On the NTLP Act | A. Jamir, Chümoukedima

The issue of prohibition is not new to modern history. In the Indian context, on the 24th of November 1948, the Indian Constituent Assembly debated the draft Article 38 which later found itself as Article 47 in the Indian Constitution as one of the Directive Principles of State Policies (DPSP) –essentially “non-justiciable pious obligations”. Article 47 outlines the government’s responsibilities to promote social and economic justice, democracy, and secularism and within it comes the issue of ‘prohibition on the consumption of intoxicating drinks except for medicinal purposes’. In 1948, the prohibitionists’ arguments were anchored on a bifold rationale that was scriptural and welfarist, whereas the anti-prohibitionists argued on the platform of individual liberty and religious freedom. Even though prohibition has utterly failed across states in India, including in Nagaland, it continues to be debated.

Harold Laski in his essay ‘Liberty in the Modern State’ said, “prohibition goes against the very grain of personal liberty”. Proponents of personal liberty argue that individuals should have the right to make their own decisions, even if those choices are harmful to themselves. This perspective emphasizes autonomy and self-determination. Opponents of unrestricted personal liberty emphasize the broader impact on society. They argue that certain behaviours can harm not only the individual but also others. Indeed, both are correct and finding a balance between personal freedom and societal well-being is challenging. This is where laws and regulations must strike this balanced not one sided. As of today, the NTLP Act seems to be a one-sided perspective.

The effectiveness of prohibition must depend on context. While substances (like narcotics) may require strict control due to their addictive nature and potential harm, does behaviours (like consensual adult activities, drinking alcohol) warrant prohibition? Can laws that prohibit positively influence behaviours? Instead of outright prohibition, the government must consider harm reduction strategies focusing on minimizing negative consequences. These include education, treatment, and regulation. For example, providing addiction treatment centres, promoting responsible drinking, and regulating establishments selling alcohol can mitigate harm without completely restricting personal liberty. Unfortunately, none of these have been attempted and the state just went ahead with the NTLP Act. It not only impinged upon personal liberty but also killed the golden goose for the state’s fiscal revenue. The state, therefore, literally threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Prohibition is not just about alcohol, it can impinge on everything, just like the sell of beef is prohibited in parts of India. What do you feel about such a prohibition?

Now some local perspectives.

I

The Church or anyone has the right to question the government. It can also petition the government or organize public rallies voicing their opinions on anything. That is all it can and should do with a government. After that, what the government does is its responsibility.

Let the government do its job and let the churches do their job. If the Church feels it is speaking on behalf of the populace, do remember that the government is an elected one with peoples’ mandate. They are a government of, by and for the people. Who, therefore, is the constitutional legitimate representative of the people should not be forgotten here.

II

Consumption of alcohol is a personal choice just as much as being a Baptist, Catholic or going to Church is. It is a personal choice and passing laws to enforce behaviours on peoples or curtailing choices will not work. Even when Nagaland bans alcohol, people sell it in Nagaland or people get it from Assam. So long as something is ‘forbidden’ it shall be desired– remember Adam and the forbidden fruit? Laws and Rules may be made but it cannot guarantee behavioural changes and if the Rules are redundant, it needs to be reviewed or repealed. We also know that the NTLP Act has not only failed and caused many deaths (due to spurious alcohol consumption) but also created mafias of all sorts in Nagaland. Many of these mafia are also non-locals. Who or what do you think created these mafia, it is certainly linked to the NTLP Act.

III

If one is worried about someone abusing alcohol, why blame the product? If it is because of availability, why is it that some drink and some do not? Think about it. Go to the person whose life you want to change and work with them. Unless one does that, it is like blaming the devil for everything without trying to do anything. The key word here is “abuse” and not the product. Abuse happens when there is behavioral issue, lack of control and in many cases lack of awareness and often the emptiness of hope or values. No Act will help in creating hope or values? It must be the society and the institutes within that must strive to bridge this gap.

Abuse of anything is bad and it must be investigated seriously by society. Many argue that it is not the sole responsibility of the Church to work with alcohol abusers and I agree. Let us therefore focus on what we can and should do and leave the government to do what it thinks is appropriate.

IV

We must educate our society; we must indeed talk about the ill effects of alcohol or any other substance; we must talk about poor governance, about corruption, about abuse of power and everything unfair. We must be brave and ready to act against all these. We must learn to be angry about all forms of abuse, just as much as we are about the abuse of alcohol and on the issue of the NTLP Act.

It is true that alcohol abusers have broken many families and are a burden to society. They cause social disorder and disrupt normal life of – not just their immediate families but of society. We have all seen this. However, total prohibition is a futile solution that ignores the substratum of alcoholism which is irresponsible drinking. Those born after the imposition of the NTLP Act, being born in ‘liquor-free’ Nagaland should not have witnessed the ill effects of alcohol on family and on society. Yet, many have not only witnessed it but suffered the pain too. This raises the question about if the NTLP Act is indeed needed or not. What positive difference has it made?

Also why single out only alcohol? Is it because it is an easy target?

Here is an interesting fact – do you know that tobacco related deaths are higher than alcohol deaths in the world? If we are so concerned about the loss of life and the impact it has on families, we should also be talking about tobacco or consumption of sugar, fast food or red meat which are all causing silent killer diseases. See this graph to understand the difference in impact of alcohol and tobacco to human life. I wonder if we have such statistics for Nagaland too.

Data Source: IHME, Global Burden of Diseases (2024)

Note: Illicit drugs are drugs that have been prohibited under international drug control treaties. They include opioids, cocaine, amphetamines and cannabis

Rather than denial of rights, we should focus on education and awareness. Rather than fighting against the government on the NTLP Act, we should be fighting the habits of addiction by focusing on healthy lifestyles, family wellbeing, spirituality and being an inclusive society. Can we deny that a lot of ‘good contributing’ members of the Church – for example – drink alcohol? Does drinking alcohol make them bad citizens, administrators, Christians or bad role models? Are we, as a society being too judgmental?

We, as a society should not be driven just by emotions alone. The difference between extremists and others is that lack of rationalism. Let us contemplate and try to consider all positions in a rational manner. Let us not be blinded by our belief or faith alone. Every agency has their needs. The government relies on excise duties and taxes, just as much as the Church relies on donations and offerings. How both utilize their finances are a different matter. Enforcement without first educating the people for whom the rule is made, will be useless.

A. Jamir, Chümoukedima