Pushpam Priya Choudhary writes: Why Bihar’s prohibition experiment is both a ‘farce’ and a ‘tragedy’

We hear so much about state’s welfare, economic and social policies, schemes and programs every day on news channels, in newspapers, on social media, in-office/tea shop conversations and so on. But have you ever wondered, how are these policies actually made? Is there any general guideline for making these policies that will benefit people considering the State’s limited resources?

Is there a threshold to impede an individual’s liberty? There is! Policymaking is an evidence-based mathematical process. They do not stem from whims and fancies, but from theoretical paradigms supported by robust statistical research. In Bihar, however, policymaking has a very feudal and unintelligent approach – take the prohibition of alcohol for instance.

The JD(U), RJD and Congress coalition came to power in 2015. They immediately prohibited alcohol production, sale, importation, transportation and consumption in Bihar. It was shocking for people who understand evidence-based policymaking in democracies to witness prohibition in the twenty-first century. More so as the agenda was not even in the Coalition’s manifesto. Mr Lalu Yadav and Mr Nitish Kumar are two divisive leaders, who divide the people of Bihar on their caste and religious identities to win elections. Why did they implement a draconian policy like prohibition?

Mr Kumar’s political answer to this question is that he promised a few rural women in a conference of SHGs where they said that the consumption of alcohol is the cause of their husbands’ ill behaviour towards them, domestic violence and household poverty and demanded a ban on it. He won, and alcohol was prohibited. This incident is comparable to the prohibition enforced in another Indian State, Andhra Pradesh in 1994 when the then CM, NT Rama Rao made a similar promise to the women of his State. It is often argued that both the CMs were rewarded with substantial women votes in the corresponding elections. However, there is no evidence in support of this vis-à-vis Bihar.

All the political parties in Bihar including BJP, since then have supported prohibition. I have often been asked why only I and The Plurals Party oppose it so strongly. Mr Kumar on many occasions has taunted us saying that ‘smart-educated’ people who promote drinking oppose prohibition and are not fit to be Indian citizens.

Clearly, Mr Kumar unarguably has no understanding of policymaking and thus is unfit to be the chief minister of one of the poorest regions of the world, and arguably the cause of its poverty for the past sixteen years. He is right on one account though that any smart educated policymaker will never support his prohibition policy. Because of his poor philosophical understanding, two separate and unrelated questions get mixed – “Is prohibition wrong” and “Is drinking wrong”. Let’s counter the former first. Yes, prohibition policy is wrong – theoretically, practically, administratively, economically, politically, socially and philosophically.

Alcohol has never been an ordinary commodity. In many societies, alcoholic beverages are still treated as special commodities. However, in the post-modern liberal economies, alcohol is now categorised as a free-flow beverage to which milk, tea or coffee also belong. This categorization has grown despite the widely accepted research that alcohol has harmful effects on mankind and a reduction in its supply and consumption generally results in positive health and social consequences. In fact, a majority of the countries practice some kind of restrictive and prohibitive measures to reduce the consumption of alcohol.

Though measures like minimum drinking age criteria, retail outlet control and limited drinking hours are common in both the developed and developing worlds, total prohibition is not practised in any country in the modern world, except in a few Muslim countries inevitably as the religious practices there advocate alcohol abstinence. Thus, when Bihar, the poorest state in fast-developing India, enforced complete prohibition in 2016, it was a surprise and arguably an untenable move. Surprise, because it was not in line with the growing consciousness of ‘liberty’ in the increasingly opening socio-economic and cultural framework of India. It is untenable because ‘total prohibition’ is a myth and thus even the draconian ‘Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act’, which gives life imprisonment for alcohol consumption, couldn’t prevent people from consuming alcohol illegally.

Few prohibition experiments have been enforced at different times in different countries all around the world. Wines and spirits were banned in Russia (1914-1924), Norway (1916-1927), Iceland (1908-1934) and Finland (1919-1932). And then there was the (in)famous US experiment during 1920-1933. The prohibition law failed in most countries in absence of a global consensus to create and sustain dry regimes.

In India, the discussion on restricting alcohol consumption dates to the British colonial period, when the alcohol licensing system of 1849 resulted in a drastic revenue increase. Yet, some Indian representatives like K. C. Paul opposed it and demanded restrictions on alcohol, as according to them the ‘revenue is a secondary subject’. There were also public movements against alcohol in British Bihar- the Kanthidhari (pledge) movement of 1913 under which a few marginalised castes of the society took a pledge to not consume alcohol, to uplift their social status. But, in governance, the first prohibition came into action in Bihar in 1978 when Mr Karpuri Thakur banned alcohol.

However, it failed badly and was withdrawn within three years because of the proliferation of illegal supplies and smuggling.

Culturally, drinking alcohol is considered a social evil in India, particularly in Bihar where the population is mostly rural. People drink in private, and public places like pubs are not considered worth visiting for a ‘righteous’ person. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of independent India demanded the implementation of absolute prohibition in British India in 1937. In free India, despite the ‘directive principles’ under Article 47 of the Constitution, prohibition was not implemented nationally because of its practical difficulties and the alarm that it raises regarding the liberty of an individual.

It is now a well-established, evidence-based fact that prohibition is not probable to implement. In the USA, under the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, alcohol was prohibited for thirteen years (1920-1933). Following the ban, criminal gangs emerged and gained control of liquor and profited from it. Organised crime got an unprecedented boost from prohibition. Mafia groups proliferated. A black market for alcohol flourished in the US, backed by the financial gains from prohibition. In the end, the prohibition policy led to higher death rates, and crime rates, and established a black market run by criminal mafias. Speakeasy bars that sold alcoholic beverages illegally throughout the US came into existence and disappeared only after Prohibition ended in 1933.

Administratively, the USA has irrefutably one of the most efficient and effective administrations and law enforcement in the world, yet it failed miserably at implementing prohibition. Bihar, on the contrary, has a very long way to go vis-à-vis law enforcement. Bihar’s administrative and law-enforcement capabilities can be judged fundamentally by two factors. The occupation that murderers and rapists favour the most in Bihar is that of lawmaking- politics. They contest elections from prisons and win and roam freely with law enforcement officers protecting them as their bodyguards.

Secondly, the administration fails to implement central schemes every year and returns millions of money to the centre. Alcohol is being sold illegally throughout Bihar. Poisonous alcohol that lacks quality checks has been pumped into the market and has led to the premature unfortunate death of hundreds and thousands. The local administration under pressure or instructions tries to cover these incidences by pressurising hospitals and poor families to not conduct a post-mortem and coercing families to falsify their statements. I met many of these grieving families in the past two years and they have not even been offered any compensation from the government. Prohibition and thus the supply of illegal liquor has destroyed many happy households and pushed them further below the poverty line as it has unjustly killed the bread earner of these families.

Economically, the poorest state of India, Bihar has lost approximately ?50,000 crores in tax revenue since 2016. Financial loss to Bihar’s economy is much bigger than this and consequently has led to the loss of job opportunities. As illegal alcohol is being sold, thus black money is being pumped into the market. It has also impacted the state’s administrative institutions adversely as not only has it put extra pressure on their enforcement duties, but police officers are involved in the illegal sale and supply of alcohol. It is worth noting that Mr Nitish Kumar has often played the victim when inquired about the below-par employment opportunities and lack of industries in Bihar and complained that he is helpless as “Bihar is poor”. He has often pressurised the centre for a special economic status for extra revenue. Mr Kumar’s concern about the state’s economy fails to justify the deliberate huge revenue loss caused by his policy of prohibition. Hypocritical or ignorant or both? Let’s examine his hypocrisy.

The Bihar government made substantial revenue from liquor sales. The revenue collection rose exponentially under Nitish Kumar’s regime after the introduction of the ‘Liquor Sourcing Policy’ of 2008-09, which gave the state monopoly over the sales and marketing of alcohol. A state corporation was made the nodal department of the licensing system. Consequently, excise revenue from alcohol in Bihar increased from Rs 750 crores in 2008-09 to Rs 3,670 crores in 2014-15, which constituted 18 per cent of the total state tax revenue. The state revenue from alcohol increased by around 500 per cent in six-years time. Thus, in view of the economy, there is no apparent justification for the dramatic shift in policy — from state monopoly to total prohibition — except for the rhetoric that the plight of women in rural areas inspired this shift. There is no research to indicate a causal relationship between alcohol consumption and the oppression of women.

Interestingly, no research or study analyzing the cost and benefit of the prohibition was conducted before implementing Prohibition in Bihar. The government has so far faced a loss of revenue of over Rs 10,000 crore per annum. An amount that could have been used for empowering women by creating opportunities for their capability expansion that would eventually change gender relations too.

The economic loss is a widely known outcome of Prohibition. Most policymakers are fully aware that USA’s prohibition hurt its economy greatly. It caused the loss of over $225 million per annum in tax revenues. The economic cost of enforcing the law was also huge. It lowered revenues at the critical time of the Great Depression that started in 1929. The negative externalities that prohibition caused were devastating too. When the law was ended it created over 80 thousand jobs in just three months, with only 3 per cent of alcohol beer legalised. Thus, any knowledgeable politician has not implemented prohibition since the failure of the Volstead Act of the US.

Politically also there is no positive evidence in favour of Prohibition. But because politics is intertwined with society in Bihar, Mr Kumar has often said on record that he did it to maximise women’s agency and empowerment. The reason that all political parties continue to support it is based on the false assumption that this policy will help them win the women’s vote bank in Bihar. Unfortunately, women are treated as a vote bank in Bihar. The gender relations between men and women in Bihar are severely unbalanced. Ironically, policies are either made by men or women who act as a mere token of men. There has been no referendum, and no research to support Mr Kumar’s paternalistic decision to prohibit alcohol. A reasonable State enforces regulation (of alcohol) to achieve all the social goals more effectively than prohibition. A better way to empower women is to give them better opportunities for education, employment and health. To regulate the behaviour of alcoholics, States encourage rehabilitation and provide police protection, establish special victim units to counter domestic violence and so on. It has repeatedly been confirmed by studies that the regulation of alcohol (harm reduction approach) as well as the total prohibition of alcohol, both give the same outcome, therefore it seems unwise to conclude that the only option was to enforce a complete ban. Better programmatic policies for women empowerment have been implemented all around the world. In Bihar, post-prohibition, the women who lost their husbands due to consumption of poisonous alcohol have not even been offered any compensation, much less equal social and economic opportunities. Mr Kumar has in fact made insensitive comments repeatedly about people who died and left their families behind – “if you drink, you will die”.

Socially, the prohibition of alcohol has never been a part of mainstream social policy initiatives. However, there are many ‘alcohol control strategies and measures’ used as social policy and public health interventions. These interventions include regulation of alcohol availability, modification in drinking habits, drink driving restrictions and various control on alcohol marketing. There are a few studies that justify the regulation of alcohol due to its harmful association with poverty and domestic violence. It can’t be denied that there is a correlation between domestic and gender-based violence and alcohol consumption. A Radio Sweden documentary on the alcohol industry in Malawi found alcohol an important factor in the maltreatment of women apart from two other social evils — poverty and the HIV epidemic. Similarly, a study in Uganda discovered an association between alcohol consumption and domestic violence, as 57 per cent of women who suffered domestic violence reported that their partner was under the influence of consumption.

However, this relationship is not causal and stems categorically from an uneven gender power relation between a man and a woman. And that needs to be addressed. We urgently require policies that will even the imbalance of power between men and women that lead to oppression of the latter sex. And thus, it becomes more urgent and critical to regulating the production, supply, sale and consumption of alcohol. Men of patriarchal mindset need to be targeted to alter the deeply rooted socio-cultural patriarchy in the society. Amartya Sen in this regard highlight two interconnected agendas – (a) the ‘welfarist’ focus on the right to entitlements, to promote women’s well-being and (b) to evolve and broaden the active role of women’s agency. Sen’s advocacy for women’s agency stems from a commitment to creating ‘capabilities’ to support real freedom of opportunity and not just theoretical rights.

Philosophically, prohibition is paternalistic and anti-democratic. Anti-democratic as Mr Kumar had no mandate to Prohibit alcohol in the state. It was not in the manifesto and thus he was not voted to power to implement this dangerous policy. Most importantly, it is paternalistic, and the State has no right to restrict the liberty of an individual if it does not solely and directly lead to harm for another. Paternalism is the interference with an individual’s liberty or freedom of action justified by reasons pertaining exclusively to the welfare, interests or values of the person being coerced. John Stuart Mill, though a utilitarian, in his seminal work On Liberty, laid the groundwork that encouraged discussions and shaped the idea of liberty in a democracy. Mill explains “Neither one person, nor any number of persons is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years (adult), that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it.” A guideline that cannot be ignored by policymakers.

Legal penalties are justified only if they are imposed in order to prevent direct harm to others. Prohibition in a democracy falls afoul of Mill’s Harm Principle – “That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That is the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier….”.

While there can be further arguments on the “end” vs “means” of Mill’s argument, this principle to a very large extent stops a democracy from becoming an authoritarian State. Moral philosophers like G. Dworkin would further argue that “The only conditions under which State (soft) paternalism is justified when it is necessary to determine whether the person being interfered with, is acting voluntarily and knowledgeably”.

Over years the democracies have devised less paternalistic ways to prevent harm- it nudges, regulates, taxes, informs but does not (and must not) promote a particular conception of a good life, as is done in authoritarian and dictatorial models of governance. It is, therefore, not within Mr Kumar’s right as a Chief Minister of a democratic State to coerce people into his farce prohibition policy.

Mr Kumar has illogically justified prohibition by saying that “drinking is wrong”, and people who oppose prohibition are promoting drinking and are not Indian. This line of argument is problematic at many levels. Firstly, policymaking must not be contingent on the personal values and habits of a policymaker.

For instance, I usually do not eat table salt and table sugar as it is bad for my health, regardless I will have no right to prohibit salt and sugar consumption when elected to office. Drinking is bad for health and the State must nudge, educate and inform the adult population about its dangers, set up rehabilitation centres for alcoholics and ban it only for kids who are not yet adults. Most importantly, the State is foremostly accountable for the deaths caused by prohibition. And what should matter the most to the state is the agency of its citizens. Mr Kumar must take responsibility for his actions, and urgently design schemes that will benefit the victim’s families. The last vital step of implementation in a democracy is the review of an implemented policy.

In America, Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment in 1933- the only instance in American history when a constitutional amendment was passed to repeal another. Because States own up to their actions and are accountable to their citizens.

But that is not how Bihar works. There is no logic, no guidelines, no consideration of liberty, no value of life, no accountability towards citizens, no grievance system, no responsiveness- just shallow display and justification of farce morality.

Mr Kumar now often cites the father of the nation and has started trying to portray himself as the next Gandhi, conveniently ignoring the most inherent quality of Gandhiji – no lust for power. History will not permit Mr Nitish Kumar to become a Gandhian, and history will also not allow prohibition to be successful as seen from various above-mentioned examples. Karl Marx famously said that when History repeats itself it first becomes a tragedy and then a farce. Mr Kumar’s policy similarly has become both a tragedy and a farce.

END OF ARTICLE