ranjeet
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,310
- Reaction score
- -59
- Country
- Location
The Bihar government has taken meaning of the word 'ban' to a new level.
According to the amended Bihar Prohibition and Excise Bill, 2016, the state government can now prosecute a woman if her husband secretly consumes alcohol — even without her knowing it. The amended bill says that it must be presumed that every adult member of the family is in the know if someone is drinking, making, selling or distributing alcohol in "one's premises".
According to reports, the draconian changes in the new bill was circulated before the opening day of the five-day monsoon session, for feedback, and has already been cleared by the Nitish Kumar cabinet. The bill will also seek punishment for liquor advertisements in the media and social media with a jail term of five years, a Rs 10-lakh penalty or both.
"Charity begins at home. If we are making a law, then we should unanimously pass a resolution from here itself. The message of unity in the form of a resolution that we will neither drink and nor promote drinking should go out to the people," Nitish reportedly said at the state Assembly while intervening in a debate on the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2016.
The proposed Excise Amendment Bill which intends to provide more teeth to the existing prohibition law was circulated among members on the opening day of five-day monsoon session for their comments. The draft has already been cleared by Nitish's cabinet and the government aims at getting it approved by the Assembly in the current monsoon session itself. It also has a provision of life sentence for those engaging minor below the age of 18 or a woman for sale, hide, transportation and distribution of intoxicant.
The bill also prescribes collective fine on a town/village or community if there are habitual offenders of prohibition. Calling the provision 'draconian', opposition BJP said it would protest it. The amendment has incorporated a stringent provision that if liquor or any other intoxicant is found, consumed, manufactured or sold from a house, all the members above 18 years of age would be liable for punishment, which will include sending them behind bars.
File image of Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar. PTI
According to reports, the contentious provisions have not gone down well with several leaders, including Mastan, who has admitted to media, Financial Express reported, that some of the "provisions of the bill are wrong".
Interestingly, toddy was not covered under this amendment. Merely 24 hours within tabling of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Bill 2016, toddy was removed from the list of 'banned intoxicants' in state, The Times of India reported. Reports said that the Nitish Kumar governmnent buckled under the pressure of its mail ally in the state, RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, who was vehemently opposed to banning toddy sales in Bihar. State excise and prohibition minister Abdul Jalil Mastan told IANS that there will be no ban on sale and consumption of toddy in the state. "Ban on toddy has been lifted," Mastan said.
In April, after Bihar imposed a total liquor ban in the state, it also banned the sale of 'toddy'. But the decision to ban toddy was not lauded by Lalu Prasad. According to RJD leaders here, Lalu was not in favour to ban toddy. For millions of people in rural Bihar — toddy, locally called 'tadi' — is considered the poor man's beer. For ages, toddy has been a favourite of villagers as a natural drink from the palm tree.
Prohibition of liquor has been the favourite among political parties and their leaders, especially in 2015 and 2016 during the Assembly election season. We have had Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Bihar, and now Uttar Pradesh (set to go to the polls early in 2017) is also gearing up for many rallies promising a ban on alcohol. Since the rural population, especially the women, are so sick and tired of a drunk man in the family, it works when a politician comes bearing the good news of a sober household. Nitish made this a reality in Bihar. In fact, detractors were critical of his decision saying that the move, which was dubbed as a political one, will drain the state coffers.
What was more strange that Nitish dared to make it a reality with its main ally in the state — Lalu's RJD — a party that never supported blanket ban on liquor.
The Telegraph in this article, dated 5 May, 2016 said:
"RJD boss Lalu Prasad, who has officially supported prohibition, misses no opportunity to oppose it in private conversations. He revealed on the condition of anonymity that he had advised Nitish and his aid, Prashant Kishore against prohibition when the duo met him ahead of imposing it."
In fact, most reports suggested that the Nitish government had first included toddy in list of intoxicants to be banned in the state while tabling the new amended bill in the Assembly, but others suggested that Lalu's intervention compelled the government to take a U-turn.
And the Opposition is not letting this opportunity go. "If someone throws an empty bottle of liquor into Lalu's and Rabri Devi's house at night, both Lalu and Rabri along with their minister sons will have to go to jail. Why should the entire family face punishment for the crime of one person?", BJP leader and former deputy chief minister of Bihar Sushil Kumar Modi was quoted as saying.
"In the last three-and-a-half months, Lalu has publicly expressed his displeasure over the government decision to ban toddy and urged the government to lift the ban and make it free as it was introduced during his tenure as chief minister in the early 1990s," a leader close to Lalu said. Lalu Prasad as chief minister had declared toddy tax-free in Bihar to help people engaged in the business, particularly the 'Pasi' caste.
The amendment proposed by the Nitish government is a strange one. With an eye on the upcoming Uttar Pradesh Assembly election and then the 2019 Lok Sabha election, Nitish might be pushing the ban-on-alcohol agenda a bit too far. Even with total prohibition, there have been reports which said that people from Bihar are crossing over to neighbouring states to buy and consume liquor. Furthering that, few new liquor outlets have even come up on the borders of Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh where sale of liquor is said to have grown after the imposition of ban in Bihar.
As was argued earlier, giving up alcohol shouldn't be one man's decision or a political agenda. With bordering states like Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal not banning alcohol, it's not a big mystery as to why prohibition, on the ground, does not work.
"Do you truly ‘cross-my-heart’ believe that the politicians and bureaucrats, the police and other government officials and the wealthy civilians don’t have booze stocked away? You have to live in La La land to believe that dry states don’t have booze by the barrel. The less affluent simply make do with alcohol of dubious quality... The reality is that prohibition actually causes more social problems than we want to admit."
It may sound great for all those who have been dealing with domestic abuse for a long time and it might have even helped a few families dealing with alcohol abuse, but the new suggested amendments do more bad than good. Even though the provisions are meant to engage communities/families to ensure prohibition, the proposed amendment if passed, will not just be unjust for the families but also has better chances of being misused.
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/n...our-family-member-drinks-alcohol-2926924.html
Anyone know where the ever ready breast beating liberals are? I might join them in their protest against this ban.
According to the amended Bihar Prohibition and Excise Bill, 2016, the state government can now prosecute a woman if her husband secretly consumes alcohol — even without her knowing it. The amended bill says that it must be presumed that every adult member of the family is in the know if someone is drinking, making, selling or distributing alcohol in "one's premises".
According to reports, the draconian changes in the new bill was circulated before the opening day of the five-day monsoon session, for feedback, and has already been cleared by the Nitish Kumar cabinet. The bill will also seek punishment for liquor advertisements in the media and social media with a jail term of five years, a Rs 10-lakh penalty or both.
"Charity begins at home. If we are making a law, then we should unanimously pass a resolution from here itself. The message of unity in the form of a resolution that we will neither drink and nor promote drinking should go out to the people," Nitish reportedly said at the state Assembly while intervening in a debate on the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2016.
The proposed Excise Amendment Bill which intends to provide more teeth to the existing prohibition law was circulated among members on the opening day of five-day monsoon session for their comments. The draft has already been cleared by Nitish's cabinet and the government aims at getting it approved by the Assembly in the current monsoon session itself. It also has a provision of life sentence for those engaging minor below the age of 18 or a woman for sale, hide, transportation and distribution of intoxicant.
The bill also prescribes collective fine on a town/village or community if there are habitual offenders of prohibition. Calling the provision 'draconian', opposition BJP said it would protest it. The amendment has incorporated a stringent provision that if liquor or any other intoxicant is found, consumed, manufactured or sold from a house, all the members above 18 years of age would be liable for punishment, which will include sending them behind bars.
File image of Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar. PTI
According to reports, the contentious provisions have not gone down well with several leaders, including Mastan, who has admitted to media, Financial Express reported, that some of the "provisions of the bill are wrong".
Interestingly, toddy was not covered under this amendment. Merely 24 hours within tabling of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Bill 2016, toddy was removed from the list of 'banned intoxicants' in state, The Times of India reported. Reports said that the Nitish Kumar governmnent buckled under the pressure of its mail ally in the state, RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, who was vehemently opposed to banning toddy sales in Bihar. State excise and prohibition minister Abdul Jalil Mastan told IANS that there will be no ban on sale and consumption of toddy in the state. "Ban on toddy has been lifted," Mastan said.
In April, after Bihar imposed a total liquor ban in the state, it also banned the sale of 'toddy'. But the decision to ban toddy was not lauded by Lalu Prasad. According to RJD leaders here, Lalu was not in favour to ban toddy. For millions of people in rural Bihar — toddy, locally called 'tadi' — is considered the poor man's beer. For ages, toddy has been a favourite of villagers as a natural drink from the palm tree.
Prohibition of liquor has been the favourite among political parties and their leaders, especially in 2015 and 2016 during the Assembly election season. We have had Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Bihar, and now Uttar Pradesh (set to go to the polls early in 2017) is also gearing up for many rallies promising a ban on alcohol. Since the rural population, especially the women, are so sick and tired of a drunk man in the family, it works when a politician comes bearing the good news of a sober household. Nitish made this a reality in Bihar. In fact, detractors were critical of his decision saying that the move, which was dubbed as a political one, will drain the state coffers.
What was more strange that Nitish dared to make it a reality with its main ally in the state — Lalu's RJD — a party that never supported blanket ban on liquor.
The Telegraph in this article, dated 5 May, 2016 said:
"RJD boss Lalu Prasad, who has officially supported prohibition, misses no opportunity to oppose it in private conversations. He revealed on the condition of anonymity that he had advised Nitish and his aid, Prashant Kishore against prohibition when the duo met him ahead of imposing it."
In fact, most reports suggested that the Nitish government had first included toddy in list of intoxicants to be banned in the state while tabling the new amended bill in the Assembly, but others suggested that Lalu's intervention compelled the government to take a U-turn.
And the Opposition is not letting this opportunity go. "If someone throws an empty bottle of liquor into Lalu's and Rabri Devi's house at night, both Lalu and Rabri along with their minister sons will have to go to jail. Why should the entire family face punishment for the crime of one person?", BJP leader and former deputy chief minister of Bihar Sushil Kumar Modi was quoted as saying.
"In the last three-and-a-half months, Lalu has publicly expressed his displeasure over the government decision to ban toddy and urged the government to lift the ban and make it free as it was introduced during his tenure as chief minister in the early 1990s," a leader close to Lalu said. Lalu Prasad as chief minister had declared toddy tax-free in Bihar to help people engaged in the business, particularly the 'Pasi' caste.
The amendment proposed by the Nitish government is a strange one. With an eye on the upcoming Uttar Pradesh Assembly election and then the 2019 Lok Sabha election, Nitish might be pushing the ban-on-alcohol agenda a bit too far. Even with total prohibition, there have been reports which said that people from Bihar are crossing over to neighbouring states to buy and consume liquor. Furthering that, few new liquor outlets have even come up on the borders of Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh where sale of liquor is said to have grown after the imposition of ban in Bihar.
As was argued earlier, giving up alcohol shouldn't be one man's decision or a political agenda. With bordering states like Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal not banning alcohol, it's not a big mystery as to why prohibition, on the ground, does not work.
"Do you truly ‘cross-my-heart’ believe that the politicians and bureaucrats, the police and other government officials and the wealthy civilians don’t have booze stocked away? You have to live in La La land to believe that dry states don’t have booze by the barrel. The less affluent simply make do with alcohol of dubious quality... The reality is that prohibition actually causes more social problems than we want to admit."
It may sound great for all those who have been dealing with domestic abuse for a long time and it might have even helped a few families dealing with alcohol abuse, but the new suggested amendments do more bad than good. Even though the provisions are meant to engage communities/families to ensure prohibition, the proposed amendment if passed, will not just be unjust for the families but also has better chances of being misused.
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/n...our-family-member-drinks-alcohol-2926924.html
Anyone know where the ever ready breast beating liberals are? I might join them in their protest against this ban.
