UNO reports and other Expert's Findings
On 24th November 1948, Shibann Lal Saxena moved an amendment to Article 38 of the Draft Constitution in the Constituent Assembly. Despite support for prohibition by Mahavir Tyagi and Hindu Mahasabha. Prohibition could not be brought because of B H Khardekar, an independent member from the Bombay States. Khardekar outward reasons for opposing prohibition were on three grounds: First, prohibition was hard to enforce second, even limited enforcement would overwhelm jails and third, the revenue loss would be substantial. Another flimsy reason was it is a culture of Adivasis. The reason for his love and lobbying for the Liquor Industry is not the subject. His arguments were well-drafted for marketing, but irrational, fabricated, insulting, neutral, and unconvincing for any unbiased and reasonable person.
So far hard to enforce an argument that has no gravity, no enforcement is easy, had it been so, the ‘enforcement’ would not have been required at very first place. And all that is being enforced is being enforced because it is enforced. If that is so and no law, no restriction were enforced at very first place what it the world would have been. Even pack of wolves have their laws and are being enforced strictly. The Gandhi there talking about enforced his will in his Ashram. The second objection of overcrowding of jails is concerned, that is if only crime is done, fear of law is a deterrent, and absence of law is legitimating lawlessness. Crimes borne from liquor shall be there only if there is liquor available, if it is not available, there will be no illegality over it. Anyway, overcrowding of Jails is better than overcrowding of hospitals, graveyards, and creation ground, and roads overcrowded with rowdies and criminals (who should be in Jail anyway) ruling the roads.
So far Adivasis point is concern it was an attempt to do demean them, Adivasis make it for themselves and for themselves, nor do they sell it in market, and there is no generation of revenue from their produce. At the same time they do not buy it so do not pay for it. No revenue from them and no payment from them, so they are not part of this money game, why drag them in it. It was sure and obviously devilish advocate was also once the market sharks who benefited out of this hacking of prohibition law get the free hand, with their nets, net worth,
