Prohibition in India remains a complex and often contradictory issue — a policy that garners widespread public backing despite repeated failures in implementation. The inaugural India Today Gross Domestic Behaviour (GDB) survey, conducted in collaboration with data analytics firm How India Lives, revealed that an overwhelming 82% of respondents support banning alcohol sales. This significant figure highlights a deep-rooted moral and cultural aversion to alcohol, even though the practical realities of enforcement tell a different, more nuanced story.
The survey, which gathered responses from 9,188 people across 21 states and one Union territory, sought to understand public attitudes on a range of social and civic behaviors. Among the standout findings was the stark regional divide on prohibition. West Bengal emerged as the strongest supporter, with a staggering 91% of respondents backing an outright ban on alcohol sales. In contrast, Andhra Pradesh reflected a more divided stance, with 42% of respondents opposing such a ban, indicating that attitudes toward prohibition remain shaped by regional, cultural, and economic factors.
Currently, Bihar, Gujarat, Nagaland, Mizoram, and the Union territory of Lakshadweep enforce a legal ban on alcohol sales. Yet, the outcomes in these regions reveal the persistent gap between legislation and reality. Nagaland, despite its "dry state" status, is ironically nicknamed the "wettest dry state" due to rampant smuggling and black-market alcohol sales. Bihar, which introduced prohibition in 2016 under Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s leadership — largely to appeal to women voters frustrated by alcohol-fueled domestic violence — has seen a troubling rise in hooch-related deaths. Desperate individuals often turn to unsafe, locally brewed liquor, which poses an even greater risk to public health than regulated alcohol.
The survey’s findings align with the National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5), which reported that only 0.7% of women and 22% of men over the age of 15 consume alcohol. This alignment suggests that widespread support for prohibition may stem from the fact that a significant majority of Indians don't drink in the first place. However, this doesn’t necessarily translate into effective policy outcomes. Prohibition often fuels a parallel economy of bootlegging and corruption, undermining the very social and health benefits it aims to achieve.
India’s Constitution offers moral backing for prohibition through Article 47 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which states, "...the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health." Yet, these principles remain non-binding, leaving states to chart their own course. Most states enforce partial prohibition through "dry days" on national holidays and religious festivals — though these are more symbolic than impactful. Gujarat, a dry state since its formation in 1960, has recently carved out exceptions. In 2023, the state permitted alcohol consumption in licensed hotels, restaurants, and clubs within the GIFT City financial district in Gandhinagar. Additionally, tourists visiting Gujarat can obtain temporary liquor permits to buy alcohol from authorized outlets.
Beyond the legal framework, prohibition remains a powerful political tool. Bihar’s Nitish Kumar successfully leveraged the promise of a liquor ban to secure overwhelming support from women voters, positioning himself as a champion against alcohol-related domestic violence and social breakdown. Women, disproportionately affected by alcohol abuse, often emerge as the strongest proponents of prohibition. This reflects a deeper, emotional dimension to the debate — one rooted in lived experiences rather than abstract policy discussions.
Despite the strong moral and political push for prohibition, the practical realities remain grim. History and data show that outright bans rarely succeed in eliminating alcohol consumption. Instead, they drive it underground, fueling black markets, unsafe alternatives, and organized crime. The Covid-19 lockdowns offered a striking example of this disconnect. When liquor stores finally reopened after two months of closures, they were met with massive, chaotic crowds — a stark contrast to survey responses supporting prohibition. This suggests that public opinion, while overwhelmingly in favor of a ban, may not fully reflect actual behavior. Social desirability bias — the tendency for people to give answers they believe are more socially acceptable — likely plays a role in inflating support for prohibition.
The way forward may lie not in absolute prohibition, but in smarter, more balanced strategies. Public awareness campaigns highlighting alcohol’s health risks — including its classification as a carcinogen by the World Health Organization — can empower people to make informed choices. Additionally, promoting responsible drinking habits, improving addiction treatment programs, and addressing the root causes of alcohol abuse — such as poverty and mental health issues — may prove more effective than blanket bans.
Ultimately, prohibition in India reflects a clash between moral aspiration and practical governance. While the desire to eliminate alcohol’s social harms is genuine and widespread, the experience of states with prohibition underscores that enforcement is fraught with challenges. To truly tackle alcohol abuse, policymakers may need to shift from an approach based on outright bans to one that prioritizes public health, education, and social reform — acknowledging that behavior change is more sustainable than prohibition alone.
