alcohol, and tragically the dialogue continues along this negative path of monologue. This has only further induced polarized opinions around prohibition, without actually addressing the issues of prohibition and it implies that as long as one can rise above the radar of social stigma, the question of prohibition is rendered ineffective.
Hence the continuing debate of prohibition revolves around the repetitive sloganeering on how alcohol use is bad for health and in-effect a negative influence on society. Consequently anyone having a sensitive taste-bud for alcohol is not respected by society, unless of course, he or she has risen above the radar of social stigma attached to social drinkers, as well as alcohol abusers. This approach has achieved in taking out the whole focus and question of prohibition from the prohibition debate, and replacing it with the focus on the ills of alcohol abuse. The prohibition debate therefore has become an emotional and personal issue for those directly affected by it.
The stage of prohibition in Nagaland is in shambles, to the point of self-contradiction. And this self-contradiction has been allowed to prevail so long as the bootlegging does not disrupt the symbolism of what constitutes a ‘dry state’ and the space of religious fervor. In the end, experience has shown that it is the bootleggers who have profited most from the prohibition. Not only are they selling alcohol at sky-rocket rates with relative ease, but more importantly their new found status and profits are being acceptable by the present social norms.
In an ironic twist of fate, the advocates of prohibition and the bootleggers are finding themselves in the same camp – for different reasons of course, but an unwitting alliance nonetheless. By this, it implies that the advocates of prohibition and the bootleggers are united in their common demand for the continuation of prohibition and the preservation of Nagaland as a ‘dry state’ albeit as a matter of symbolism; while bootlegging flourishes in an unaccountable manner. It would be fair to say the prohibition has best served the interest of the bootleggers; and the advocates of prohibition by default have made bootlegging into a fine art of profit-making. The unintended alliance between advocates of prohibition and bootleggers could not have been any finer.
