By Besesayo Kezo, IPS, Retd. DGP
Introduction
The inhabitants of Nagaland are significantly involved in the Nagaland Total Liquor Prohibition Act of 1989. Some individuals advocate for and oppose the act, substantiating their positions with references to external instances and religious texts, notably the Holy Bible. This contentious matter has evoked strong sentiments from both sides. In addressing this sensitive subject, I aim to offer an impartial viewpoint that values all perspectives, facilitating an equitable and thorough discourse. I intend to articulate the rationale behind the need for prohibition and examine the feasibility of its enforcement, all while recognising the valid apprehensions of both proponents and adversaries.
Genesis
The influence of family dynamics on children’s habits and behaviours is indelible. It is the stable and disciplined environment, fostered by parents with positive habits, that often leads to children who are less susceptible to negative influences than those from unstable backgrounds with alcoholic parents, underscoring the pivotal role of parental guidance in shaping a child’s lifestyle choices, particularly in the context of alcoholism, empowering parents with a sense of responsibility and control over their children’s upbringing.
Providing children with the tools to live healthily depends heavily on parental influence, instilling a sense of responsibility and self-control. Empowering children encourages active participation and increased interest from the younger generation.
Authoritarian parenting styles may inadvertently catalyse a child’s rebellious tendencies. Moreover, at a micro level, children may assimilate negative habits and tendencies through association with peers. While they may temporarily stray from parental teachings, it is noteworthy that individuals often adopt the role models established by their parents as they mature.
Prevention
The government has a significant role in promoting overall development but a limited role in reforming the morals and habits of the citizens. The responsibility for instilling good morals and habits rests primarily with parents as the primary educators and role models and the home as a fundamental institution for children’s education. Changing habits is a challenging process, often necessitating the use of coercion. However, the government’s intervention in disciplining citizens based solely on their habits, without any specific criminal activity, should be minimal and sparingly employed in the best interests of individuals and society.
Therefore, a balanced approach is crucial when addressing citizens’ drinking habits, which are deeply ingrained and integral to many individuals’ lives. This balance and acknowledging individual rights foster a sense of consideration and respect within the community, making each citizen feel valued and heard. By our secular constitution and democratic principles, the influence of religious leaders in politics is unwarranted and foreboding, regardless of any particular religion.
Religion and Politics
Religion encompasses rites and rituals associated with the divine and the afterlife, while politics concerns worldly matters. Religion pertains to the spiritual welfare of individuals, whereas politics addresses the material progress of the world and the well-being of its inhabitants. Nonetheless, religion’s moral and ethical principles significantly impact the behaviour of their adherents in secular affairs, guiding them on right and wrong. Moral issues transcend the confines of logic and reason, as many principles hold universal validity that extends beyond specific religious denominations or sects. Such principles are applicable and acceptable across various faiths, highlighting their interfaith significance.
Why Prohibition
Suppose over-drinking becomes a pandemic and disrupts society through the behaviour of individuals despite the appeal from religious teachers and spiritual and social leaders. In that case, the government may relieve them by enacting laws prohibiting those misbehaved drunkards, but not against peaceful and ordinary people. That is unjust and a travesty of justice. Religious organisations have the right to propagate their ideologies and moral precepts but cannot force anybody to conform to their religious convictions through threats or the use of violence. That will be an irreligious activity, disgusting, and immoral. They are not running a government but just a great moral force.
Concerning Christianity, they are about saving the lost souls or sinners to repentance and saving them from eternal damnation and life with Jesus Christ. Our model is Jesus Christ and his life ministry on earth. Did he ever use force of any kind to convert people? No record shows that he prohibited drinking wine or intoxicating drinks in the gospel. Christianity should be faithful to his preaching. Selective quotations from the scriptures may cause more harm than good and even distort history.
Appeal
The consumption of alcohol, when excessive, is akin to the harm caused by overeating. We must advocate for moderation in our behaviours and dispositions, instilling a sense of responsibility and mindfulness in our actions. Addressing the issue of alcohol abuse does not imply that every individual who consumes alcohol or develops a drinking habit is inherently evil or sinful. Instead, the crux of the matter lies in the immoderate use of alcoholic beverages. No scholarly pedantry or rationalisation can absolve the excessive and detrimental habit that inevitably leads to the ruin of lives and the economy. Regardless of its religious implications, excessive drinking leads to sinful behaviours and undermines societal well-being. Therefore, we must be mindful of our alcohol consumption and practice moderation.
However, the involvement of religion in addressing this detrimental practice may lead to unintended consequences. Spiritual and social leaders should treat it as a secular issue, allowing the government to address it while continuing to denounce all forms of wrongdoing, including governmental corruption and failure. The state government enacted the NTLPA in 1989, and the people of Nagaland have the right to criticise the government’s inability to enforce it effectively. If the government acknowledges its failure to execute the law and considers amending it for valid reasons, it should do so with the populace’s support. Their actions should not be based on religious grounds but instead stem from their role as representatives of the people. They are obligated to act in the best interest of the citizens, irrespective of their religious affiliations. The government should repeal the contentious NTLPA and replace it with a more progressive alternative, whether the religious organisations in Nagaland approve it or not.
In managing a secular state and constitution, it is imperative to uphold the principles of a liberal democracy and refrain from establishing a theocracy. Authorities should not transgress the designated boundaries. The state government and religious organisations should recognise their boundaries and work together to promote their constituents’ collective well-being and progress within their respective spheres without confrontation or public mockery. Neither party would benefit from a power struggle, as the church would diminish its spiritual influence, and the state would lose its moral authority, losing public trust. Their confrontation and disagreement would only perpetuate historical conflicts between church and state, ultimately leading to a display of false pride and ego, weakening both entities.
