Malappuram, Sep 2010 — 26 people dead after consuming illicit country liquor. Excise Minister P. Gurudasan refuses to accept 'moral responsibility' and resign. Several hundred illegal toddy shops destroyed. Compensation of Rs. 1 lakh promised by the government to the victim's families.
South 24 Parganas, Dec 2011 — 172 people dead after drinking spurious hooch. The government promises compensation of Rs 2 lakhs to victim's families for 'accidental death', refusing 'moral responsibility'. Two PILs are filed at the High Court, demanding justice and welfare coverage instead of compensation. The High Court suspends compensation pay-outs for 2 months. Khora Badshah, main culprit for spiking the liquor, convicted in a charge sheet on Feb 11, 2012.
Cuttack and Khurda, Feb 2012 — 34 people dead, 6 blind, 80 under treatment after consuming illegal liquor mixed with cough syrup. 3 government officials suspended. Excise Minister A U Singdeo resigns claiming 'moral responsibility'. Compensation amount is yet to be finalized.
India is an overpopulated country where people consume illicit liquor, chemically treated vegetables, arsenic laced groundwater — and die in large numbers. Ministers resign when forced by their party authorities, meager compensations are handed out to those who have the perseverance to follow up, and life goes on. The only thing that never happens is a conclusive investigation.
In Kerala, the real tussle happened over licensing of liquor shops.
In Orissa, a pharmaceutical group is claiming innocence that cough syrups don't kill. The hooch makers are insistent that it was the combo of hooch and syrup that killed.
And in Bengal, though an infamous criminal has been convicted in the case, the government terms it as 'accidental death', rather than 'crime'.
In all the cases, the debate mainly centers on whether a minister claimed 'moral responsibility' and resigned. But what is moral responsibility? Does it translate to stepping down and waiting for five years till the next election? Or does it mean accepting the existence of cheap, illegal shacks where poor and unimportant people drown their sorrow in poisonous liquor? Maybe it means quick convictions of local hooligans.
The state lawyer has argued in the Calcutta High Court that the act of consuming illegal liquor makes the dead people 'culprits' rather than 'victims'. And why should the state bother about what happens to families of dead outlaws?
The idea is to muddle the facts to such an extent that disillusioned judges ultimately bury yet another case under mountains of pending public litigations. The state would debate on the correct degree of poverty required to qualify for family welfare schemes or the correct amount of cash compensation. Meanwhile, people would continue walking into dimly lit shacks to have their last drinks.
4 comments