Zeluosielie Kehie
Sovima Village, Chümoukedima
For more than three decades, the Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act, 1989, has remained a subject of debate over whether it should be retained, amended, or repealed. While some see repeal as a way to regulate alcohol sales and generate revenue, others believe prohibition protects our Christian values, culture, and social fabric.
In my opinion, both sides have valid concerns. Yet the issue should not be reduced to simply “prohibition versus repeal.” Even if the law is changed, alcohol abuse will not disappear automatically. The more important questions are not simply whether the Act should be retained or repealed, but rather: i) What is our individual and collective responsibility in addressing alcohol abuse? and, ii) Are we, as a society, genuinely prepared to accept and act upon that responsibility?
Alcohol abuse cannot be addressed through legislation alone. Blaming the Government, churches, village/colony councils, civil society, law enforcement agencies, or shifting responsibility from one group to another will not solve the problem. Every stakeholder has a role, and positive lasting change depends on personal discipline, faith, family guidance, education, community support, and individual responsibility.
Our villages provide an important example. Across our State, rural village councils have prohibited the sale of alcohol, and liquor shops are rarely found operating openly. Yet some individuals continue to concealed sale and consumption of alcohol. This shows that prohibiting the sale of alcohol can restrict availability, but prohibition alone cannot eliminate consumption. Community awareness, counselling, family support, moral guidance, and personal conviction must complement regulatory measures. Urban areas face different challenges because of their larger, denser, economically active, and more diverse populations. Nevertheless, majority of urban residents in our State are our own Naga people who share similar cultural traditions, community values, social institutions, and Christian beliefs with those living in rural villages. If village communities have, to some extent, been able to prohibit or discourage the sale of alcohol in their villages/colonies through collective responsibility, strong community cooperation, and effective local leadership, there is reason to believe urban colonies too can further strengthen their collective efforts to discourage and, wherever feasible, prevent the sale and harmful use of alcohol within their respective localities. The methods may differ from those adopted in rural areas, but the underlying principle of community ownership and shared responsibility remains equally relevant. This should not be understood as criticism or a suggestion that town councils/colonies are failing in their responsibilities. On the contrary, town councils/colonies are making sincere efforts within their respective capacities for the welfare and well-being of society. Their contributions, challenges, and continued efforts deserve our acknowledgement, appreciation, and recognition.
Here it is to state that villages are without challenges or that they are perfect, nor does it suggest that towns are inherently problematic. Rather, the intention is to recognize that both rural and urban communities face their own distinct challenges and that community ownership, cooperation, and shared responsibility are essential in both settings.
The NLTP debate should not become a blame game or a simple question of retaining or repealing the Act. Rather than allowing the NLTP debate to deepen divisions in our society, we should view it as an opportunity for honest dialogue, careful reflection, and collective action towards finding practical, positive and lasting solutions. Only then can we address not just the law, but the deeper social, cultural and behavioural challenges that lie beneath the issue. Responsibility does not rest with the Government alone. Churches cannot shoulder it by themselves. Nor can village or urban councils, civil society organisations, or law enforcement agencies solve the issue independently. Every stakeholder has an important role to play. If any change to the NLTP Act is considered, it should be based on broad public consultation, credible evidence, careful study, and the long-term welfare of the people-not emotion, convenience, or short-term interests.
No law can substitute for personal discipline, moral conviction, family values, and community responsibility. No amount of government enforcement can succeed without the cooperation, understanding and active participation of the people. Real and lasting change cannot be achieved through legislation and enforcement alone. It begins with individuals, families, churches, communities, civil society, and government working together and taking responsibility for the society.
The present and future of our State is not determined solely by the existence or absence of the NLTP Act. It will be shaped by the values we uphold, the strength of our families, the spiritual guidance of our churches, the leadership of our representatives, village and urban councils, the commitment of our communities, the example we set for future generations, and the willingness of every citizen to contribute to a healthier and more responsible society. Laws are an important part of the solution because they establish rules, regulate conduct, and provide a framework for enforcement. However, laws alone cannot change personal attitudes, desires, values, or behaviour. Lasting positive change requires the combined efforts of individuals, families, churches, communities, civil society, and Government.
