Yesterday and tomorrow

U.N. DHEBAR †

back to issue

THE case for prohibition in India stands on fundamentally a different footing than the case for prohibition in other countries of the world. Prohibition in the West has always been associated with the struggle against alcoholism on physical or health grounds. Unaware as yet of this difference, the antagonists of the prohibition movement in India point a finger to the experience of the West, especially the United States of America, and argue that the method of legislative compulsion which undoubtedly failed to yield results there can hardly succeed in India. They are also not wholly unjustified in arguing that drinking in moderate measure is physically not so harmful as it is believed to be. They are not on that premise unjustified in arguing in favour of temperance.

Prohibition in India has suffered because it has been dealt with on the basis of the effects of alcoholism on the human system or the physical organism of the human being. There are, however, reasons far more potent in support which the opponents of prohibition may well try to understand. Also, they are weighty in a world which is slipping away from us in India. But they are even more weighty in a world which is appearing over the horizon as the world of tomorrow.

What is this human being in whose benefit the protagonists and antagonists of prohibition are carrying on this controversy? Is he a mere collection of chemical compounds which develop consciousness as an epiphenomenon to disappear at death; or is the human being endowed with something which is independent of the chemical compounds? In other words, is consciousness an inner phenomenon which precedes birth and survives death?

I am sorry for trying to lead the discussion towards a direction which may sound mystical in nature. But I cannot help it. After all, if there is to be a discussion at an intellectual level, it has to take into account the fundamental aspect of this movement in India. The origin of the movement is centuries old and has been the result of deep and mature thinking. It is not a brainwave of some Gandhian faddist as is consistently advertised. It is true that ignorance and impetuosity on the part of the enthusiasts of this movement have sometimes converted it into a fad.

The real issue, however, is this. What is our notion of the Indian citizen? Are the 45 crore who exist now and others who will come into existence hereafter, just so many bottles of chemical substances? Or, are these many crore endowed with a consciousness which is independent, which existed before their birth and which will survive after their death? We, the people of India, have inherited from our forefathers not only our physical bodies which are finite and mortal, but we also have inherited from our forefathers a conception of life which has bound us to a universal and immortal principle through the centuries.

 

This conception of life is, in my opinion, our only hope against mass inertia and complacency among the leadership. It is the only conception which is likely to take us to the sources of inherent vitality and dynamism which are indispensable in making our life rich and noble. If the fountain in a certain way seems to have dried up, it is because it is choked by a deep sense of defeatism and frustration. We are not ourselves. Everyday we are trying to forget ourselves. The only remedy is to revive what is best in the Indian way of life. In that way alone shall we be able to create in our society confidence in itself and give it a broad and durable base. Unless the social motivations which we place before it are oriented to suit its genius, we shall in vain struggle to move it with a momentum which a Gandhi could give.

This conception of life has been the essence of Indian existence ever since the Upanishads were written. We have learnt from this source that man, otherwise indistinguishable from an animal, has been endowed with a rare faculty which can help him to expand his vision to the uttermost extent so that he can, like Tagore and Gandhi, be universal and immortal. Alcohol in any form or to any extent, if it becomes a habit, must affect this faculty: this has been the experience of India through the ages.

 

First of all, let us understand what this faculty is. Is it the same as a powerful mind or a sharp intellect? No. Is it something more than these. These are merely the outward expressions of that faculty. That faculty is intuition.

Drinking as a habit affects that faculty; hence the consistent counsel to the people or India in the Brahmanical age and the Buddhist and Jain era, in the era of saints and philosophers and finally the consistent counsel which followed into the conception of a new Indian society of which the foundations were laid in the latter half of the 18th century by Raja Ram Mohan Roy and which were being continuously strengthened by Ramakrishna Parama Hansa, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi. When Lord Buddha talked of non-drinking, he did not do so as a faddist, nor did Mahatma Gandhi.

I have broached a point of view which will take many unawares. But it had to be broached if I have to clear the air and assert that this movement touches deeper sources of human reserves than merely safeguarding health. This point of view has also to be broached to caution not only those who argue against prohibition but for prohibition. Prohibition will be one more mechanical or artificial exercise superimposed upon the mentally suppressed masses of India if it is divorced from its real objective. Not the whole might of the Indian government is going to save prohibition if it is so divorced. It is true that as a result we shall have an India which will be an ugly and a distorted copy of the West – maybe a seventh rate copy at that.

It is possible that in that case Mother Nature will grudge having given us Buddha and Gandhi. They brought up the issue of man’s real mission in life to the door of every Indian and tried to provide him with the wherewithal for fulfilling the mission. The issue of prohibition is thus linked up with the vision of the Indian race which did not regard the physical existence of its members as the beginning and the end of all that it was living for, but which regarded that every one of its members was endowed with an immutable, immortal and universal content which could make for a life of truth, beauty and joy possible in every one of its households.

 

I said above that the reasons for prohibition continue to be as weighty for the world of tomorrow as they are for the world of today. As science and technology develop – as the world becomes more and more complex – decision making is becoming more and more difficult. We see creeping into the rules of conduct of men charged with decision making in complex situations, or in the rules of conduct of man who have to handle complex jobs, that they shall not be under the influence of alcohol while engaged in work. The driver of a car is handling a more risky vehicle than a bullock cart. The cart driver can take a little more liberty but the car driver cannot. The air pilot is under a still stricter code of discipline and the spaceman even more so. The rules which govern the operators in an atomic station will be far more stringent and so also the rules which will govern the common man and woman in the atomic age.

 

What is the preparation we are making for such an age? Habit formation, if it is not to be crudely done, has to be scientifically approached. The human mind is not always so facile that it will adjust itself on the spur of the moment. The cultivation of habit is an art. One has to follow the path of training for a considerable time before we can form a desirable habit. Unless an idea becomes a part of our thinking, it will work as an imposition which the mind will resist. In the deeper layers of our consciousness, we have started feeling that a new age is upon us and it will come with the speed of lightning. The tragedy of the situation is that only a few are getting ready to respond to it in the way it could be responded to. The new age will bring its own disciplines and looking at it from a distance, if peace is to prevail, a beginning has to be made to cultivate the disciplines of peace from now on.

This throws a duty upon those who think in traditional lines, whether of eastern or western origin, to look into this question objectively. The most potent argument in favour of prohibition then will be: can sober decision-making which is indispensable in the atomic age be ensured without disciplining the mind which has to take it? If the frontiers of peace are to be laid in the minds of men, Indian experience teaches us that it has to be detached, balanced, equipoised, free from addiction of any kind. This is the greatest lesson our ancients learnt in the hard school of life and the greatest heritage which they have passed on to us, the richest heritage of our race.

Thirdly, for India, which is frantically struggling to emancipate its countless millions from the clutches of poverty and indigence, the question of priorities is of supreme importance. If the production potential of the country is to be raised to the desired level, it is necessary to save as much as possible and save on all items which are not considered absolutely essential. This raises the question of priority. At the level of the masses, the priority has to be adequate food and education. I have yet to be convinced that our people at the lowest level can afford to spend on alcohol. Expenditure on drinking then must come into conflict with the basic priorities. Can we not expect those who can afford it to fall in line with this requirement? It becomes a national duty.

The argument that licensing can be made into a good source of revenue only shows that we have scarce regard for these priorities. Heartlessness behind this argument – to collect revenue from alcohol at the expense of food and education – can hardly do credit to the advocates thereof.

 

Finally comes the question of implementation. The police alone is not going to succeed. It is the work of social leadership to provide the backing of public opinion. That is needed whether one thinks of temperance or full scale prohibition. Have we done our duty to the full! There are people working in the field of religion, education and social work in the thousands. It would not be impossible to provide the necessary organization for the work of educating public opinion in this respect. If there is failure, it is of the institutions interested in carrying out prohibition successfully. Laxity in this has affected the interest of the state as well as the people. But the remedy lies in supplementing what is wanted and not to go back on the commitment. I think there is so much to be gained and very little to be lost if the state, the people and the social worker can meet to provide that basic organization as the states of Gujarat and Madras have done to make a success of the experiment.

 

  Seminar 60, ‘Prohibition’, August 1964, pp. 24-26.

top