Act of God vs. the Habit of Man

Act of God vs. the Habit of Man

Here we are in the midst of a 100-year pandemic that threatens to bring devastation to modern human civilization. And, in the midst of all the warnings of lockdowns and social distancing, governments and citizens - and, even the judiciary - are embroiled in arguments about the salience of liquor sales in ‘these unprecedented times’.

I am reminded of the time another strong leader once took a tough posture against liquor sales. Bansi Lal, former chief minister of Haryana, decided to impose complete alcohol prohibition during his fourth tenure as Chief Minister of Haryana, while leading an alliance government of Haryana Vikas Party and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), from May 1996 to July 1999. Whilst the general argument then, as now, was to allow liquor sales in order to keep the bounty flowing into state coffers, and also improving public health, there was strong push-back from the nexus of liquor mafia and politicians, in addition to tipplers and occasional drinkers.

Bansi Lal was a man of conviction and determination.  A year before the assembly elections in 1996, he called some selected media journalists to a motel at Pipli, near Kurukshetra, and announced his plan to impose prohibition in Haryana if his party was voted to power. Amidst the stoic silence maintained by my colleagues, I ventured to suggest that it was likely to be a difficult proposition, and that it may even be compared with other unpopular actions taken by Bansi Lal in the past, such as the infamous ‘Nasbandhi’ (Vasectomy) during the days of the Emergency.

Bansi Lal cast a long look at me, and then said, “you see - I am 69 years of age now, and if I become Chief Minister next year, I will be about 75 by the end of my tenure... with little further lifespan left.”  He explained that whenever he toured the villages of the state, the elders accused him of proliferating the sale of liquor through the many restaurants and bars that he had helped establish as part of the successful highway tourism model, in his earlier tenure. The village elders, he said, reminisced how drinking liquor was a stigma in the interiors of Haryana, and blamed the fancy bars for the increased acceptance and consumption of alcohol, with its negative impact on families. “I do not want to go to the cremation ground with this stigma that I introduced easy access of liquor to Haryana’s youth”, he declared.

A few of us pointed out that Haryana was a small state surrounded by several others where such liquor prohibition would not be in force, making the smuggling of liquor across state boundaries very profitable and likely, undermining both public health and state revenue. Bansi Lal exuded confidence, saying he knew how to deal with that problem.

Bansi Lal went on to win the assembly election the following year. And, true to his word, he imposed a full and draconian prohibition in the state of Haryana. As expected, the state exchequer lost significant revenue from the potential sales of alcohol. However, public health was further endangered, as liquor smuggling and counterfeit alcohol flourished unencumbered.

Ultimately, Bansi Lal lifted the prohibition after a period of about two years. He sounded bitter when he later met the same set of media journalists again at Pipli, saying that the social and religious organisations that used to complain on a daily basis about the negative impact of liquor sales failed to help government agencies in generating adequate public awareness about the downside of liquor consumption. Even the village elders, he said, failed to shore up his effort through shows of support for the high-stakes policy initiative.

As liquor vends begin to open all over the country, I am reminded of this past instance where individual choice prevailed over public health. It would appear that COVID-19 has not yet altered our choices in at least this one sphere - here’s a toast to that thought!