[Dec 2007, Volume 4 Quarterly Issue] Pdf File size - The IIPM Think ...

SOTTO VOCE
the Directorate of Prohibition has
been organizing fairs/melas, nukkar
nataks, magic programmes, short films,
and propaganda through kiosks,
hoardings, backlit pillars, banners, bus
back panels/queue shelters, computer
animation display systems, seminars
and conferences, personality development
programmes, adventure activities,
youth camps in collaboration with
voluntary organizations. It has a staff
of 21 employees (2005), a budget allocation
of Rs. 1.7 crores for 2006-07,
and has spent almost Rs. 8 crores in 7
years (between 1997-98 and 2004-05).
73.4 percent of the expenditure went as
‘other charges', 10.2 percent into salaries,
6.9 percent into strengthening of
the department, and 9.1 percent in actual
advertisement & publicity. All this
to convey the message, which is mentioned
as the last point in the Do’s &
Don’ts list of the Excise department:
“Consumption of liquor is injurious to
health.” According to a survey conducted
in 2002 by the Evaluation Unit
of Planning department, 92 percent of
those who consumed liquor were aware
of its ill-effects, while 30 percent had
reduced consumption due to Directorate’s
publicity, doctor’s advise, social
compulsion and financial difficulties.
Starting with the name of the Directorate
itself, there is no more “Prohibition”
(as it refers officially to a restriction
or ban on manufacture, import,
export and sale of liquor) in Delhi. Appraisal
of the Annual Plan 2004-05 by
Planning department says that the
functional utility and role of departments/undertakings
like the Directorate
of Prohibition needs to be assessed
in view of “the changed scenario.” At
a time when liquor sector has been liberalized
by the state government,
where is the moral/technical justification
for Directorate of Prohibition?
Alcohol consumption has increased
over the years, but who is reaping the
benefits of it? The government itself,
through its Excise department and infact,
more than the so-called “liquor
mafia.” The government should think
clear and decide what it needs: revenues
or Gandhigiri?
More importantly, by the Directorate’s
own admission, in course of addressing
the reasons for alcohol intake,
the will power of the consumer, love
and affection by people close to him/
her, motivate a consumer to reduce/
give up alcohol consumption (Annual
Report 2001-2002). Is the Directorate
capable of any of these? By all measures,
not in the least. Institutionally,
de-addiction centers would be more
helpful. But the Directorate has none.
If information dissemination is the
aim, civil society does take care of that,
and newspapers do publish newer research
on health issues as well as on
While the Excise department is committed to “making safe
liquor available to the consumers,” the Directorate of Prohibition
tries “to promote healthy living among the citizens
of Delhi by educating the ill effects of liquor!
alcohol consumption (The Times of
India, New Delhi, December 29, 2006).
And they are probably much more effective
owing to their wide reach. If the
government still insists, it could either
remould the Directorate to the status
of a cell within Directorate of Information
& Publicity. This in my opinion,
makes good economic sense. Alternatively,
it can outsource publicity to an
ad vertising agency, as it has undertaken
in the case of ‘India Shining’
campaign. People will vote in its favour.
Widening the debate, and with
far-reaching consequences, let us ask
if the government, especially in a pluralistic
country like India, should be
involved with moral issues of either individual
or social import? Claiming
that alcohol consumption “weakens
the entire social structure” and “distorts
the priorities of the development
process” is too far-fetched to be discussed
seriously. The moral argument
touches upon individual and community
rights, and the freedom that is or
should be available to them. As a
staunch advocate of individual choice,
I am in favour of letting the individuals
decide for themselves, without making
value-judgments or taking subjective
decisions, to the extent that their actions
do not hurt others or the system.
Making drunk driving illegal is fine,
but the invasion of moral spaces in a
secular state like India is extremely
‘disenchanting.’
THE INDIA ECONOMY REVIEW
173