Dr. Harjeet Singh
The debate over an alcohol ban in Jammu and Kashmir erupted into public consciousness again in early 2026. The trigger was not a political speech. It was videos. Ordinary smartphone footage captured tourists openly consuming alcohol on shikaras gliding across Dal Lake. Other clips showed young people drinking in the meadows of Gulmarg in full view of local families. These images spread rapidly across social media, and the public response was swift and angry. People who had long accepted alcohol as a behind closed doors reality now saw it becoming a public spectacle. What followed was a flood of civil society petitions demanding a complete ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol across the Union Territory. The government offered the usual responses about revenue loss and tourism impact. But those arguments, when examined closely, do not hold up against the evidence.
The case for banning alcohol in Kashmir rests on solid empirical ground. The social costs are well documented and devastating. A comprehensive study published in the National Library of Medicine database examined the impact of alcohol dependence on family units. Wives of alcohol dependent men reported significantly higher rates of domestic violence, psychological aggression, and physical injury compared to wives of non drinkers. Most alarming was the data on suicidal ideation. Women married to heavy drinkers showed dramatically higher rates of suicidal thoughts and actual suicide attempts. This is not abstract sociology. This is the destruction of homes and the trauma of children. Every bottle sold in Kashmir carries with it a statistical probability of violence against a woman somewhere in the Valley. The revenue from that bottle cannot offset that human cost. Beyond the violence, there is the quiet erosion of economic stability within households. A 2025 study in the Journal of Addiction Research found that families of alcohol dependent individuals spend nearly 30 percent of their monthly income on alcohol, diverting money from food, education, and healthcare. This financial drain perpetuates a cycle of poverty that affects not just the drinker but everyone dependent on him.
The evidence from other Indian dry states provides a powerful counterargument to the claim that prohibition does not work. Bihar implemented a complete alcohol ban in 2016. Research published in The Lancet, a world leading medical journal, estimated that the ban prevented approximately 2.4 million cases of daily alcohol consumption. It also prevented 1.8 million cases of obesity among males. Most importantly, the study estimated that the ban prevented 2.1 million cases of intimate partner violence. To put that number in perspective, that is more than the entire population of Srinagar. The National Family Health Survey data from Bihar reinforces this. It found that 83 percent of married women who lived with frequent drinkers experienced violence. Among women whose spouses did not drink frequently, that number dropped to 34 percent. Gujarat has maintained prohibition since 1960. Despite predictions of economic collapse, Gujarat has become one of India’s most prosperous states. Its tourism industry thrives without alcohol as a selling point. The argument that tourists will stop visiting Kashmir collapses when confronted with Gujarat’s success.
“Kashmir should implement a total ban on alcohol, citing the successful precedents of other Indian states where tourism and economies remained resilient. The passage contends that the current revenue (2% of the budget) does not justify the severe social costs, including the endangerment of women and children. It concludes that immediate prohibition is a moral and social necessity to prevent further domestic trauma.”
The revenue argument against prohibition is the weakest. Liquor sales in Jammu and Kashmir generate approximately Rs 2,000 crore annually. The total budget of the Union Territory is well over Rs 1 lakhcrore. The revenue from alcohol represents roughly 2 percent of that total. This is not an insignificant sum, but it is also not irreplaceable. The question is not whether the government can afford to lose this revenue. The question is whether it can afford to keep it. Every rupee collected from alcohol sales comes with hidden costs. The government spends money on treating alcohol related liver disease, on policing domestic violence calls, on sheltering battered women, on rehabilitating addicts. When these costs are added together, the net economic benefit likely turns negative. The government is losing money, and families are paying the price.
There are reasonable ways to implement a ban. The first is a phased approach. An immediate overnight ban would drive the trade underground. A five year timeline for complete prohibition, with a 20 percent annual reduction in liquor vends, gives the market time to adjust. The second measure is community led enforcement. The village of Kyudi Dashjyula in Uttarakhand banned alcohol unanimously in a public meeting in early 2026, imposing a fine of Rs 21,000 and social boycott on violators. Kashmir, with its strong community bonds, is ideally suited for this model. The third measure is investment in de addiction infrastructure. A ban on sales does nothing for those already dependent. The government must expand access to counseling, medication, and rehabilitation facilities. The fourth measure is economic transition. Workers and shopkeepers dependent on the alcohol trade can be offered vocational training and small business loans. The revenue previously collected from alcohol taxes can be redirected to this transition fund.
The evidence is clear. Alcohol destroys families and drives violence against women. It imposes hidden costs on society that far exceed any tax revenue. Other Indian states have shown that prohibition is possible, that tourism survives, that economies adjust. Kashmir can continue to trade the safety of its women and children for two percent of its budget. Or it can take the difficult but necessary step of banning a poison that has no place in a healthy society. Delaying action means more families destroyed, more women endangered, and more children traumatized. Every year of hesitation has a human price tag that no treasury can afford. The debate has gone on long enough. The time for action is now.
(The author is a professional Physics Educator and academic content creator. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
[email protected]
