Savita is a hypothetical woman whose hypothetical husband is a typical alcoholic, beating her every night and spending all the family’s earnings on alcohol. She has failed to convince her husband to give up drink. She has failed to get the family and community to put pressure on her husband to quit.
In desperation, she decides that the best way to get her husband to abstain is to persuade the government to stop alcohol from being sold to him.
Difficult as the task is, it is not enough for the government to sign the order. It has to be implemented. Unfortunately, implementing it requires the “co-operation” of a whole lot of people, much more that Savita individually or many Savitas together can ever manage to persuade. Toddy tappers have to give up their livelihood. Country-liquor shopowners have to close shop. Policemen have to enforce the ban. Excise inspectors have to stay uncorrupt. MLAs have to resist the temptation to interfere.
Does Savita stand a chance? Mohini Giri, chairman of the National Women’s Commission, thinks so. I was watching an episode of “The Big Fight” two weeks back in which she was calling for total prohibition to be reimposed on India.
Stories like the (hypothetical) Savita’s tug at heartstrings. Opposing prohibition seems at worst an act of cruelty and at best a concession to pragmatism. Supporting sale of alcohol by citing individual rights and personal responsibility will bring forth a snigger from people like Ms. Giri. Savita’s illiterate and ignorant husband is hardly in a position to look after himself. But why do people assume in the face of overwhelming evidence that the government can fit into the Patriarch’s role?