Why officialdom gets it wrong when dealing with alcohol

Rahul Singh

One of the joys of reading many newspapers — I get five every morning — is finding, every now and then, an item that makes me burst out laughing. Anything to lighten the gloomy mood brought on by the pandemic is welcome. These news items usually show up the inanities of officialdom. A few days ago, the Uttar Pradesh administration came out with a gem, announcing “new rules for obtaining personal home bar licences”. Apparently, a citizen of that benighted state can only keep four bottles of liquor of 750 ml each, two of foreign-made liquor and two of Indian, at home, without a licence. For more than that, the person needs a “home bar licence”. That licence allows him to keep up to 72 bottles at home. The purpose of the new rule, emphasised RB Singh, excise officer of Gautam Buddha Nagar district, was “not to harass anyone but provide a legal recognition to those who like to maintain a personal bar at home”.

Really? I am a little confused. Even a moderate imbiber, especially if he does a little entertaining at home, is bound to keep more than four bottles at any time. Does that mean he has to maintain a “bar” at home and therefore needs to apply for a “bar licence”? Also, nobody wants to have to constantly go to a liquor shop. He will buy sufficient liquor to last him for some time, which probably means buying more than four bottles at a time. The excise officer claims that the aim of the new rule is not to “harass anyone”. But that is precisely what it could easily do. Laws and rules should make sense, not provide ways for the authorities to extort, or create fear.

It gets worse. Guess what is the annual licence fee and the “security deposit” for a “personal bar”? An exorbitant Rs12,000 and an outlandish Rs51,000, respectively! That’s outrageous. An ordinary law-abiding citizen, who enjoys his tipple, and invites friends occasionally for a drink, is virtually being compelled to get a hugely over-priced “bar licence”. If he doesn’t, he could be raided, and if found to possess more than four bottles, will he be put behind bars, and heavily fined as well? The news item does not mention the fine or the term of imprisonment, but it is bound to be pretty stiff. In effect, the offending person is being treated as if he actually owns a bar-cum-restaurant that charges customers for drinks and food. Downright ridiculous!

The excise officer was also asked if the new rules would apply to military personnel, serving or retired, as they are entitled to more than the stipulated four bottles of liquor a month. The UP authorities had evidently given no thought to this, so the excise official was not able to give a satisfactory answer. However, his clarification on who could apply for a “personal bar licence” was entirely bizarre: “Only those who have filled income tax returns for the past five years, of which at least three years of IT returns are under the 20 per cent slab may apply for a licence.” Can you please repeat that? Will those wanting this “bar licence” have to produce five years of IT returns, and why should their required slab have to be under 20 per cent? Answers please.

But it is not just the UP government that has become daft where alcohol is concerned. When I took up my first job in Bombay, as it was then called, in the 1960s, “prohibition” was in force. But there was a loophole. If you got a doctor’s certificate to declare that you were “an alcoholic” who could not, for health reasons, do without the stuff, you could apply to the authorities and get a certain number of “units” (bottles of liquor) a month (I was given four). Needless to say, you never actually went to a doctor, yet you could get the certificate after paying a bribe to the tout (who told me that part of the money went “right up to the top”). Many Bombayites did so, to be able to drink legally at home, while others went to clandestine and illegal “aunty” bars, as they were then labelled. Prohibition has gone from Maharashtra, but some of its aftermath remains. You still need a “permit” to buy alcohol, though most liquor shops will sell booze without you having to produce it. However, they won’t give you a receipt, thereby adding to the black economy. What’s more, you cannot transport alcohol without a permit. So, anybody returning from abroad, who buys the legally permissible quantity from the duty-free shop, as soon as he leaves the airport can be arrested if he does not have a “permit”! Stupid, isn’t it?

In fact, stupidity permeates the government’s entire attitude towards alcohol. Low alcohol content beverages, like beer or wine, are more heavily taxed than high-alcohol spirits. Foreign tourists generally prefer wine and beer to spirits. But they find wine and beer too expensive in India. Vineyards generate employment for farmers and large areas in Maharashtra and Karnataka have the kind of climate and soil quality ideal for growing the variety of grapes that make decent quality wine. Give them incentives, instead of taxing them so heavily. In most countries, wine and beer can be served in restaurants and sold in shops without a liquor licence. Not in India.

Most great men have their foibles. The Father of Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, had two: his views on sex and on alcohol. The American era of “prohibition”, essentially based on the same puritanical views of the Mahatma, taught the US government that banning alcohol did not work. It only bred corruption and crime. We still have to learn that lesson.

— The writer is a veteran journalist

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.