Imti Ozukum
A high school history teacher once said “there are two things we cannot govern: morality and stupidity”. Reflecting on the statement, history of prohibition from around the world seems to have proven it right on both accounts, and there is no reason to think otherwise about the history of prohibition in Nagaland as well. NLTP Act, 1989 of the state of Nagaland have, in all its manifestation, made a complete mockery not only of the legislative act but of the expressed moral and religious principles of our society. However, the bigger mockery lies not in its implementation failure and supposed “moral” failings of our society, but in the dogmatic insistence of governing morality and value by its proponents. Individuals and organizations expressing that “lifting NLTP Act is not the solution” ignores the apparent reality that not lifting the NLTP Act is not the solution either.Over 30 years of praying and advocacy have yielded not even an indication that neither churches and civil societies nor government have a viable strategy to deal with the issue under the current circumstances.
Prohibition of alcohol in our state emerged as a response to the rampant social ills plaguing out society during the earlier decades after statehood. Rampant antisocial activities, breakdown of families, quarrels, and unregulated sales of alcohol were said to be the order of the days.Comparatively, it was a time of greater social, economic and political turmoil than today. Alcohol emerged as the villain that must be burned at the altar to resolve the social problems. However, other than moral and religious justification, the process through which alcohol came to be demonized as the root cause of all the problem is left unquestioned and unanswered. Demonstrable rational and scientific evidence that alcohol is in fact the “evil” and the root cause of all the social ills, and that its prohibition has or would actually solve the problem was neither asked nor given. Causes and symptoms of social issues are often not straightforward to understand or resolve.
Attaining a certain level of harmony in our society post prohibition is no ground to claim credit for going from a state of non-regulation to a state of total prohibition given the fact that consumption and availability of alcohol have seen no or only marginal change. Prohibition has not made us more moral or dignified. In fact, alcohol consumption in Nagaland is higher than the National average, even surpassing some non-prohibition states in Northeast. At the same time,study also point to increasing alcohol-induced ailment and casualty in the state (H&FW, 2019). Yet we also cannot say that our moral and dignity has gone below pre-prohibition era. On the other hand, the crude death rate (CDR) of Nagaland has halved between 1981 and 2024, indicating, in general, factors not related to prohibition playing a determining role in shaping our social and economic development.Clearly the primary cause is not alcohol consumption or its availability.There are deeper underlying sociological factors influencing oursocial dynamics and alcoholism or alcohol related issues are symptoms of other social, political and economic indicators. The significant increase in tobacco and drug use in Nagaland, especially after prohibition, can perhaps be attribute to ban in alcohol just as Bihar saw significant increase in substance abuse as a result of alcohol prohibition in 2015.Even though it is hard to believe that our Government can or will effectively utilize the revenue from sales of alcohol for development once prohibition is lifted, it is also hard to believe that rejecting such stream of revenue will make us more virtuous.Sudden surge of concern over vested interest individuals benefiting from liquor sales once prohibition is lifted is only contrasted by their lack of concern for the myriad of social and economic problems weighing down on Nagas. NBCC’s representation to the Government that revisitingNLTP Act is not the solution, but to focus on governance, misses the point that revisiting the NLTP Act is the duty of the Government and part of governance.
Legislation concerning public life cannot be based on unidimensional approach to an issue. Religion and morality is just one dimension among many represented by the churches and civil societies. There is nothing wrong with that, but they also cannot be the economist, sociologist, health expert, psychologist, political scientist and policy expert all at the same time. It appears that beneath the passionate voices of the prohibitionist lie a deep seated concern of perceived threat to their moral hegemony.
Prohibition has created a fertile ground for flourishing of vast network of illegal activities, the victim of which are our own people. Illegal activities can happen due to number of socio-economic reasons but most people with social and economic depravity does not resort to illegal activities. Reasons such as resentment, psychological factors, biological factors, substance abuse, profit, poor upbringing, broken family, peer influence and sheer economic hardship etc. are generally attribute to illegal activities. Such are potent forces driving individuals to compromise on societal norms and religious principles; an aspect on which civil societies, religious institutions and Christian Nagas in general, claims to have authority over.The fear of Nagaland turning into a state of anarchy and moral decay by the prohibitionist if alcohol ban is lifted only reflects lack of confidenceand undermining of public conscience. Shying away from and hindering the very tools and process through which society progress and mature is regressive. Church leaders cautioning Nagas on “pragmatism” and “relativism” as if these are bad words is a case in point. The strong belief that alcohol is “evil” itself is a relativistic notion differing across Christian communities around the world. While pragmatism simply means to be sensible and realistic and not remaining fixated on an idea, belief, or political and religious dogma. Historically speaking, modern day Christianity has been a beneficiary of the ideals of pragmatism and relativism allowing churches to evolve and change its nature, function and doctrinal positions. Prohibitionist do not speak from a position of moral epitome while anti-prohibitionist does not speak from a position of moral decay either. To believe otherwise, I think, is simply moral chauvinism and intellectual perversion.
We have a piece of legislation that seeks to regulate our behaviour and moderate our worldview based on religious fervour and sentimentalism. What is surprising is not that we have such a legislation, but the insistence on keeping and strengthening it against the tide of reality.The meaning of “society has changed” seems to have been lost among the proponents of prohibition. It does not imply a notion of moral laxity often erroneously associated with modern liberal society, but implies an evolved dialectic capacity to challenge established norms, values and beliefs. Modern society, including modern day Christianity itself, is a product of such process. Therefore, the question today is not just about the social and economic sense of the legislation, but also about questioning the pervasive religious tenets that seeks to consolidate and shape the future trajectory of our society. The point being, whether the prohibition is lifted or not should be based on rational and empirical ground and not religious doctrine, because the logic we embrace gets legitimized and reproduced. For example, if consuming alcohol is against Christian teaching, and since we are a Christian majority state, alcohol should be legally prohibited. To follow that logic, should a Hindu majority India legally prohibit beef consumption across the country? The case of Nagaland being a Christian majority state has no legitimate position in the question of prohibition if we do not agree with the above question. None of us believe that beef causes social evil, but the logic remains the same. Majority opinion or popular view is, in principle, no more valid or true than the minority voices. Majority or not, any claim made with absolute certainty of its truthfulness is not only suspicious but dangerous.Who and what makes decision for us cannot be conclusive but remain contested in order for any society to grow and improve. Nagaland may not be a theocratic state, but the arena of public deliberation is theocratic, especially with regard to prohibition.
While it is commendable that churches and civil societies would emerge as pressure group, a political instrument which Naga society sorely lacks, for societal reform, their legitimacy as representative voice, and the rationale of their argument is not a forgone conclusion and should not be treated as such. Clearly the failure of prohibition in Nagaland is not just due to deficiency in law enforcement, but a demonstration of how an ideology of an era has become seriously out of resonance with contemporary ideals.Societal issues should not be allowed to be overshadowed by lofty slogans, virtue signalling and moral grandiose. No longer can we remain ignorant and in denial but take the bull by its horn. The bull that stands in our way, unfortunately, is not the “evil” of alcoholism but churches and civil societies.Turning to philosophical question at this point such as “what is the church” is akin to asking “what is the government” when dealing with societal issues. It may invoke a momentary sense of profoundness but only ends up diffusing accountability and fogging the atmosphere of inquiry.While it is not a meaningless question in itself, the answer to that is not the solution to the problem at hand. Saying that “the emperor has no clothes” need not be a threat or a shame unless we too are without clothes.
Arguments on historical and economic aspect of the prohibition has been sufficiently made by numerous writers, but the doctrinal underpinning on which the moral and “sociological” arguments stand largely remain unquestioned due to the simple fact that religious dogmatism and societal dictate are taken for granted.The societal climate under which such conviction flourish, prevail, and perpetuate in our society is a climate of social and religious compliance and not a climate of free and fair rational discourse. Such an atmosphere of compliance undermines diversity of thought and strips away political capacity of the people. The people are reduced to an infantile state of perpetual dependence on the paternalistic institutions with monopoly over moral, values and norms.Within that context, it begs the question of whether the churches and civil societies are fair representation of the people’s voice?The real understanding of the issue lies in not what those institutions opines but in what has been moderated out.Devotion to socially, religiously and politically acceptable views only reinforces collective denial, supresses free speech, and distorts public debate, meanwhile the truth remains buried under social niceties.
Nagaland may be a Christian majority state, but the purported Christian “values” and “principles”, which proponents of prohibition wishes Nagas to uphold, are not incontestable. Assuming that certain values and principles, religion or otherwise, are incontestable only leads to its consolidation and fuel its totalizing tendency. With regard to alcohol and alcoholism, our churches and civil societies, and Naga Christians in general, have embarked on a path of monolithic thinking that alcohol is the common denominator against which equations of social issues can be worked out. It is a problem that goes beyond alcohol prohibition. Apart from desire to combat issue of alcoholism, the overshadowing felt need to portray an image of Christian virtuousness and higher moral standing by making Nagaland a dry state is deeply concerning. Are we so desperate that we need to take pride in banning alcohol in order to exhibit how good a Christian we are? I believe God couldn’t care less about that. There is nothing wrong in taking inspiration from religion and trying to achieve a high moral standard, but reducing something as subjective as moral principle into an enforceable code is something only a theocratic state or a state with theocratic inclination might do.
There is no one cause for a societal issue like the one at hand. Economic despair, family dynamic, poor education and healthcare, growing competition, poor institutional care, mental health, broken relationship, depression, lack of purpose, hollow spiritual life and out-of-touch social institutions are far more serious social problems faced by Naga society today. It is less likely that alcohol is singularly responsible for all those problems, but more likely that combination of those problems causes alcohol abuse. Instead of moral exhibitionism,addressing the underlying causes based on scientific knowledge and sound rational deliberation is far more critical and urgent.Placing the blame on a substance is rather ingenious, convenient and simplistic thinking. Laws cannot be made based on how strong our religious convictions are. The conflation of religious zeal with desire for social reform have led to serious misconstruction of remedial measure which have not alleviated the problem, much less cure it.
To give credit where it is due, the desire to ban alcohol by churches, civil societies and individuals no doubt comes from a good place and with the best of intention. However, good intention is not enough when grappling with policy and legislative affairs. Failure of prohibition in Nagaland is not due to moral failure but due to intellectual failure. Decision on such matter should be informed by a wide range of data on vital health statistic, economic indicators, social impact assessment, and regulatory mechanisms.Our government needs to broaden its circle and depth of consultation without affording room for expediency. As for the proponents of prohibition, if “saving life is more important”, we cannot continue to hold our society hostage with rhetoric. It is time to pull the rug from underneath our feet and take a good strong look at the plenty of skeletons below deck. Over three decades of experimentation and deliberation is long enough to realize that the prognosis was wrong, and perhaps the diagnosis too.
.jpg)
