maltmarch's blog

Call it what you will, but today's TOI's article "Its official, liquor laws relaxed" is a step towards gradual relaxation of prohibition. The article states Amit Shah, Minster of state for Home, saying "Liquor permits would be issued by prohibition officers and authorised officer of the special economic zone, and hotel managers could issue them to tourists from other states and foreigners". Of course, it will create a rush to get fake identity papers to prove we're not Gujarati's - but out of towners who have more rights that the blind residents here, but so be it. Do not expect much in an election year. But given the opposition, this is a step in the right direction under the nose of blind ideology followers.

The role of Gandhiji in helping to bring about Indian independence is well documented.  What is also well known is that the idea of non violence and passive resistance in gaining support from the public in Gandhiji's struggle for India's independence.  What is less known is the economic strategy behind Gandhiji's objective in limiting the economic strength of the British Government.  Gandhi's argument that prohibition was patriotic made sense because any diminution in consumption, let alone a complete ban, would hurt imperial finances. In 1930-1931, for example, the excise (on liquor) amounted to 33 percent of total revenues in Bombay province (which then included the current Gujarat and Maharashtra states) and 31 percent in Madras province.  Gandhiji was also against consumption of tea, the sale of which, again added to the imperial government's coffers. 
The well-documented "passive resistance" has lost its original meaning and,
today, people only think of fasting (popularized by Gujarat politicians who jump
at the chance to fast for anything), but prohibition was one of the straws as a
"satyagrahi" move to counter the taxes the imperial power collected to keep
Indians under their control. Not only this, but the call for prohibition placed Indian nationalists in a position of moral superiority over their foreign overlords. Acknowledging the likely loss in revenue, Gandhi cheerfully suggested that the British could offset their losses by reducing military expenditure. Because most Indian drinkers were poor, illiterate, and lacking in political influence, prohibition was a policy with few political disadvantages.  Importantly, it was an issue on which Hindus and Muslims could make common cause against the British*. 

Feb. 19, 2007: Today, the three of us - myself (Dinesh), Abhishek Shah and Kanan Dhru paid a visit to Gujarat Vidyapeeth on the invitation of a few post-grad students. Gujarat Vidyapeeth, under the leadership of its Vice Chancellor Sudarshan Iyenger, is organizing a massive rally on Feb 21st against any thing and everything to do with the likelihood of relaxation of the prohibition policy in Gujarat. Some concerned students wanted to hear the rationale behind our anti-prohibition motivation.

I have a very simple question to ask the pro-prohibitionists.  If they ever do consume alcohol, will they follow it up by beating up their spouse?  Well, all the people I know who drink certainly don't. 

On Feb 13, AMA held a lecture cum debate on "Prohibition: Pros and Cons". Mr. Rajiv Vastupal, president of AMA, later told me that he had no intention to have all four speakers to be anti-prohibition and had selected the speakers based on some of them having taken a pro-prohibition stand earlier, but that person changed over to anti-prohibition later after studying all the issues and data available. All the four speakers:

Taxes collected from sales of liquor in other states of India, makes up, on an average, around 12% of the state's income. Topping the list is Karnataka, which makes 18% of its income through taxes collected on Alcohol, amounting to Rs. 4,060 Crores.  Gujarat, on the other end, makes a paltry Rs. 58 Crores!! 
Everyone knows alcohol is available in Gujarat, and the estimates of the amount that the Government loses because of Prohibition is Rs. 2,500 crores!  Around 50% of the price of a liquor bottle sold is comprised of a combination of taxes - except in Gujarat where the taxes are not paid at all since, technically, no booze is sold.  Pro-Prohibitionists argue that Gujarat doesn't need this income, we are doing fine without it.  But does such a short sighted answer consider the fact that Rs. 2,500 crores are going into fuelling corruption, underworld crime and everything that pro-prohibitionists consider unwanted at any cost?  So, please wake up and realize that prohibition is a failed experiment.  It is a self defeating system, as other countries around the world have also learnt time and time again. cont.... 

Maltmarchers went to the "52 hour fast at the Gandhi Ashram" held by Shankersinh Vaghela, who is trying hard to associate himself as the next "bapu", and asked him to take an oath on the Bhadvad Gita that he has never had a drink in Gujarat ever since prohibition has been in effect. Amid thousands of his supporters, he exercised his right not to take the oath, but for a man who also
admitted that he has had "all kinds of liquors" during his travel out of state, isn't it unintelligent to compare drinking to rape, murder, etc.?  By his logic, would it mean that if he can drink outside of Gujarat, he'd also go to a brothel where its legal or kill or rape someone where there is no law? No, because he himself, like everyone else, knows that drinking is not a moral violation whereas murder, rape, etc. are. because there is a clear and identifiable victim (domestic violence, which is morally unacceptable, is a matter of governance and not prohibition. Any person in Gujarat can still get hooch and tharra, drinks that are not legal in any state and will remain illegal even if prohibition is lifted). In case of prostitution, there is no victim since both parties are consenting but its morally wrong if you are being unfaithful to your spouse, present or future.

Why not drinkers and teetotalers? We have accepted secularism as the idealogy for our nation, whereby even religion is allowed as a freedom of choice, why not drinking which is a part of many cultures and religion such as christianity, sikhs, and also some tribes? The Gandhians imposing teetotalism on the rest of us is like the Taliban imposing strict "moral" code on everyone under their rule in Afghanistan. Forced imposing of moral values just doesn't work - although, unfortunately, it can last a hell of a lot of time, as with the prohibition because the supressors play on the fear of the population. If the current politicians playing on the fears of the population by staging anti-prohibition movement had been around Gandhiji's time, they would have tried to dissuade him from a secular, democratic India and, instead, opted for a socialist, religious fundamentalist nation. And we know that everyone has a different understanding of religion, just like different Gandhians have of Gandhiji's idealism.

What is the point behind the Gandhians supporting Shankarsinh Vaghela, who they admitted (to the MaltMarchers) is for nothing but political gain from his fasting at the Gandhi Ashram? Under the short time that the Vaghela Government was in power in 1997, they gave out more liquor shop licenses to hotels in Gujarat than any other Govt., not to mention the liquor permits given out. Would Gandhiji have supported their meddling in political games in the name of his idealogy? If Vaghela forms a Govt. tomorrow and continues on his own mockery of the prohibition by giving out more licences as he has done in the past, what will the Gandhians do? Stage a satyagraha with the Modi govt. and cry fowl over the Vaghela Govt.? Please stop this and move on. Gandhians, please realize that you will not be out of a job if prohibition is lifted, there are a lot of things Gandhiji stood for and Prohibition, in its current form, is not one of them. Gandhianism, and the idea of non violence, is a philosophy of being more moral than your enemy which induces the moral code in your oppressor to withdraw. If that is the strategy behind their actions, I ask them to rethink about who the oppressor is in this case and about their actions.