Politicians in India have shown little concern for the welfare of the common man. Indian public had not even recovered from the callous reaction of the Bihar chief minister to the death of 23 kids in a Saran district school after eating the food provided by the state government when came a shocker from another state government.
This time the Tamil Nadu government has shown how money is top of politician’s mind and people’s interest last on the list. The Jayalalithaa government has asked the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) to pay Rs 20 crore as compensation because agitations organised by this political party between April 30 and May 15 had hurt liquor sales. Liquor sales are a major source of revenue for the Tamil Nadu government. What makes it even funnier is that PMK leader S Ramadoss has been propagating total prohibition in the state.
The harm liquor does to the drinker’s health and wealth, and how it destroys the family has been documented worldwide and needs no repetition. Governments world over have shown reluctance to fight tobacco and liquor industries. They use the excuse of freedom of individual choice to let these enemies of public health flourish.
In India, a film actor protested against an Indian state increasing the age of drinking to 25 years. The media organised debates on why an 18 year old who can vote shouldn’t have the choice to drink liquor. The answer is that voting does not harm either your health, leave you poorer or hurt your family. You don’t vote daily or get addicted to voting. Drinking on the other hand is a social menace.
The answer is that voting does not harm either your health, leave you poorer or hurt your family. You don’t vote daily or get addicted to voting. Drinking on the other hand is a social menace.
Globally, societies spend billions of dollars annually on battling alcohol abuse and related problems. People talk about educating masses to make the right choice. If everyone was capable of making the right choice, lawmakers and law enforcers would not be needed. Prohibition would be an extreme reaction, but governments trying to make money from sale of liquor and tobacco is reprehensible. The governments can control access points. There are many fence-sitters who would not drink or smoke but for the fact that liquor and tobacco are easily available even to youngsters. Film personalities add to the problem under the facade of artistic liberty. In fact, they are a major culprit in promotion of many harmful habits and behaviour. They may be excused for lacking social and intellectual sense of responsibility but not the governments. Money makes the mare go but politicians must measure their actions against two of the seven sins listed by the Father of the nation: Politics without principle and commerce without morality
