Image by ndemello from Pixabay | For representational purpose only
Izirangbe Hegui (Izi)
UTC Bangalore
The recent deaths linked to suspected spurious liquor in Nagaland should not be treated merely as another crime story or another episode of illegal alcohol consumption. They should force the Church, the government, families and society to ask a deeper question: What kind of society are we building when a substance that is officially prohibited can nevertheless enter our communities, reach our young people, and in the worst cases cost human lives?
According to recent reports, at least 20 people died in two suspected spurious-liquor incidents in Tuensang and Mokokchung. Eleven deaths were reported in Tuensang and nine in Mokokchung. I am sure that there may be other cases in different districts that have not been officially reported, properly investigated, or publicly disclosed.
These deaths are not simply statistics. Behind every number is a human being- a father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister or friend. Every death affects an entire family. Every family affected becomes part of the story of our society.
For a Christian community, therefore, this is not merely a question about alcohol. It is a question about life, dignity, responsibility, justice, public health and the mission of the Church.
Life is sacred
The starting point of a Christian response must be the biblical conviction that human life has profound value. Genesis 1:27 teaches that human beings are created in the image of God. Jesus declares in John 10:10, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (NRSV). These words provide an important theological foundation for thinking about the alcohol problem in Nagaland.
The Church cannot be satisfied merely by condemning drinkers after tragedy has occurred. The Christian calling is to protect life before tragedy occurs.
The question should therefore not be simply, “Who is guilty?” but also, “What can we do to prevent another family from losing a loved one?”
This does not mean that individuals have no responsibility for their choices. They do. Scripture repeatedly calls human beings to self-control, sobriety and responsible living. Paul writes, “Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18). The Christian tradition has therefore consistently regarded drunkenness as destructive rather than something to be celebrated.
The tragedy behind prohibition
Nagaland’s Liquor Total Prohibition Act, 1989, was enacted with the stated purpose of totally prohibiting the possession, sale, consumption, manufacture, import and export of liquor in the State.
The historical intention behind the law was connected to concerns about alcohol abuse and its consequences for society. The Nagaland government’s own discussion of the policy has acknowledged that the Act was introduced to address social problems associated with alcohol and to reduce alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm. At the same time, the Nagaland government itself has acknowledged that the NLTP Act has had unintended consequences, including black-market activity, criminal syndicates, and spurious/inferior liquor. The Chief Minister has also said that the Act “cannot be called successful” after more than three decades. In 2026, the government was still examining the NLTP Act, including its social and enforcement implications. This creates an uncomfortable reality.
A law can have a good intention and still require serious examination when its practical consequences are not achieving its intended purpose.
The present tragedy demonstrates why this conversation cannot simply be avoided. The recent investigations have shown the scale of the illegal liquor problem. Police have seized thousands of bottles and cans, while separate investigations have been launched in Tuensang and Mokokchung. Authorities have warned citizens against unidentified, unlabelled or suspected illicit liquor.
The question, therefore, is not whether Nagaland should encourage drinking. It should not. The question is whether prohibition by itself is sufficient to protect people when alcohol continues to circulate through an illegal and unregulated market.
When prohibition creates an underground market
One of the greatest dangers of an underground alcohol market is the absence of reliable quality control. When alcohol is sold through a regulated system, governments can potentially establish standards for production, packaging, labelling, taxation, licensing, testing, traceability and enforcement. Under a prohibition system, however, alcohol that is nevertheless consumed can move through illegal channels where consumers may not know what they are actually drinking. This does not mean that legally available alcohol is automatically safe. Nor does it mean that removing prohibition would automatically eliminate adulteration, alcoholism or alcohol-related deaths. Rather, it means that the policy question deserves evidence-based examination.
If alcohol consumption continues despite prohibition, society must ask whether the current framework is effectively reducing harm or whether it is pushing part of the problem into a hidden market where consumers have even less protection.
What about the NLTP Act?
The debate over the NLTP Act should not be reduced to two simplistic positions: “prohibition is good” versus “prohibition is bad.” There are at least two legitimate public-health concerns that must be held together. First, uncontrolled alcohol consumption can cause enormous harm-addiction, family violence, financial hardship, road accidents, health problems, neglect of children and spiritual and social breakdown. Second, an illegal and unregulated alcohol market can create additional risks, including adulteration, poisoning, exploitation and criminal distribution networks. Therefore, the question before Nagaland should be: What policy framework can most effectively reduce alcohol-related harm, protect young people, prevent poisoning, strengthen families and hold suppliers accountable?
Some may argue for retaining prohibition with stronger enforcement. Others may argue for reviewing or repealing the NLTP Act and replacing total prohibition with a tightly regulated system. Still others may advocate a combination of strict regulation, public-health interventions and stronger community programmes. Whatever policy direction is eventually chosen, it should be based on evidence rather than ideology alone.
The Church must not become silent
The Church in Nagaland has historically played an important role in social questions, including the movement that contributed to the adoption of prohibition. Contemporary discussions about the NLTP Act have also recognized the historical involvement of church bodies and civil society organisations in opposing alcohol-related harm. Therefore, the Church cannot now simply withdraw from the conversation. But the Church's role should not be limited to political campaigning. The Church has a deeper ministry: formation, prevention, healing, counselling, discipleship and restoration.
Young people need more than sermons telling them, “Do not drink.” They need meaningful employment opportunities. They need healthy friendships. They need sports, creativity, education and purposeful activities. They need counselling when they are struggling. They need fathers and mothers who listen. They need churches that understand addiction not merely as a moral failure but also as a complex human problem involving family, psychology, social environment, economics and personal choices.
The theological answer is self-control, not merely prohibition
Christian theology does not teach that changing a law will automatically transform the human heart. A young person does not become sober simply because a bottle is illegal. Likewise, a person does not automatically become responsible simply because alcohol becomes legally regulated. Christian transformation begins deeper than lawmaking.
Paul identifies self-control as a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). This is important. Christian discipleship seeks transformation from within. The Church therefore has a responsibility to develop a culture in which young people understand that freedom is not the freedom to destroy oneself.
Rick Wiedeman wrote “True freedom is the ability to say no”. Freedom is not measured by how much alcohol one can consume but by how much control one has over one’s own life.
Families Must Become Places of Prevention
Alcohol abuse affects not only the drinker but the whole family. It can lead to conflict, financial hardship, neglect and lasting emotional wounds, especially for children. Therefore, the family must become a first line of prevention. Parents should model responsible behaviour, talk openly with children about alcohol and addiction, and learn to recognize early warning signs. The Church should strengthen pastoral counselling and work with qualified counsellors, doctors, psychologists, social workers and rehabilitation centres. Prayer is essential, but prayer and professional care can work together in the healing of addiction.
Government and Church Must Work Together
The government, Church, families, medical professionals and civil society all have different responsibilities, but they must work together to protect life. The present tragedy should lead to a stronger public-health response, including better forensic facilities, strict action against illicit liquor, public awareness, addiction treatment, youth programmes and transparent evaluation of the NLTP Act.
The recent investigation showed the need for stronger scientific capacity, as the Dimapur FSL detected methanol in samples linked to the Tuensang case but could not initially measure its quantity due to a lack of necessary equipment. Strengthening forensic and laboratory services must therefore be treated as a public-safety priority.
The Church must stand with affected families and speak truth with compassion. A Christian response to alcohol abuse should be truthful, compassionate, evidence-based and committed to human dignity. Whether the NLTP Act is retained, reviewed or changed, the goal must remain the same: strict control of illicit alcohol, quality and age protection, prevention, treatment and accountability. For Nagaland, the Christian principle should be clear: Protect life. Restore the broken. Strengthen families. Guide the young. Confront injustice. Seek the common good. This is not merely a political issue; it is a theological responsibility.
What I Have Seen in Bengaluru: Regulation Rather Than Prohibition
Living in Bengaluru has shown me that the legal availability of alcohol does not automatically lead to disorder in public life. I do not claim that Bengaluru has no alcohol-related problems. Alcohol abuse, addiction, drunk driving and domestic violence certainly exist and must be addressed. However, in my everyday experience, I do not commonly see streets filled with drunk people, public fights or constant disturbances simply because alcohol is legally available.
One important difference is regulation rather than total prohibition. Alcohol is sold through a regulated system, with mechanisms such as Karnataka’s K-SEAL system intended to help consumers identify authorised liquor and avoid counterfeit products. This raises an important question for Nagaland. When alcohol is completely prohibited but demand continues, does the demand disappear? or does it move into an illegal market? Underground markets can expose people to illicit, counterfeit or unsafe liquor, while also strengthening criminal networks. Therefore, the issue should not be reduced simply to whether people should drink. The more important question is: How can the State protect its people from the greatest possible harm?
A Final Appeal to Nagaland
The recent liquor deaths should become a turning point.
Nagaland should have the courage to review the NLTP Act honestly and without political or religious fear. The State’s own records show that the Act remains in force, while government discussions have acknowledged its enforcement challenges and unintended consequences. If, after careful examination, Nagaland decides to retain prohibition, then it must find a more effective way to prevent illegal liquor and protect people from adulterated products. If the State decides to repeal or substantially reform the NLTP Act, that change must come with strict regulation, quality control, age restrictions, public-health safeguards, treatment programmes and strong enforcement against abuse.
The choice should not be between Christian morality and public safety. We need both. Nagaland can remain deeply Christian while developing a more evidence-based approach to alcohol policy. We should not measure our Christian identity merely by whether alcohol is legally prohibited. We should measure it by whether human beings are protected, families are strengthened, young people are given hope, addicts are helped, criminals are held accountable, and the vulnerable are not abandoned.
Perhaps the most important question is therefore not: “Should Nagaland allow alcohol”?
The deeper question is: What policy will best protect the life and dignity of the Naga people?
