Prohibition: How the Adivasi argument won the day

Whenever there’s a debate about whether the government should ban drinking alcohol, the usual arguments for and against are pulled out. One side will point to the public health benefits, the other will point to increased consumption of illicit alcohol. One side will point to the reduction in violence against women, the other will point to the breakdown in law and order given the difficulty in enforcing prohibition. One side will point to the revenue loss for the State from banning alcohol, the other side will point to the improvement in economic output and productivity. Rarely is religion invoked as a basis for this debate -- at least in a secular republic such as India. However, when prohibition of alcohol consumption was being debated in the Constituent Assembly, religion did feature -- just not in the way you’d expect it.

Article 47 of the Constitution (a directive principle of State policy) asks the State to “endeavour” to ban alcohol and drugs. Many Indian states at one point or another have imposed statewide prohibition, but most have given up, save for Bihar, Gujarat, Mizoram and Nagaland, where it is enforced with varying degrees of harshness. Prohibition of alcohol consumption was an important pillar of the Congress’ agenda pre-independence, influenced as it was by Mahatma Gandhi’s views on temperance.

Yet, the Draft Constitution unveiled in February 1948 did not contain any reference to prohibition or alcohol. To remedy this, Mahabir Tyagi and Shibban Lal Saksena introduced an amendment to add the words “and shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health, except for medicinal purposes” to draft Article 38, which related to public health.

Two members seriously opposed this – B H Khardekar, the newly-elected member from Kolhapur, and Jaipal Singh Munda. While Khardekar made the well-known arguments against prohibition (revenue, social order, et al), Munda made an altogether new argument against prohibition -- that Adivasi religion requires the consumption of alcohol. He pointed out that anything consumed in excess is unhealthy and there’s no reason to single out alcohol alone for total prohibition, especially given that tribal communities had imbibed it for centuries and incorporated it into their culture.

Munda had made this argument in favour of rice beer (Zu or Laopani) -- an essential part of Adivasi life -- earlier in a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Tribal Areas, prompting a flabbergasted Maulana Abul Kalam Azad to ask “Kya yeh mazhabi cheez hain?! (Is this really a religious thing?)”. So successful was Munda in convincing the other members of the Advisory Committee that its report also makes a case for preserving the rights of Adivasi people to consume their own liquor under the Constitution.

Khardekar and Munda were in a small minority however, and the vast majority of the Assembly were in favour of the amendment. Ambedkar eventually intervened in the debate in favour of the amendment, pointing out, somewhat slyly, that he had, in fact, actually drafted the amendment Tyagi had moved. He assuaged Khardekar and Munda’s concerns by pointing out that as a directive principle, it would not mean immediate imposition of prohibition across the country.

Further, Ambedkar also pointed out that there were enough safeguards to ensure that even if a state government were to impose prohibition, it would not apply to tribal areas in Central and North-East India without the approval of local tribal authorities. Munda’s more important contribution to the debate perhaps was already done before the amendment was passed -- by ensuring that no prohibition would be imposed on Adivasi communities without their consent.

Munda’s speech on prohibition tells us that while he was giving voice to Adivasi concerns in this forum, he was also introducing Adivasi thought and philosophy into the Constitution. He argued, powerfully, that the Adivasis are not some “primitive” or “backward” class of persons who need to be introduced to the ideas of modernity but as peoples who have a very different notion of the world and civilisation, and think that modernity is not “better” just because it is new. He deserves to be remembered not just as an Adivasi leader but as a true national hero.