Ravindran V, Sr Vice President – Sales and Marketing, Amrut Distilleries
According to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, prohibition is a state subject.
It is left to the states to implement prohibition totally or partially. In the past, some states opted for prohibition and then withdrew it. Majority of the states do not have prohibition. Super power America also initiated total prohibition in 1920 because the problem of excessive drinking was very serious in the country. Though prohibition in America lasted for 13 years, lots of liquor was smuggled into the country during this period from other countries, even the far-off France. Prohibition also meant opportunity of business for the unorganized sector and bootleggers in America. The failure of prohibition in America is a lesson for us.
In India, Tamil Nadu opted for prohibition three or four times in the past four decades. Every time the state government found that the smuggling of elicit liquor could not be adequately
controlled. Besides, due to the smuggling Tamil Nadu’s liquor-related revenue was going to the
neighbouring state, Pondicherry. Many people who handled the smuggling from Pondicherry to Tamil Nadu became millionaires and billionaires.
States impose prohibition because of political reasons. When there is no prohibition, the husband is happy but the wife is not happy because the husband is spending on drinking, giving no money to the wife. This issue is picked by the politician. So to get women votes, prohibition is imposed. But after getting to power, the prohibition is removed. This is the experience of my own state, Tami Nadu.
Today the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) owns about 6500 shops, which were earlier owned by private parties. In the past, these shops were closed with the announcement of prohibition. When DMK came to power, it opened TASMAC shops.
The latest example of prohibition is Kerala where my company sells almost 2 million cases. We are the second largest liquor seller in the state next to Diageo.
For the past 20 years, Kerala has been voting the opposition to power. It has two main political coalitions – United Democrtic Front (UDF) and Left Democratic Front (LDF). These fronts win
polls alternately. Before this year’s Assembly polls, the ruling UDF wanted to do something to retain power. Liquor drinking is a big issue in Kerala where people are drinking a lot. Due
to heavy drinking by people, liver cirrhosis cases were rising and lots of liquor-realted deaths were reported. Even many churches had recommended prohibition. So the ruling front
went in for partial prohibition.
In Kerala there are over 800 bars and an equal number of government shops selling liquor. The government decided to close the bars as a partial prohibition and also proposed
to close 10% liquor shops every year thus bringing the state under total prohibition gradually. It was a political decision as the UDF wanted to win not only in the forthcoming polls but
also in future polls.
When the bars were closed, IMFL was selling 20 lakh cases and beer was about 8 lakh cases per month. During the one year of prohibition, shops were reduced from 800 to 400 and in two years to 300 shops. IMFL sales came down from 20 lakh cases to 15 lakh cases but beer sales rose from 8 lakh cases to 16 lakh cases. The inference from this changing sale profile is that people will get their quantum of intoxication no matter in whichever form. So, if don’t get my quota of three pegs of hard liquor, I don’t mind going to the beer parlour and gulp down three bottles of beer. But I end up spending three times more money on three bottles of beer than I used to spend on an IMFL nip.
When elections were held, the UDF lost the polls. Had prohibition not been there, people would have voted UDF back to power. Similar thing happened in the Tamil Nadu polls. All the parties except AIADMK promised that if voted to power, the first decision of their government would be total prohibition. In contrast, AIADMK leader and the incumbent CM Jayalalitha
said she was also in favour of prohibition but her government would study it. And, she was voted back to power.
As long as the other states continue to sell liquor, it is practically impossible for one state to implement prohibition successfully. There will be smuggling of liquor from other states which would encourage bootleggers to flourish. Their stuff is dangerous for the health of the people. People have died because of hooch tragedies. Illiterate people who drink hooch do not know that it has not been manufactured by following government regulations.
In the absence of liquor, people also get addicted to drugs, which is also a dangerous development. In Kerala, many of the young students after being deprived of hard liquor have opted for snake bites to get their intoxication. Small snakes are smuggled from China. A bite by such a snake on a person’s tongue injects poison into his body which gives the effect of intoxication. Each bite costs 1000 rupees and its effect lasts for three days. People resort to these intoxications when liquor is suddenly banned which was easily available earlier.
Revenue loss from prohibition is another big concern for the states which collectively earn Rs one lakh crore from liquor taxes. As per the WHO records, 38.3% of the world’s population consumes alcohol regularly. On an average, an individual consumes 6.2 litres liquor per year. About 30% population of India also drinks. Of this drinking population, 11% is into heavy drinking which is hazardous drinking. On an average, an Indian drinks 4.3 litres of alcohol per year. But the rural average is much higher at 11.4 litres per year. We need to address the high consumption in rural areas which happens because of illiteracy.
Moderation is better option than prohibition to control heavy drinking. The liquor industry must advocate moderate drinking. We all should join together and worlk with every state government to promote moderate drinking as part of our CSR. We should conduct a publicity campaign to educate people to avoid excessive drinking and adopt moderate drinking. As an obligation and responsibility towards society, we should earmark some of our profits for
running de-addiction centres. Just like debit card/credit card, a plastic alcohol card can be introduced. Charge annually for this card and set a drinking limit for an individual of drinking age. Every time the individual drinks, he/she needs to show the card and also his/her thumb impression may be taken. Collectively, we can evolve and implement methods to promote moderate drinking.