Nagaland is a dry state by virtue of the Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act of 1989, which prohibits the production, sale and consumption of liquor.
In theory, Nagaland is a dry state by virtue of the Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act of 1989, which prohibits the production, possession, sale, consumption, and import and export of liquor. However, in practice, this contentious law has completely failed in its implementation. We are reminded of its existence only when reports of liquor seizures by the police emerge, occasionally. The fact is liquor is amply available in the state, albeit at an inflated rate and not in the open. Some localities, including a few in Dimapur, have successfully implemented a ban on the sale of alcohol within their jurisdiction but not the consumption, as people continue to flock to neighbouring areas and border regions of Assam like Loharjan and Bokajan for a drink or two—or more. The law remains dormant until someone or an organisation triggers a debate. It is as good as nonexistent, yet the powers that be still lack the political will and courage to face possible backlash, particularly from Christian organisations. That’s what we saw when the government of Nagaland mooted the idea of partially lifting the ban last year. Many individuals and organisations too have advocated for revoking the law but in vain. This time, several civil society organisations from Dimapur, led by the Naga Council Dimapur (NCD), have stirred the hornet’s nest by joining forces to lift it, citing its failure and the need for a more practical approach to alcohol regulation. But will it materialise? While that remains to be seen, one thing is certain: alcohol will continue to flow into the state, and people will find a way to drink.
The NLTP Act has been abused since its enactment over three decades ago. Therefore, calling for its revocation is comparable to asking the authorities to allow the sale of alcohol in the open instead of discreetly. The stakeholders, particularly church organisations and leaders, should not turn a blind eye to consequences of living in denial, including negative public health outcomes due to consumption of spurious alcohol. For instance, with the law in place, there is no legal drinking age in the state while alcohol is easily available. This is a matter of concern, as alcohol consumption during adolescence is associated with higher chances of becoming alcoholic later in life, affecting their health and well-being. What is needed is regulation and public health awareness, rather than adhering to a moral stance that cannot be imposed on everyone.