The Nagaland Baptist Church Council’s most recent statement on the Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act highlights the enduring conflict between moral conviction and administrative reality. For decades, the NBCC has been the most consistent defender of prohibition, grounding its position in spiritual values and the belief that alcohol undermines the social health of Naga society. In its latest intervention, the NBCC reiterates that the NLTP Act is not merely a law but a moral covenant shaped by revival and repentance. From this perspective, lifting prohibition is seen as a retreat from collective responsibility.
Yet the situation on the ground tells a more complicated story. Liquor continues to flow across interstate borders, the black market thrives, and enforcement remains weak. The NBCC blames this failure on inadequate policing, a lack of political will, loopholes in the law, and the misuse of supervised relaxations. Its argument is that the Act itself is sound and that better implementation, not repeal, is the answer. However, this view is increasingly contested as more civil society groups and individuals point to the persistence of smuggling, the spread of spurious liquor, and the financial implications of maintaining a ban that is widely violated.
The NBCC also expresses concern that lifting prohibition would normalize alcohol use, increase social harm, and signal a willingness to compromise on moral questions. These fears are neither new nor unfounded, but critics argue that the harms the Church warns about are already taking place under the cover of an unregulated market. This gap between moral aspiration and lived reality is now at the heart of the debate.
There is no doubt that the NBCC’s stance carries moral weight for many citizens. However, the challenge for policymakers is to reconcile this moral position with practical governance. Any future decision on the NLTP Act will require the government to weigh the NBCC’s moral arguments against the persistent failures in enforcement and the growth of an unregulated liquor economy that is already harming the public.
The Church remains a powerful moral voice, but its call for stricter enforcement will carry weight only if paired with a realistic plan that the state can implement. Without that, its position risks appearing principled yet detached from conditions on the ground, and the Church may find its moral argument respected but its policy stance increasingly sidelined.
