Bihar prohibition: Why liquor ban is bad economics and risky politics

Nitish Kumar may have the political will but is the administrative machinery, not known to be very efficient and upright in the state anyway, equal to the task

Socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia, political guru of Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar and his ally and Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, is  known more for his Pichare Paye Sau Mein Saath (60% for backwards) slogan. But his strong advocacy of women’s empowerment was far ahead of times. In decades immediately following Independence, he saw no wrong in unmarried motherhood and spoke in favour of the right of women to choose their life partners even if that meant breaking caste barriers.

But his idea of a broad coalition of backward classes is something that seems to have appealed to Nitish Kumar the most. According to Lohia, nearly 90 per cent of the people suffered from some form of injustice. And the suffering group included women, Dalits, scheduled tribes and depressed sections of Muslims and Christians, according to him.

Following in the footsteps of Lohia, Nitish has been working on a broad coalition of backward classes with women at the forefront. And to good effect. Even in the recently concluded assembly elections, an overwhelming majority of women voted for Nitish-led Mahagathbandhan, according to Centre for the Study of Developing Societies data.

And the latest liquor ban in Bihar is perhaps an attempt by Nitish Kumar to consolidate that gain. Some of his other decisions—free cycle for school girls and reserving 50 per cent seats in local bodies—were steps in that direction. But there is a limit to how much consolidation is possible especially when it is a known fact that enforcing total prohibition is easier said than done.

The United States experimented with the prohibition way back in 1920. It soon found out that more people were drinking alcohol than before. The country suffered revenue loss and the cost of enforcing ban was quite high. There was a well-developed black market of liquor and the number of people indulging in “illegal trade” just skyrocketed.

And contrary to expectations, other business activities too took a hit. According to an Encyclopaedia Britannica entry, “the Prohibition era also is remembered as a period of gangsterism, characterized by competition and violent turf battles between criminal gangs.” 

It is unlikely that we will see a different result in Bihar of today. Nitish Kumar may have the political will to enforce the liquor ban. But is the administrative machinery, not known to be very efficient and upright in the state anyway, equal to the task. There is a danger that shoddily enforced prohibition may have adverse political implications. Don’t forget that other than sharing porous border with Nepal, Bihar is surrounded by states where liquor is going to be available.

The Bihar government has indicated that it will work with civil society and self-help groups to enforce total prohibition. Theoretically it seems a good idea. But the administration is not known to have inclination to share power with social groups, even if for limited objective.

Nitish Kumar has taken a big risk with this decision. The reward, if any, is going to be very limited. Most likely lower than what he expects.