After nearly four decades, it is time to ask an honest question:
Has the Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act achieved its intended purpose?
If the measure of success is the elimination of alcohol consumption and its associated social harms, the evidence suggests otherwise.
History offers an important lesson. In the United States, the Eighteenth Amendment (1920) introduced nationwide Prohibition with the hope of creating a more moral and orderly society. Instead, it produced the opposite effect. Illegal alcohol trafficking flourished, organised crime expanded under notorious gangsters such as Al Capone, corruption spread among public officials, and millions of ordinary citizens routinely broke the law. Rather than eliminating alcohol, Prohibition created a vast underground black market that the government struggled to control.
The election of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) in 1932 marked a turning point. Roosevelt argued that Prohibition had failed to achieve its objectives while worsening crime, encouraging corruption, and depriving the government of much-needed tax revenue during the Great Depression. Under his administration, Congress proposed the Twenty-first Amendment on 20 February 1933, and on 5 December 1933, after ratification through specially elected state conventions, the United States officially repealed national Prohibition. The decision was not an endorsement of alcohol but a recognition that regulation was more effective than prohibition.
Nagaland today faces many of the same realities.
First, rather than eliminating alcohol, prohibition has boosted smuggling and created an extensive bootlegging network beyond government oversight.
Second, the widespread sale of adulterated alcohol has exposed consumers to serious health risks, where many have lost their lives to alcohol related deaths, while drunk driving and alcohol-related fatalities continue to occur despite the law. Our state currently does not have the facilities for breath analysers or to check drunk driving. (DUI)
Third, because alcohol officially "does not exist" under the law, there are virtually no enforceable safeguards against underage drinking, no licensed vendors required to verify age, and no meaningful quality control over what is sold. The concept of checking ID cards and alcohol sold to minors doesn’t exist in Nagaland!
Fourth, the NLTP Act has also transformed many otherwise law-abiding citizens into offenders simply for purchasing or consuming alcohol that remains readily available.
Fifth, economically, the state has lost millions of rupees in potential excise revenue, employment, and investment, while the neighbouring state of Assam continues to benefit from substantial tax revenue generated through a regulated alcohol industry.
Prohibition has therefore not eliminated the market; it has merely surrendered it to illegal operators.
The social and political landscape has also changed. The Baptist churches alone can no longer claim to represent the entire Christian voice in Nagaland. The Catholic Association of Nagaland's withdrawal of support from the NLTP Act reflects the growing diversity of opinion among Christians on this issue. Furthermore, India is a constitutional democracy founded upon the principle of the separation of religion and state. Churches have every right to provide moral teaching and pastoral guidance to their members, but public policy must ultimately serve all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation.
From a biblical perspective, the case for total prohibition is not straightforward. Scripture consistently condemns drunkenness, not the mere consumption of alcohol. Jesus' first recorded miracle was turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana (John 2:1–11), and wine formed part of the Last Supper (Matthew 26:27–29). Likewise, passages such as Ephesians 5:18 warn believers, "Do not get drunk on wine," while 1 Timothy 5:23 even advises the moderate use of wine for medicinal purposes. The biblical concern is therefore the abuse of alcohol rather than alcohol itself. Christian ethics calls believers to self-control, wisdom, and responsible living, not necessarily to state-enforced prohibition.
After thirty-seven years, the evidence suggests that the NLTP Act has failed to accomplish its original objectives. Instead of reducing alcohol-related harm, it has encouraged bootlegging, strengthened illegal markets, removed regulatory oversight, and deprived the state of valuable public revenue. The American experience demonstrates that repealing prohibition is not an endorsement of alcohol; rather, it is an acknowledgement that a failed policy should be replaced with a more effective one.
Nagaland should therefore move from an ineffective system of prohibition to one of legalisation, regulation, and responsible control. A regulated framework would allow the state to license vendors, enforce age restrictions, monitor product quality, prosecute impaired driving more effectively, and generate revenue for healthcare, addiction treatment, rehabilitation, public education, and law enforcement.
The question is no longer whether alcohol exists in Nagaland; it clearly does.
The real question is whether it should remain in the hands of bootleggers and illegal networks, or be brought under responsible public regulation for the overall benefit of society.
