In April 2016, the state of Bihar implemented a blanket ban on the manufacture, transport, sale, and consumption of alcohol. The policy was introduced as a means to restore social order, reduce domestic violence, improve public health, and minimise alcohol-induced crimes. Politicians and activists lauded it as a bold move toward societal improvement. However, a closer examination reveals that the prohibition has not only failed to achieve its intended goals but has also led to numerous unforeseen social and economic repercussions.
In India, liquor laws are primarily under state jurisdiction, leading to different policies across the country. Several states have implemented either complete or partial prohibition due to socio-political, cultural, and health-related considerations, yet few have succeeded in enforcing it effectively. Gujarat, the longest-standing dry state, has maintained prohibition since 1960, but has struggled with black market liquor trade. Nagaland and Mizoram have also attempted strict bans, but illicit liquor sales continue to thrive. Other states, such as Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, initially imposed prohibitions only to later revise or lift them due to economic pressures and practical enforcement challenges. These experiences highlight the recurring pitfalls of alcohol prohibition, raising critical questions about its effectiveness as a policy measure.
READ I Weakening rupee is squeezing corporate India
Domestic violence and alcohol-induced crimes
From a socio-economic perspective, the policy has exacerbated rather than resolved many of the issues it sought to address, distorting markets and fostering unlawful activities.
The primary rationale behind the liquor ban was its potential to curb domestic violence and alcohol-induced crimes. Various studies confirm that alcohol consumption impairs rational thinking, often acting as a trigger for violent behaviour. Given Bihar’s high levels of poverty and inequality, domestic violence remains a pressing issue, and alcohol was seen as a major contributing factor.
While alcohol can incite violent behaviour, it is not the sole cause. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS), the percentage of women who reported experiencing physical or sexual violence in Bihar increased from 39% in 2015-16 to 39.6% in 2019-20. The Bihar Economic Survey also notes that cases related to crimes against women have risen over the years, although officials often attribute this to increased awareness and improved reporting mechanisms through initiatives like the Sakhi Centre. Domestic violence is a complex issue rooted in behavioural patterns, gender inequality, poverty, and a lack of social support systems. The liquor ban oversimplifies the issue by focusing exclusively on alcohol as the primary cause.
Moreover, while alcohol consumption may have declined in Bihar, it has led to a rise in the use of alternative intoxicants such as toddy, ganja, charas, and mahua. Data shows a significant surge in drug seizures, with ganja confiscations rising by 2,700%—from 14 kg in 2015 to 10,800 kg in 2016, and further escalating to 27,395 kg in 2021. This shift from alcohol to substance abuse has created new challenges for law enforcement and public health officials.
An ineffective approach to public health
Another major justification for the liquor ban was its purported benefits for public health. Advocates argued that alcohol consumption was responsible for numerous health problems, including liver disease, addiction, and accidents. According to National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) data from 2011-12, Bihar ranked sixth in alcohol consumption nationwide, and its adverse health effects were evident.
However, studies indicate that outright prohibition does not reduce alcohol consumption; instead, it drives the trade underground, making it unregulated and even more dangerous. This has been the case in Bihar, where the ban has fuelled a thriving black market for illicit alcohol, often leading to fatal alcohol poisoning. According to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, more than 500 people have died from consuming toxic alcohol since 2016. These alarming statistics underscore the policy’s failure to safeguard public health.
A policy with political motives
In Bihar, alcohol abuse has historically been a major source of household conflict. The ban was positioned as a solution to this problem and was particularly well-received by conservative and rural voters, especially women. By implementing prohibition, the state government aimed to consolidate its support among these demographics.
However, when political considerations override economic logic, policies often fail to yield sustainable results. The government once proposed replacing liquor shops with milk parlours under the Bihar State Milk Co-operative Federation Ltd. (COMFED). Although over 6,000 liquor shops were shut down, only a few transitioned into milk parlours, as dairy sales could not match the high-profit margins of alcohol sales. A more effective strategy would have involved regulating alcohol sales, increasing awareness of its risks, and investing in de-addiction programs rather than imposing an outright ban for political gains.
Prohibition and black market
Economic principles dictate that banning a product does not eliminate its demand; rather, it drives it underground. This is precisely what has happened in Bihar. The liquor ban has given rise to widespread bootlegging and smuggling, undermining the state’s legal economy while exposing consumers to unregulated and potentially dangerous alcohol.
The black market has distorted the alcohol trade by creating inefficiencies. Consumers now pay significantly higher prices for illicit liquor, which is often of dubious quality. According to data from the police headquarters (PHQ), 39.63 lakh litters of Indian-made foreign liquor (IMFL) and country-made liquor were seized in Bihar in 2023 alone—an average of 10,858 litters per day. These figures highlight the extent to which illicit trade has flourished under prohibition.
A policy that missed the mark
The liquor ban was introduced as a means to curb domestic violence and restore social order, but it has instead become a textbook example of a policy that fails to achieve its intended outcomes. While the objectives of improving public health, reducing crime, and fostering social harmony are commendable, the approach taken by Bihar’s government is fundamentally flawed. The ban has fuelled the growth of the black market, overburdened law enforcement, and resulted in substantial revenue losses.
Addressing domestic violence and alcohol-related harm requires more comprehensive strategies, such as improving access to education, reducing poverty, and promoting gender equality—measures that tackle the root causes rather than imposing blanket bans. Global experiences indicate that alcohol prohibitions are doomed to fail. Instead, targeted regulation, public health education, and social interventions would be more effective.
A well-structured policy that encourages responsible consumption while generating revenue for public services would yield far better results than Bihar’s ill-conceived liquor ban. The state’s experience serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of implementing populist policies without fully considering their economic and social ramifications.
Aman Raj is a teaching fellow at Krea University, Andhra Pradesh. Rahul Kumar is a research scholar at Gokhale Institute of Politics & Economics, Pune.