India can sometimes be overwhelming, as it seems now. Just look at the name-calling over the proposed anti-corruption bill. Or the ongoing 2G spectrum scam that now has veered to human drama – one involving a father and daughter, Karunanidhi and Kanimozhi. Or the spate of rapes in Uttar Pradesh, a state under the ‘watch’ of a woman chief minister.
It is at times like these that you can count on the humble Indian politician to raise a debate so bizarre that is still a welcome diversion. I refer to Maharashtra’s decision earlier this month to raise the drinking age for all alcoholic beverages except beer to 25. Bollywood, for one, is up in arms against the decision. Film stars ranging from Amitabh Bachchan down to younger ones, and even Muslim star Imran Khan, have loudly protested. In fact, Khan plans to fight it in court.
Maharashtra’s Social Welfare Minister Shivajirao Moghe, the brain behind the decision, and Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan are unfazed.
Alcohol is an old tool in the hands of politicians, starting with Gandhi. It is used creatively, and almost always to good effect, by politicians seeking to woo one half of the electorate. Southern states like Tamil Nadu, and briefly Andhra Pradesh, have used prohibition to great benefit at the polls, winning over women voters. But, eventually, the price is too high – in terms of cost to the exchequer (and the people who hold those purse strings) and social cost in terms of deaths from consumption of illicit liquor. Gujarat is the only state that has held the ban for an extended period of time.
Maharashtra, reports have revealed, has never been a completely free state as far as drinking is concerned. Several restrictions exist under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. People just never knew them and never needed to. The state has complete prohibition in Wardha and Gadchiroli districts. In others, drinkers need to get a ‘permit,’ if one goes by the rule book. In fact, a permit is required even to ‘move’ alcohol from one place to another. Of course, few know this because it is rarely enforced.
Still, Maharashtra’s decision marks the first time politicians are trying to use ‘science’ to back their actions. Maharashtra claims its decision is based on “scientific” evidence that addiction in later life is the result of early drinking. Consequently, “transformation of minds is necessary,” according to Moghe. Still, Moghe also cites social effects of alcohol – 40 per cent of accidents and 90 per cent divorces – to defend his policy. Who is to argue with pseudo-science and warped social understanding?