I don’t drink,
so this is a dispassionate post to that extent.
Recently, the
Supreme Court upheld the contention of the Kerala Government that it is fine to
have five star hotels serving liquor but not hotels with three and lesser
stars, including the bars and other liquor shops which also have been
prohibited from selling liquor. Kerala is one of the highest consumers of
alcohol. Kerala’s neighbour, Tamil Nadu - my state – today literally runs its
finances from alcohol. Period.
Why are we so
touchy-feely about consuming liquor? Most of our films show its consumption and
some even glorify its ‘effects’. In Tamil movies, I can say for sure, that a
bar song has become mandatory – I have a sinister feeling that it is the
Government, through the Censor Board itself mandating the same so that the sale
of liquor can be pushed and consequently money realised to buy more 'freebies'.
In the movies of old, only the villain would be shown as consuming it whereas
nowadays it is all in the game. It is invariably the hero and his sidekick
dancing to a song after gulping down a couple of bottles.
We have a state
which has apparently ‘enforced’ prohibition – Gujarat – but the less said the
better about the status of the so called enforcement of ‘prohibition’ – it is
after all bootleggers who have a field day. It all goes to reinforce a point –
if you ban something, the more prominence it attains. It will find a way to
sustain.
I fail to see
the logic behind the Supreme Court rationale in banning liquor sale by one
category of persons and allowing it to be done by another category. A ban is a
ban and it has to be enforced across.
A ban is
something that has to be thought of after analysing the consequences of such
ban -the categories and strata of society that it would affect and how
uniformly can it be enforced. There cannot be one rule for the rich and another
for the rest – it is not democracy. I don’t understand how this fundamental
logic escapes notice of people who sit in judgement. Of course, there is a
fundamental principle that no judgement has to be criticised. But all the
segments of the society need a representation and need to be considered before
such an impactful judgement is delivered, especially when the highest court of
the land, the keeper of the nation’s conscience and deliverer of justice is
involved.
6 comments:
Ok....., oru quoter sollu machi....!!
:))
Like you said, banning something never helps. The only thing that can help is educating people about the ill effects of alcohol that is consumed beyond moderate limits. But, anyways, given the lack of value for life in our country, I can't imagine anybody taking steps towards positive reinforcement. And the show goes on.
Yes. certainly. well said! Education still gives in to greed and desire.
Totally agreed. To ban or not to ban is the question. I am finding this ruling discriminatory even though it was probably well meant.
Totally agreed. To ban or not to ban is the question. I am finding this ruling discriminatory even though it was probably well meant.
Post a Comment