Poll promises are seldom realized. We were promised a million benefits in 2014 and I was rest assured that only a handful would come true, optimistically. So when Nitish Kumar said that he is going to enforce a moratorium on the sale and consumption of alcohol, I was pretty sure he won’t. Alcoholism in india is a major problem. Alcohol use can affect all parts of the body but particularly affects the brain, heart, liver, pancreas, and the immune system. This can result in mental illness, Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome, an irregular heart beat, liver failure, and an increase in the risk of cancer, among other diseases. Drinking during pregnancy can cause damage to the baby resulting in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. It definitely acts as a stimulus for domestic violence particularly in the rural areas where educated class is virtually non-existent. (http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/tc/alcohol-abuse-and-dependence-topic-overview)
In early 2016 the Bombay high court passed a judgement declaring that what people eat is not of the government's concern. So should the state interfere in alcohol consumption laws? The answer to that could be contentious depending on your propensity towards religious practices and customs and the level of liberty you deem fit for the society. All major religions proscribe alcohol, some prohibit it completely. But religion should not be used as a scale to map any policy. Politically speaking the state follows no religion. Moreover if religion did in fact act as a tool to drive people away from alcohol, people wouldn’t drink in the first place.
So, should the state enforce a moratorium based on health hazards? There are about 3 million alcohol related deaths each year in the world. In India, up to 1.5% of the people are under heavy usage of alcohol and approximately a quarter of road accidents happen under the influence. (http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/alcohol-consumption-rising-fast-in-india-oecd-report/) Looking at these numbers, the state can have its reservations on alcohol and enforce a complete ban. But won’t that be a pyrrhic victory? People would consider you autocratic, forceful and intolerant. People will fear that the government will ban other food items that cause health problems. Their favorite food, their cola, their coffee and what not.
Alcohol and domestic violence are quite related but don’t have a cause and effect relation. Alcohol consumption won’t lead to domestic violence but surely propounds the latter in a relation already under duress. (http://m.timesofindia.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/Alcohol-use-leads-to-domestic-violence/articleshow/29504962.cms). Rural areas are prone to alcohol induced domestic violence more that urban or semi urban areas. There are more educated people, especially woman in urban areas than in rural areas. This leads to a better understanding of the law of the land. Being educated and independent also allows women to move out of a relationships where alcohol induced violence is happening and still carry on with their lives. In rural areas, women generally depend on their partners for livelihood since either they aren’t educated enough to work or are not allowed to do so by their family. Social structure in villages are much more stringent that in cities and a woman who walks out of a marriage will most likely be ridiculed by the everyone alike. Such issues leave them with no options but to get physically and mentally abused. (http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2016/06/alcohol-ban-bihar-women-happy/).
Now whether a moratorium on alcohol will reduce domestic violence and save women from physical and mental abuse in Bihar which is mainly a rural state is for us to see in the next few years. But it’s the bootleggers who'll be minting money all the while.
Further reading:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/25/tamil-nadu-women-alcohol-banned-prohibition-domestic-violence
http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/bihar-liquor-ban-simply-put-behind-nitishs-liquor-ban-zeal-a-social-problem-and-political-math/
