The Supreme Court order on banning the sale of alcohol 500 meteres close to State and National Highways, will not just impact jobs and taxes, but have little perceptible impact on drunken driving. I write for ABP
About 20 years ago, a young man had gone out with his friends. While returning their car met with an accident. While the others managed a miraculous escape, Harman Sidhu severely damaged his spine, and has been in a wheel chair with 90% disability, since that fateful day. He realised that road safety is a huge problem in India. According to the Transport Research Wing, in 2015 there were over 5 lakh road accidents in 2015, and 1.46 lakh fatalities. About 17 people die each hour in India due to road accidents. The figure in 1996, when Sidhu met with his accident, was 3.28 lakh accidents, and 59,000 fatalities. After his discharge from hospital, Sidhu started a NGO called ArriveSafe that focused on road safety. And, a crucial part of road safety is drivers who are not drunk. It is in this regard, he took out a court case to see if the sale of alcohol could be restricted, on highways, to prevent drunken driving, and thereby prevent accidents.
The Supreme Court has ruled the best way to stop drunks from driving is to prevent the sale of alcohol near (500 meters) state and national highways. And, through this judgement has impacted jobs, taxes and more. And, it is not as though this is going to stop drinking while driving. There is nothing to prevent the driver from pulling over, walking down 500 metres, and buying a quarter, or two, or more.
This entire notion of banning, as a first response to attitudinal change is the kind of patriarchal attitude that we should all find ridiculous and self-defeating. Be it meat, alcohol, films, food types- this notion that the judiciary, executive, and legislature, knows more than that the people and will act in their best interest, because they know best, to make people ‘better human beings’ is one that we ought to fight. Neither the State, nor society is our parent. While it is important to curb drunk driving, or even alcoholism, banning alcohol should not be the solution.
We see variations of this kind of ruling everywhere – to prevent untoward incidents, let us ban the activity. An incomplete list of things that have been activated for ‘our own good’ – university VC’s who clamp down on female students being outside post dusk, for their own safety; states like Bihar banning alcohol to make people sober; groups calling for book bans, to prevent upsetting people; meat shops shut over Navratri because some people are fasting. Suddenly, there is an entire bunch of people who want us to behave as they see fit, and not as we want to lead our lives.
Road safety is a genuine problem. The fatalities on the roads, far outnumber loss of life and limb in terror attacks. However, the question that we all need to ponder on, is whether the ban is the right way. Will this stop drunk driving? The answer is no. The man (or the woman) who needs the drink will find the drink, and drinking and driving is not really going to be impacted. Or the driver will stock up in the state where it costs less, and drink merrily, while driving, on the national highways.
While safety is a genuine concern, as is moral wellbeing, so are livelihoods. So is tax money. Amtabh Kant, CEO of Niti Ayog, pegs the losses caused by this judgement to be over a million jobs. It is also estimated that the states stand to lose about 60,000 crores as tax revenue. The loss to business is still being calculated.
Every time the executive, legislature, or the judiciary, passes a law, or makes a judgement, that is based on control of supply, rather than altering the nature demand, it has an impact on the economy and on jobs. There is not even time given to train or reskill people for the new reality.
Maybe the solution is not prohibition on national and state highways. Maybe you need to look at truck drivers the way you look at pilots and have regular checks to assess alcohol in the blood stream. Maybe, you need to look at the safety and comfort of the driver, be it in terms of the hours worked, rest area, sleep facilities and more. Maybe you need to incentivise companies through lower insurance premiums, or drivers through awards. Treating them like children, treating everyone else like children, and assuming a ban will lead to attitudinal change, is, to put it mildly, strange. All that seems to be achieved now is a loss in jobs, livelihood, profits, and taxes, without any impact on drunken driving.
.