Liquor Prohibition in Nagaland: ‘Arrogance of Church has backfired’

Our Reporter
Dimapur, March 14 (EMN): The Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act of 1989—which was introduced to ‘reduce crime and corruption, and solve social problems’—has instead increased the problem that it sought to address.

The NLTP Act 1989 was enacted to "totally prohibit possession, sale, consumption and manufacture of liquor in, and of import and export thereof in the state of Nagaland; and from the commencement of this Act Nagaland shall be a dry state and there shall be total prohibition of liquor in the state".

Instead, the Prohibition has affected only the poor. This was the argument of Kahuto Chishi Sümi, the gaon bura (GB) of Hevishe village during a conversation held on ‘Should the NLTP Act continue in Nagaland?’ organised by Heritage Publishing House, Morung Foundation and The Morung Express on Saturday at the Don Bosco Institute for Development and Leadership in Dimapur.

The other respondents at the conversation were the director of Prodigals' Home, K ELa; Additional Commissioner of Excise, Dimapur, Kevisetuo Angami; professor at Oriental Theological Seminary, Dr. Pangernungba Kichu; and assistant professor at North East Christian University Dimapur, Dr. Salikyu Sangtam.

Sümi opined that there are three types of drinkers in society: therapeutic drinkers, social drinkers, and alcoholics. He pointed out that with prohibition, society defined an alcoholic as a criminal/wife beaters/nuisance and that Prohibition did not address the nature of the addict. 

"Alcoholics form a small percentage of the buyers and when there is a scarcity of demand the price rises. There will always be someone to supply the needs, and this is where the bootleggers come in, and there is no way to enforce a ban on a product that is in demand," observed Sümi.

Prohibition, he maintained, does not address the problem of the society and it is not about improving the NLTP Act but rather, abrogating it.

‘Prohibition, a double standard’

Sümi further pointed out that the ‘main aspect’ of Prohibition in Nagaland is hypocrisy; and there is a difference between individual and institutional hypocrisy, where the former is ‘not acceptable’— making Nagaland Baptist Church Council (NBCC) the 'biggest hypocrite'.

Alcohol, he said, is socially acceptable and Prohibition denies a person from making a choice. When asked if the people are ready and prepared to face the consequences of lifting Prohibition, he said: “One cannot prepare people but there can be a mechanism to be prepared mentally."

In addition, Sümi questioned why NBCC was silent when people were debating on the issue.

Review and relook the Act

Kichu, in his statement, argued that the Act could not be seen in isolation. He opined that it was time to review and relook the Act and there should be an independent body comprising stakeholders. "Review should be reframed in the context of public property," he said.

"The institution-church is a sleeping giant and the arrogance of church has backfired. Also, the cursing of the church by the public has made the church unhappy whereas the church was responding to a social crisis in 1989. We have to make a respectable approach," Kichu maintained.

The church, he suggested, should be the first agent to review and initiate dialogue on the Act and be the first body to call for a review.

‘The arguments for continuing are very weak and we need a Naga collective process to prepare a ground. If the Church is not coming out, the citizens should democratise,’ he said.

Ela asserted that the Act was introduced with good intention but not implemented properly, which needs to be revisited to improve the situation. She opined that the Act needs to be "revised and take/omit/add which was apt for the present society."

She stated that it was not about lifting Prohibition or continuing it but the health of the people.   

Angami argued that with resource constraint and free flow of alcohol in the neighbouring states, it was difficult for the Excise department to enforce Prohibition; and that crime and alcohol would continue.

He reminded that when the government introduced the NLTP Act, it had decided to forgo all revenues; and it is affecting the economy today.     

"We have to identify the class of people running the bootlegging (business) if Prohibition is to continue as there are marginalised mothers feeding their family through the selling of alcohol," Angami shared.

"We must not be guided by whims and fancies," he added.

Sangtam said that some might claim Prohibition would reduce consumption of alcohol but those who consumed it would find a way to drink; lifting Prohibition would bring in revenue but it would affect the society with easy access to alcohol.

He stated that the question should rather be ‘what drives an individual to drink?’ as lifting or continuing Prohibition would not prevent an individual from drinking.

Superintendent of Excise and Prohibition, Dimapur, T Arilong Longkumer opined that the Excise department was a "quick fix solution", and that the Church has not provided any proactive solution or called any organisation for discussion.

Stating that society is evolving, he suggested the lifting of Prohibition in Nagaland.

A representative of Nagaland Medicine Dealers Association (NMDA) affirmed that the association was totally against Prohibition as it is promoting demand for pharmaceutical drugs.

Publisher of The Morung Express Dr. Akum Longchari, in his concluding remarks, observed that the dialogue on Prohibition was centred on the certain institution and it has to go to the people, who are the ‘primary stakeholders’.

Longchari said that ‘we need to reflect on whether truth is about being morally right or factually right, or both’.