On Revisiting the NLTP Act

The debate surrounding the Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition Act has once again emerged at the forefront of public discourse, spurred by the state government’s recent announcement to ‘revisit’ the Act, likely during the upcoming session of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly.

The government is reportedly contemplating several amendments to the NLTP Act. These proposed changes are said to include issuing foreign liquor permits to tourists from outside the state under stringent regulations, as outlined in Section 16 of the NLTP Act, 1989. Additionally, select hotels, tourist restaurants, and government guest houses may receive licenses to serve liquor, while municipalities and district headquarters could see a relaxation of the prohibition, contingent on demand from relevant civil societies and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). The minimum legal drinking age is proposed to remain at 21 years.

It is widely acknowledged that many civil society organizations advocate for a review of the Act, with numerous individuals publicly supporting the lifting of the prohibition. However, the church—most notably the Nagaland Baptist Church Council (NBCC)—remains staunchly opposed to any relaxation of the ban.

In observing the ongoing debate, it is evident that those in favor of lifting the prohibition present more compelling arguments, while proponents of the prohibition struggle to provide substantial data or empirical evidence to support their stance. Consequently, the arguments for maintaining the prohibition often come across as speculative and emotionally driven. While the church’s position is well-intentioned, it appears that the case for continuing the prohibition is losing traction. Unless advocates of the prohibition can substantiate their claims with concrete facts and figures, they risk being perceived as blind zealots—a scenario that would be regrettable, as their well-meaning stance could inadvertently foster division and discord.

The most prudent course of action for the government is to legislate with careful consideration, incorporating the perspectives of prohibition supporters. Simultaneously, the church should refrain from outright opposition to any amendments and instead contribute to the legislative process by suggesting terms for liquor regulation. Potential measures to explore include raising the minimum legal drinking age to 25 years, banning liquor brand advertising, establishing mechanisms to ensure transparency in the sale and purchase of alcohol, and including a provision to revert to total prohibition if the amended Act proves unsatisfactory.