The Decision Appears to Lack Evidence-Based Rationale

January 25, 2025

The Madhya Pradesh government has announced plans to ban the sale of liquor in 17 religious cities across the state as part of a phased implementation of prohibition, according to media reports. This decision not only risks undermining the principles of secular governance but also carries the potential to trigger adverse social, economic and administrative consequences.

Prior to announcing the decision, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mohan Yadav, of the Bharatiya Janata Party, said, “We are determined to make the religious cities free of liquor and meat, and a decision in this regard will be announced soon. The excise department has been preparing a draft report for the same,” as reported by The Economic Times.

First and foremost, a government should avoid enforcing a liquor ban purely based on religious reasons, as it risks undermining the principles of secular governance and alienating sections of society.

Decisions rooted in the preferences of specific religious groups can be perceived as catering to particular communities while disregarding others. While respecting religious sentiments is important, policies influenced primarily by faith-based demands may not align with the needs or beliefs of all residents, many of whom may not share the same religious convictions.

The government musty know that enforcing a liquor ban, irrespective of the reasons behind it, entails numerous social, economic and administrative challenges.

One of the primary issues is the unintended encouragement of illegal activities. Prohibition frequently leads to the rise of a black market for alcohol, where unregulated and potentially dangerous illicit liquor is produced and sold. This also exposes people to health risks from consuming adulterated alcohol, which can lead to poisoning or fatalities. Organised crime groups often seize the opportunity to control the illegal trade, which can escalate law enforcement challenges and fuel corruption among officials responsible for enforcing the ban.

For example, in April 2016, Bihar implemented a total prohibition on alcohol under the leadership of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. While the policy aimed to reduce domestic violence, improve public health and encourage social harmony, the ban soon gave rise to a thriving black market and illegal liquor trade, as reported by The Times of India. Smuggling of liquor from neighbouring states such as Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and West Bengal, increased. Smugglers used innovative and clandestine methods, such as hiding bottles in food trucks, fuel tanks, or even coffins, to bring liquor into Bihar.

The production of spurious and adulterated liquor also surged, leading to serious health risks for consumers. Multiple incidents of alcohol poisoning were reported in the state, with some resulting in fatalities, as reported by Reuters.

Economically, industries linked to alcohol production, such as agriculture (for crops like barley, grapes, or sugarcane) and hospitality, also suffer economic setbacks, potentially leading to job losses and economic instability in affected sectors.

Socially, a liquor ban can have mixed effects. While prohibition may reduce alcohol consumption and its associated harms, such as domestic violence, health issues and accidents, some individuals may switch to consuming unsafe substances or seek alcohol from neighbouring regions or states where it is legally available. This can create new social problems, such as cross-border smuggling and increased travel for alcohol procurement.

Further, policing and monitoring compliance require substantial administrative resources, diverting attention and funds from other critical areas of governance. Law enforcement agencies may struggle to control the illegal production and distribution networks that emerge, especially in regions where alcohol consumption is deeply ingrained in cultural or social practices. The strain on law enforcement can weaken overall governance.

Culturally, a liquor ban can face resistance in societies where alcohol holds traditional or social significance. Attempts to regulate personal behaviour through prohibitive measures often lead to public resentment and pushback, particularly if the policy is perceived as paternalistic or disconnected from ground realities. This can create a divide between the government and its citizens, fuelling dissent and reducing the policy’s legitimacy.

To enforce a ban in a justifiable and effective manner, a government must base its decision on comprehensive research and public consultation, ensuring the policy addresses genuine public health and social concerns rather than specific ideological or religious demands.

A clear and evidence-based rationale should guide the decision, with transparent communication to the public about the expected benefits and measures to mitigate potential drawbacks. Adequate support systems should accompany the ban, including widespread awareness campaigns about its objectives, access to addiction rehabilitation programs and economic transition plans for workers and businesses affected by the policy.