Imkong Walling
Nagaland was just witness to a series of fatalities linked to adulterated liquor. The September tragedies in Tuensang and Mokokchung have sparked heightened vigil across a ‘dry state, ‘with enforcement agencies and civil society teaming up to proclaim ‘zero tolerance’ against alcohol.
Raids have been conducted, some arrests made, and parallel Special Investigation Teams (SIT) instituted in both districts. Arresting and parading small fries is anything but a solution when the kingpins and their collaborators are conveniently kept off the investigative radar.
As opposed to two district-level investigations operating in isolation, the response ought to be a comprehensive state-level inquiry, covering all angles, tracing the alcohol-money trail and the various collaborators.
The Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act is in itself a contradiction. While it empowers the Directorate of Excise and Prohibition, it restrains the police from acting suo moto. As per the Act, the police can search, seize, and detain, but can register an FIR only upon a written complaint from an Excise official. Why has the government, if at all serious, made no effort to resolve the inherent disconnect?
It, however, hardly serves as an excuse for the state police chief to claim that few are willing to report cases of liquor trafficking.
Meanwhile, how does all the alcohol get in? It is an open secret that standing guard at the checkposts is a lucrative posting for uniformed personnel. In the wake of the deaths, they are going after small-time sellers for peddling the very illicit alcohol they allowed through the gates.
While alcohol has become increasingly demonised and chastised, social acceptance flatly contradicts the stand of the moral keepers. Proclamations like ‘zero tolerance’ amount to mere sloganeering when they stop short of demanding that the big fish responsible for smuggling and storing IMFL by the truckload be brought to book.
The reason Prohibition should be reviewed is obvious for all to see– alcohol is easily available. For once, the state government has got to do what it thinks is right. State and religion are two separate domains. Why electoral prospects are even connected to the Prohibition law? Prohibition or not, money will still determine election outcomes in Nagaland.
The tragedies in Tuensang and Mokokchung happened because of Prohibition. The state government, its enforcement agencies, and the prohibitionists need to take moral responsibility for the deaths.
The argument for repealing is not for supporting those who profit from illicit alcohol. It is for putting an end to illicitly profiting from alcohol.
The argument is relevant because a society is obligated to protect its people from the destructive effects of illicit alcohol on public health and on the economy.
An informed and concerned society is justified to start questioning the rationale of statutes and their proponents when the set of laws — proclaimed to restore well-being — become unfeasible, unproductive, and lethal. Conversely, genuine morality also implies having the faculty to honestly examine what is playing out in the real world.
The ‘repeal NLTP’ narrative should not be dismissed as inadequate libertarian bluster, but an unadulterated demand grounded on practical reality.
The writer is a Principal Correspondent at The Morung Express. Comments can be sent to [email protected]
