September 20 marked the partial lifting of Manipur’s liquor prohibition, which had been in place for over three decades. What follows? Total legalisation of liquor? Easy access to bars and parlours? Rise in revenues? Corrupted morals? Shattered families? Manipur falling apart? The state cabinet decided to end prohibition since the consumption of unregulated liquor was causing severe health problems in the state.
At the same time, they anticipate at least Rs 600 crore in revenue per year once the current system is legalised.
Rhetorically, alcohol opponents expressed fears and threats that “King Alcohol” posed to the individual and the state, including financial ruin, immorality, sexual impropriety, physical degeneration, and social collapse. Morality was a significant concern because moral failure in individuals resulted in various state deteriorations. Denouncing the recent Cabinet decision legalising the sale and brewing of liquor in the state, certain agitations have been met. Nupi Samaj has threatened to launch intensified agitation if the state government fails to revoke the decision to lift the prohibition on liquor by October 10. The Coalition Against Drugs and Alcohol (CADA), with the support of various local Meira Paibi organisations, continued to lead mass sit-in protests against liquor legalisation in multiple parts of the state.
According to Nupi Samaj Advisor K Indu, the organisation, in collaboration with the state’s Meira Paibi organisations, has rolled up its sleeves to spearhead an intensified movement if the state government does not respond by October 10 on whether the Cabinet decision to legalise liquor will be revoked or not. She called the Cabinet decision to lift the prohibition on liquor without seeking public opinion “immature,” adding that the cabinet decision has rendered the long-standing movement of women against alcohol and other inebriated substances meaningless, which is very unfortunate.
The cabinet insisted that the permit system be strengthened, particularly for liquor transporters, eventually putting the local brewers out of business. Local brewers feared liquor-friendly laws would eventually eliminate regulatory support, leaving them destitute, with little chance of a different livelihood in the weakened economy. Legalization would encourage competitors to enter the market and undercut local businesses, while dominant firms can increase profit margins by cutting costs rather than raising prices.
Big corporate brewing houses will eventually dictate terms, and indigenous brewers will receive less for their products. Because everyone in the state will prefer unadulterated, healthier, and less expensive liquor, Indigenous brewers are concerned that with the partial repeal of the liquor prohibition, they will not be able to secure a guaranteed price for their products. Local dingy cabins selling local brews will also go out of business, resulting in a shift in the state’s drinking culture. The new policy threatens to weaken Manipur’s socio-political and economic structures and deepen the state’s penetration of elite businesses.
Protests have erupted across the state in response to the Manipur government’s latest round of liquor policy. According to this point of view, the new Liquor Policy is intended to deepen capitalism within the state by liberalising the liquor trade. It emphasizes the new liquor policy’s political and economic logic and the contradictions inherent in these laws.
It also contends that local dissent is divided along class lines and that broad social justice movements are required to address the state’s growing socioeconomic inequalities.
The introduction of liquor policy by the government is a clear signal of radical deregulation and privatisation of the state’s commercial industry sector. In many ways, the government is relinquishing its primary development role in the state economy under the guise of free markets and free trade (or neoliberalism) during the particularly distressing post-pandemic period.
The state Cabinet’s strong move reflects the state’s political scenario.
Policies are developed in response to the needs and standards of political elites without regard for the general public. This underpinning of elite interest may be better understood by examining how elections are won in the state. Rhetorically, it is not always the fault of those in power; it also depends on the public, who sold their accountability to involve in the decision-making process during the elections.
Economic models of democratic decision-making typically assume that voters have preferences and that politicians tailor their platforms to those preferences. However, the direction of causation (for the most part) is the opposite in Manipur. Political elites offer policy platforms, and voters adopt the policy preferences of their political anchors. Because individual voter choices do not affect aggregate political outcomes, voters tend to vote expressively. They may vote for products they would not choose if the option were solely theirs. The concept of expressive preferences is well understood. Explicit preferences anchor a political identity associated with a candidate, party, or ideology. Most people’s political preferences are derived from their anchor preferences, defined by political elites. Compared to economic elites, average voters have little to no influence on public policies. Not only do ordinary citizens lack significant power over policy decisions, but they also have little or no independent influence on policy.
One r4eason the political elite can manipulate voter preferences is that voters’ choices do not affect political outcomes in the state. Voters understand that the election results will be the same regardless of how they vote. The utility they derive from having and expressing political preferences stems solely from having and telling them. The main distinction between political and market choices is that when consumers make market choices, they get what they choose, whereas when they vote, what they get is unrelated to what they desire.
Polls, election results, interest groups, and formal and informal institutions influence public policy in Manipur. The impact of various, sometimes antagonistic political forces, in addition to political parties, has been widely acknowledged by policymakers and documented by scholars and journalists. Concerns have grown recently that wealthy donors are now playing an unprecedented role in Manipuri politics.
The question of who shapes public policies and under what circumstances is critical, especially in light of introducing a paradigm shift policy. It is essential to understand whether the public can still provide meaningful input into public policies or if the government bypasses citizens in favour of economic elites and interest groups with strong fundraising and organizational capacity. Policymakers should focus on enacting legislation that encourages an informed and constructive discussion of the causes and consequences. Subsequently, the state must collaborate with grassroots stakeholders and include experts in deliberations and discussion structure so that participants can share and analyse information together and reach common conclusions about how to assess conditions.