In recent times, the political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed a curious moral awakening among its leaders. Notably, Fayaz Mir from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Sheikh Kursheed from the Awami Ittehad Party (AIP), and Ahsan Pardesi from the National Conference (NC) have vocally advocated for a ban on liquor in the region. This call has sparked a debate on social media especially on X, framing the proposal as either a noble move to align with the cultural and religious ethos of Kashmir or as an opportunistic political maneuver.
At first glance, the idea of banning liquor resonates with the values of many in Kashmir, where Islamic principles guide much of the social fabric. Alcohol consumption is often linked to a plethora of social and health issues, making a case for prohibition seem not just moral but necessary. However, the timing and the past behavior of these political figures offer a different narrative to consider.
Reflecting on history provides a sobering perspective. In 1992, at the height of militancy, a de facto ban on liquor was enforced not by government decree but by militant groups aiming for Islamization. This period was marked by innovative smuggling tactics, like the one I witnessed with apple truck drivers using kerosene stoves to transport liquor back into Kashmir from Jammu. This experience underlines a critical lesson: prohibition does not eliminate demand; it merely shifts it to the shadows, creating an underground economy.
If we consider the current push for a liquor ban, we must ask: why now? The PDP and NC, when previously in power, did not prioritize this issue. This leads one to suspect that the urgency to ban liquor is more about electoral gain than genuine reform. This sudden rush towards morality feels suspiciously timed with with poltical moves, casting doubt on the sincerity of these calls.
Moreover, the selective focus on liquor overlooks a far graver issue plaguing the region – drug abuse. In 2024 alone, narcotics worth over ₹25,000 crore were seized across JammuandKashmir, indicating a booming drug trade that transcends legal bans. If bans were the solution, why hasn’t the drug problem diminished? The drug crisis in Kashmir is not just a public health issue but a security concern linked to narco-terrorism and cross-border smuggling. Yet, there seems to be a lack of comparable zeal in addressing this menace as there is for liquor.
The proposed liquor ban, therefore, must be scrutinized not just for its moral or cultural alignment but for its practicality and comprehensive approach. A ban should not be a half-measure:
Complete Enforcement: If a ban is to be effective, it must be airtight, preventing any form of liquor from seeping into the black market, much like what occurred during the 1992 ban.
Rehabilitation and Awareness: Alongside prohibition, there should be robust programs aimed at treating alcohol dependency and educating the populace on the dangers of substance abuse, not just alcohol.
Tackling the Drug Crisis: Any serious moral campaign against substance abuse must start with the more pervasive and destructive drug problem before or alongside addressing liquor.
If these leaders are truly committed to public welfare, they should propose actionable legislation, like introducing a Private Member’s Bill in the Assembly. They should advocate for these policies not just when in power but consistently, showing that their intent transcends political cycles.
The debate, thus, isn’t merely about the morality of banning liquor but the authenticity of the political will behind it. Is this a genuine attempt to reform societal issues or a calculated move to garner votes by appearing morally superior? The people of Jammu and Kashmir are not naive; they understand when political piety is used as a facade for political gain.
In conclusion, while the goal of a dry Kashmir could align with local values, the approach must be comprehensive and sincere. Leaders must prove their commitment by addressing all facets of substance abuse, starting with the more dire drug epidemic. Only then can this debate be seen as more than just political posturing. The true test will be in the actions these leaders take post-election – whether they will continue to push for real reform or if this moral crusade will quietly fade into the background, leaving the citizens to deal with the same old issues in new, perhaps darker, ways.
