Taking a moralistic stance on the government’s decision to license more liquor shops exposes the protesters’ silliness

Henry Louis Vivian Derozio is probably turning in his grave. Derozio, the iconoclastic teacher of Hindu College in the early 19th century is famous — or notorious, if one so prefers — for introducing the rich young men of Calcutta to alcohol and beef. His admirers — and they are legion now since Derozio, decried in the 19th century, is an icon today — claim Derozio broke the shackles of tradition and was the morning star of Indian modernity. But if the current clutch of politicians in West Bengal are any guide then tradition has not been broken at all and modernity is nowhere on the horizon. Orthodoxy and prejudice still rule the roost. The Trinamool Congress members of the West Bengal legislative assembly protested the other day against the government’s decision to permit the setting up of more liquor shops in the city. At the forefront of this protest was Mr Saugata Roy who made the startling observation that the decision to issue licences for a greater number of liquor shops was against the grain of Bengal. Mr Roy has obviously appointed himself the moral head prefect of West Bengal and thus is the arbiter of what is true to its culture and morality. Unfortunately, Mr Roy is not alone in his utterly hypocritical puritanism. The Left Front too seems to have been sucked in by this sudden upsurge of moral guardianship.

Even sections of the Left Front have not approved of the government’s decision. The Forward Bloc and the Revolutionary Socialist Party were both disapproving of the government’s policy and Mr Biman Bose, the chairman of the Left Front, was needlessly on the defensive. Mr Bose while making the point that the state exchequer earns a fair bit of money from liquor sales by way of excise duty, said that he was not trying to justify the government’s decision. Why should the decision need any special justification? The policy has the best possible rationale since it brings in more to the state kitty. Like Mr Roy of the Trinamool Congress, the leadership of the RSP and the Forward Bloc consider it improper to earn money by selling liquor. There is the prevailing assumption that drinking is immoral and sinful. Such an assumption, conceivable in the early 19th century, is remarkable today only because of its inherent hypocrisy.

Drinking in the urban circles of West Bengal has become a common phenomenon and is on the rise among adult men and women. As adults, these men and women know what they are doing and presumably are aware of the pitfalls involved in excessive drinking and addiction. There is no reason why politicians should treat them as ignorant children engaging in something furtive. The government has not adopted any moral position on the matter. There is no need for it to do so. More liquor shops will provide more revenue for a government that is perpetually strapped for funds. Those opposing the decision should logically campaign for the closure of the existing liquor shops and make West Bengal into a dry state. The activities of politicians of various hues have made West Bengal dry of investments. There is no need to make it more arid by assuming a moral do-gooding perch.