In the run-up to Bihar elections, Nitish Kumar promised that he'd introduce prohibition in the state.

Is Nitish Kumar, the Chief Minister of Bihar, a man on a mission or a man possessed? His determination to introduce prohibition in Bihar showed that he was a man on a mission. The latest amendments in the Bihar excise law and his reply to the debate on it in the Bihar assembly shows that he is a man possessed.In the run-up to the assembly elections in Bihar, Nitish had made a promise to the electorate that he would introduce prohibition in the state if he formed the government. He got the mandate from the people and nobody can grudge him the right to introduce a ban on alcohol. The argument in Bihar today is not about his right to do so; the argument is about the manner in which he is going about implementing this resolve.He first banned country liquor from April 1, 2016. Five days later he banned what is called "India Made Foreign Liquor", which was supposed to happen much later. On the basis of experience gained so far, he has now amended the law and made it so draconian that its constitutional validity itself has come under question.When Karpoori Thakur was the Chief Minister of Bihar in the late 70s and the great prohibitionist Morarji Desai was the Prime Minister of India, prohibition was introduced in the state in March 1979, almost two years after he had become the Chief Minister. It had led to such chaos that his successor Ram Sunder Das abolished it soon after assuming charge of his office. Prohibition then did not last even a year. I am sure Nitish Kumar has studied the lessons learnt from these past experiences carefully before taking the plunge. But obviously, the provisions of the earlier law were found to be deficient, hence the latest amendments.What are the provisions of the latest law which are draconian and make a mockery of all the known principles of jurisprudence?First, it seeks to punish all the adult members of a family if any one of them consumes or stores liquor.Second, the minimum sentence for liquor consumption is ten years in jail; in certain cases, it may lead to life imprisonment or even capital punishment.Third, normally an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In the latest Bihar law, the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. He will be presumed to be guilty unless he proves that he is innocent.Fourth, all sections of the Act are non-bailable which means that only the courts can grant bail if they so wish, otherwise the accused will be left to rot in jail.Fifth, upon finding utensils with a mix of sugar or jaggery with grapes on the premises, the police would be free to assume that liquor-making was in progress and all the suspects and their containers and vehicles can be seized.Sixth, it is incumbent on homeowners to inform the police if their tenants drink.Seventh, the Act empowers the police to confiscate premises where liquor is consumed or stored. Earlier they could only seal the premises.Eighth, District Collectors have been empowered to impose a collective fine if a group in a village or town is a frequent offender.Ninth, the District Collector, the police and the officials of the excise department have been given the powers to arrest a person without a warrant.Since April, the police have arrested about 10,000 people for violation of this law. After the new law's coming into force, 10 police officers have already been suspended for dereliction of duty. In future, one can look forward to more stringent action. Already, facts relating to some of the past cases are so bizarre that they are hardly believable. Heart-rending stories are floating in Bihar about the high-handed manner in which the police have behaved in certain cases. It must however be noted that in the new law, the punishment for the erring law enforcement officials has also been made draconian. They are liable to be punished with jail up to three years and a fine of a lakh for misuse of law. But experience shows that in the struggle between a citizen and an official, the citizen rarely wins.In the USA, as we all know, total prohibition was introduced after the 18th amendment in 1919. There was so much enthusiasm for it that the amendment was ratified by three fourths of the states as required by the constitution within eleven months, as against the seven years allowed by the US Congress. It was finally undone by the 21st amendment in 1933. In 1932, industrialist John D Rockefeller had this to say on prohibition, "I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored prohibition; respect for law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before." He did not name Al Capone, but if the prohibition era in the US is infamous for anything, it is for the huge amounts of dirty money Al Capone and the likes of him made through bootlegging.According to the famous political thinker T H Greene, "Will, not force, is the basis of state." It is specially true for social reform legislations. These objectives cannot be achieved merely by passing draconian laws. We need to create social awareness, which alone can ensure compliance.I wish Nitish Kumar all the best in this endeavour with the advice that he must ensure that the remedy is not worse than the disease.(Yashwant Sinha is a senior BJP leader and former Union Minister of External Affairs.)