Prohibition has not worked in Manipur. It has not in all other places it was sought to be imposed. Everybody knows this, yet the farce continues. A few weeks ago, an article on the online edition of the Time said something similar with regards to abortion. It said not only has abortion been most rampant in countries that banned it, but also the practice was most unhygienic in these places. The first contention is disputable. In places these bans do not exist, people don’t notice them happening unlike in places where the bans do exist. The bans themselves arouse extra interests making researchers to do closer studies of the phenomenon in these places and less so in societies where there are no such bans. Otherwise, common sense should inform even the average men and women that the prevalence of these practices should somewhat remain the same, be there a ban on them or not. But the veracity of the second contention should be beyond any doubt.
This is for a variety of reasons. Take the case of prohibition in Manipur, which has been in place for the last three decades. Those born less than thirty years ago probably would think there never was anything legal about alcohol consumption in the state and that those who do consume it necessarily have to do so in stealth and against their conscience. They would not be wrong altogether. People continue to drink but they drink in stealth and indignity now. The only difference between the times there was no ban and now is, there are no longer any official outlets to buy liquor. Whatever is sold is in the black market. This has meant among others, two things. One, their prices have been inflated hugely, and two, there is never any certainty of brand availability so that people drink whatever is available, and this nobody will dispute has great potential of being a health wrecker.
These considerations apart, for a practice which has not been successfully abolished, the state would be losing considerably revenue each year. To make it worse, this revenue is not just lost, but turned into black money. If there are people who benefited from the long spell of prohibition, it definitely would be black marketers. Our appeal then is, those behind the longish prohibition in the state should begin rethinking on a strategy of lifting the ban but making sure its ill effect are minimised. As for instance, while sale and consumption of liquor is made legal again, drunkenness in public places could remain as infringement on the law. Today just the opposite seems to be happening. It is also interesting to note that two neighbouring states of Nagaland and Mizoram too have been officially dry for just about the same period as Manipur. In these two states it is the Church which called for the ban unlike in Manipur where it was underground organisations which made the first move, followed by the government. People familiar with these two places also know, as in Manipur, drinking has not come down. In Mizoram the enforcement is a little stricter, and alcoholic beverages are still not served openly in restaurants and bars. In Nagaland, although officially banned, the enforcement is much more relaxed and liquor is served in many restaurants openly.
It is now time to lift this ban in Manipur. Whatever lessons that needed to be driven home have been done so. The mission the prohibition was meant to achieve, that of controlling rampant alcoholism to the extent possible, has been accomplished long ago. Its continuance can now only do harm to the state and its people. As for instance, with the state preparing to open the doors to tourism, prohibition can become a big impediment. Tourists generally visit new places where they can relax, and in the universal picture of relaxation, chilled beer is an inalienable part. Those in the hospitality industry, especially the new swanky hotels which have sprung up in Imphal, where tourists, especially foreign tourists flock to, we are sure will vouch on this. Again, prohibition gives a place the image and atmosphere of puritanical orthodoxy in the sense the Taliban is fanatically so. Surely, nobody would want Manipur to suffer such an image in the outside world. We are not talking about licentiousness or permissiveness, but of a liberal approach to life, in which social norms are determined not by diktats but by individual sense of responsibility which intuitively puts a limit on the extent individual freedom can be pushed and thus draw the line between what is proper behaviour and what is not. This ability of free judgment on these matters is what should define civilised behaviour and not ones enforced through bans and diktats.