The coronavirus pandemic has exposed the muddled and paradoxical ways India approaches one of its favourite pursuits: the consumption of alcohol. As a nation, we are presumably committed to forbidding the practice – one of the Directive Principles of the Constitution declares that the state shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks (except for medicinal purposes). Having professed this lofty aim, we have gotten ourselves into a situation where the finances of most States are critically dependent on revenues from alcohol sales (the Constitution places alcohol for human consumption in the State List).

With COVID-19 straining the finances of States in other ways, it is hardly surprising that they are strongly in favour of the resumption in alcohol sales. Such sales constitute up to 15% or more of the finances of most states (Bihar and Gujarat, where prohibition prevails, are exceptions). In revenue terms, this is third only to GST share and levies on petroleum products. To shore up falling finances, states such as Delhi and Andhra Pradesh have seized the opportunity to levy additional taxes; other States seem to be in line to follow suit.

But in State after State, reopening locked liquor retail outlets have resulted in a nightmare – serpentine queues of thirsty customers and brazen violations of all social distancing rules. The Madras High Court’s decision to order the closure of liquor vending outlets (Tasmac stores) was a consequence of the massive violations of the string of safeguards it laid down when ordering reopening. Predictably, the State government has challenged the order, but the question in Tamil Nadu, and elsewhere in the country as well, is the same. How to balance the crying need for more revenue with the absolute requirement of maintaining social distancing and other virus-preventive steps?

The Supreme Court has offered an answer by suggesting online sales and liquor delivery could be considered. This will reduce the crowds around liquor vends and reportedly several States are looking at this as a way forward. But it is important to draw attention to an important fact as we grapple with the alcohol paradox. One of the main reasons for such crowds is the dearth of liquor vends, the licensing of which States like to control tightly. In Tamil Nadu for instance, the retailing of liquor is a government monopoly, a source of extra money, not to speak of extra corruption. In most countries, where prohibition does not exist, alcohol is available much more freely – in supermarkets, general stores, and restaurants.

Those who are for prohibition will strongly object if a similar state of affairs were to transpire, but there is one bald truth that cannot be escaped. There are only two clear non-paradoxical approaches to the issue of alcohol consumption. First, to advocate prohibition (and then deal with the possibly inevitable consequences of bootlegging and spurious alcohol deaths). Second, to make it available, with obvious regulations such as age-proof et cetera, like it is in many other countries. The reason for the mess around reopened liquor vends lies in our half-baked and hypocritical approach to this issue – it lies also in our minds.