A look-back at the history is relevant in the context of the Kaavik Kodiyor Koottam (KKK – காவிக் கொடியோர் கூட்டம்) persistently working actually against the policy of Prohibition in the entire India, while its propaganda machinery is posturing as a saviour and carrying on its campaign in Tamil Nadu with a different tune.
This diabolical Indian KKK believes, as usual, that it is the only repository of information. That is not true.
This KKK’s unrestrained campaign against the DMK should be stopped and this outfit made answerable to the people, because its minions encroach every forum to promote its hate campaign with sectarian interests.
The core issue dealt with in this article is to find out to what extent one can blame the DMK or the ADMK for their actions in having lifted Prohibition in the year 1971 and 1981 respectively.
The KKK and its mercenaries are suppressing the nefarious role played by the Delhi Durbar in 1971 at the all India level against Prohibition, and also the role of MGR in 1981 at the State level.
The relentless campaign of Slander against the DMK.
These vested interests know very well that their sectarian interests would be threatened only by the followers of Kalaignar and not by the followers of MGR, who was just a puppet in their hands. Hence their campaign of slander against Kalaignar at every conceivable opportunity. It has become their habit and it, always, is vicious.
The action of these vested interests help the Tamils identify who their friends and who their enemies are.
Now the facts pertaining to Prohibition in the sub-continent:
1921: “Prohibition was a large part of the Congress’ ideology as it struggled for Independence. Picketing liquor shops, for example, was a major activity under the 1921 Non-Cooperation Movement.” (The Scroll 17.05.2015).
1937: In 1939 prohibition was introduced in Mumbai. But it did not last long as the Congress Ministry resigned later. It became a wet state again. But ”large portions of present day Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala had implemented prohibition since about 1937” (Live Mint 01.12.2015). Madras Presidency then comprised of major portion of all the four southern states.
1947: When Morarji came to power he re-imposed prohibtion. The Bombay Prohibition Act of 1949 was the result of it. “So strict were rules at the time that cough syrup and eau de cologne were banned since they contained alcohol. It would take a Supreme Court judgment to legalise “medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol”.(Scroll 17.05.2015). Bombay then included Gujarat too.
1949: India was enforcing prohibition everywhere, except in a few pockets like Goa, Pondicherry, etc., after independence. Art. 47 of the Constitution of India says, "The .........., in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health."
1958: “Total prohibition was in operation in Madras (Tamil Nadu), Maharashtra, Gujarat and 11 districts of Andhra Pradesh from 1958 to 1969, and other sizable areas in Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Karnataka and Kerala. By 1954, one-fourth of India's population was under prohibition. The Prohibition Enquiry Committee in 1954 set April 1958 as the target to achieve national prohibition.” (Indian Express 26.03.2010).
1964: “In 1964, the Centre offered to compensate the state governments 50 per cent of their loss in excise revenue caused by the implementation of prohibition.” (Indian Express 26.03.2010).
1967: Travancore had always been a wet state. But the remaining area also became wet in 1967. The State Government headed by E.M.S.Namboodirippad lifted prohibition completely in 1967. Justifying the decision, EMS stated that ‘in principle drinking cannot be considered a mistake”.
1968: The AICC adopted a resolution in Goa in 1968 which said: "The AICC regrets to note that in spite of the accepted policy of prohibition and the mandatory provision in Article IV(B) (III) of the constitution of the Indian National Congress that Congressmen shall abstain from alcoholic drinks, and the Directive Principles of the Indian Constitution with regard to prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs except for medicinal purposes, there is an increasing trend to move away from the policy of prohibition." “Notice has also been taken of the problem of national security posed by excessive drinking on the part of some government officials and attempts by certain foreign missions to exploit this "weakness" for seeking classified information. Indeed, a couple of ambassadors of friendly countries have informally expressed their surprise at the conduct of some Indian officials at embassy parties” (India Today 15.12.1975).
"Disciplined temperance", the password to open the floodgates
1971: The first step, on the sly, was taken to lift prohibition. Union Government set up a committee headed by Swaran Singh and assisted by C. Subramaniam, Uma Shankar Dixit and Raj Bahadur went into the issue. It found that many top level central bureacrats were heavy drunkards. “Notice has also been taken of the problem of national security posed by excessive drinking on the part of some government officials and attempts by certain foreign missions to exploit this "weakness" for seeking classified information. Indeed, a couple of ambassadors of friendly countries have informally expressed their surprise at the conduct of some Indian officials at embassy parties.” (India Today 23.04.2015)
It suggested that, "no licence for creation of additional capacity for distillation or brewing of alcoholic drinks to be granted save in one hundred per cent export-oriented cases." Second, "leaders of public opinion to set the tone by their personal example." But the decision then was for “disciplined temperance and not total prohibition" ( Referred to in India Today 15.12.1975 & 23.04.2015).
1971: When that was the decision taken by the Centre as an all-India policy under Art.47 of the Constitution, various states got the clue and lifted prohibition.
Tamil Nadu Vs. Neighbouring States
When all the neighbouring states lifted prohibition, Tamilnadu had also followed suit. The centre was not ready to compensate, as promised in 1964. Kalaignar then said that it cannot remain an unscathed camphor in the middle of a ring of fire. It was a fact that in Kerala, sign board were kept in Tamil, only to show the direction to the toddy shops. Kalaignar then played with words and said that prohibition had not been lifted but had just been adjourned. MGR supported the decision, as an authority in-charge of the small savings department. He was made by Kalaignar to head a committee to propagate against the habit of drinking. But MGR did not make any attempt to make use of that opportunity to make any impact.
1972: India became a wet State completely except Gujarat (on paper). In Maharastra the provisions of 1969 were even more relaxed. “As a token mark of respect for Gandhi, though, prohibition was maintained in Wardha district where Gandhi’s ashram, Sevagram is located. The district still observes a complete ban on the sale, purchase, production and consumption of liquor – at least on paper.” (Scroll- 17.05.2015). Just like Gujarat as on date.
1973: Keeping his word, Kalaignar re-imposed prohibition.
1981: MGR who came to power later lifted the Prohibition. His political heir Jayalalitha, who waxed eloquent about Prohibition during the 1991 elections, permitted for the first time to open the bars. To sum up, it was the Centre which should have demonstrated its commitment to enforce Prohibition at all India level. That Indira Gandhi did not have. TN became the victim of circumstances in 1971 in lifting the prohibition, when its people were buying liquor from all the neighbouring states. The arguments advanced by the DMK then are advanced now by the ADMK day in and day out. What is interesting is that the Sanghi goons neve do have any intellectual integrity to accept facts. Their tendency to demonstrate their Chaturvarna fanaticism extends to the area of Prohibition too.
They want to blame Kalaignar for every ill because of their Varna-oriented apartheidiistic mindset.
Their ulterior motive is to cover up the crimes of MGR and the persistent day light robbery of Jayalalitha.
Emperor Asoka
Emperor Asoka is remembered and celebrated not because of his Kalinga War but for his later repentance and switch over to the life of love and peace. Any ruler has to be assessed by weighing both the pros and cons during his reign. (குணம் நாடிக் குற்றமும் நாடி அவற்றுள் மிகை நாடி மிக்க கொளல். – வள்ளுவர்). If Kalaignar had lifted the Prohibition in 1971, he re-imposed it in 1973 itself. But the Sanghis would hear none of it. They do not want to give any cognizance to the act of Kalaignar in 1973 in having re-imposed Prohibition. They would talk only about the 1971. Because they are genetically wired to display their chaturvarna based hatred against Kalaignar. At the same time, they would not blame MGR who lifted Prohibition in 1981. That would never be made part of any argument by the Aryan elements.
The 50 days corona lockdown Vs. The 8 years closure.
If complete closure of all liquor shops for about 50 days, during the Corona-period lock-down, would have the salutary effect of making the drunkards forget liquor, the complete closure of all liquor shops for eight years from 1973 to 1981 would have had the same in a much better manner.
An alcohol free population was inducted again into that habit by MGR in 1981. It was, therefore, MGR who re-inculcated the habit of drinking in Tamilnadu, by his action in 1981. He partly re-imposed Prohibition in 1987.
He closed down only arrack and toddy shops and not the IMFL. And the justification at that time by the ADMK was that the era between 1981 and 1987 was a period of “temporary relaxation” of the rules of Prohibition, reminiscent of the argument of ‘adjournment’ by Kalaignar in 1971.
MGR and the "temporary" relaxation in 1981
Excise and Information Minister V.V. Swaminathan declared: "We are determined to implement the provisions of the Constitution. Under the Directive Principles, both the Union Government and the states are bound to ensure total prohibition. We did relax it temporarily but have now decided to enforce it more forcefully. It is a commitment our leader MGR gave to the people of Tamil Nadu." (India Today 31.01.1987).
1. It was MGR who had taught, in the year 1981, the drinking habit to the people of Tamil Nadu who had forgotten it for eight years.
2. It was the Central Government led by Indira Gandhi which did not want to pursue the policy of Prohibition in the entire India.
3. It is the Centre and not the States which can enforce the policy of Prohibition successfully.
4. Let there not be one sided slander by vested interests against Kalaignar that it was he who caused the people of Tamil Nadu to drink. Tamils know Rajaji closed down schools and Kamaraj opened them again.
5. If MGR had had reason to lift the prohibition in 1981, in spite of his postures in public against it, Kalaignar had more reason, to lift Prohibition in 1971, as explained supra.
6. It was the A1 Jayalalitha who came to power in 1991 on the promise of prohibition, opened bars. But the sangis would not talk of her role at all.
Now also, the sangis talk against prohibition only in Tamil Nadu and not in the BJP ruled states like Uttar Pradesh or Madhya Pradesh. Why?
Because,
Such Double-tongue and Double-role are always in accord with Double-birth.
These double-tongues should read the real Ramayana too.
To sum up,
1. Drinking is really dangerous to health!
2. Drunkards do not think! They lose their thinking ability
3. Rama would not have killed Shambuka but would have protected that "Hindu" Shambuka, if only Rama had not lost the thinking ability to analyse the issues.
4. Prohibition, as a policy, can succeed only when it is implemented all over the nation, as found by the Prohibition Enquiry Committee of 1954-55.
