So Onam is here again — despite the fact that several contradictory stars above  now form a malefic conjunction in the fate of poor Malayalis in Kerala. Indeed, rarely has a stranger gang dominated the starry heavens of our destiny: V M Sudheeran’s targeted gullet moralism that promises to close down a very large number of bars in Kerala and pave the way for total prohibition in the future, gangs of Hindu right wing youth and women forcing the government’s liquor outlets to close, policemen puffed up with jingoistic nationalism who hallucinate about Maoists in wake and sleep and declare social activists like Ajitha “dead”, CPM offspring who think that making foul, putrid public statements justifying murder is politics. All these are, well, rather drunk on self-righteousness and to be true, present a slightly ridiculous sight. Even the weather looks ridiculously inebriated – the sky alternates between bright sunny spells and horrid, harsh showers, crazily swinging between sunny smiles and bursts of tears.

We all know that – and the snaking long queues in front of the government liquor outlets look like one long defiant finger being wagged in the face of puritans – but the planetary conjunction is simply not favorable enough for us to be brave and laugh. Nothing else explains our inability to laugh, for, after all, we have now plumbed the depths of ridiculousness in our public life. As a friend remarked ruefully in the wake of the hullabaloo over the alleged insult to the national flag by a few young people in Thiruvananthapuram, things are such that now people need to think twice before sucking hard at a juicy ripe mango – don’t forget, mango is our national fruit! One never knows what might strike the red-hot imagination of the nationalist policeman, he may decide that this is an insult to the National Fruit! Goodness knows what all ‘national’ symbols are going to be frozen: the list is potentially never-ending!

As for the Left’s opposition to this rightist social and political tidal wave, it has always been a phenomenon fully present to a very select group, Anglo-American development studies scholars still drunk on the Kerala Model; the rest of us, especially, women and dalits, always knew that the Left has traditionally been politically left-wing (in a limited sense, and this an ever- shrinking tradition for sure) but socially right-wing. Besides, it is mired in a transition now, since the Kalasarppam, the Ouroboros, the Serpent, that is the upper caste Hindu mainstream Malayali new elite is undergoing a major re-birth, with Rahu, the Hindutva snake-head, swallowing Ketu, the CPM snake-tail. We are all such cowards now probably because we are ingesting the debilitating poison that in the Serpent emits in the course of this terrible celestial transition.

I can already feel puritanical horror lunge at me as I begin to argue against the move towards prohibition – how dare you, as a woman, as someone who cannot deny the terrible things that alcohol abuse does to a woman’s life? How can you be so deaf to of the demands of lakhs of women and children in this state? How can you side so shamelessly with the misogynist homosocial culture of Kerala’s bars?

It is not that I am totally against all regulation of alcohol consumption. Indeed not. I think that the minimum age for alcohol consumption should be raised; I strongly recommend that there should be alert and efficient police helplines to aid women whose homes are invaded by alcoholic husbands, and strong laws that crack down on disruption of women’s lives and children’s peace by drunkards; I also feel that all bar-owners should be offered heavy incentives to convert bars into fully public spaces where all sorts of men, women, and children, young and old, can meet – quite possibly, this could bring down excessive consumption and drunken dramatics. I am for very strong action against drunken driving and other forms of behavior that may harm others in shared spaces, though I not believe that road accidents in Kerala or domestic violence is caused by alcohol alone. I also admire the Dalit Human Rights Movement’s effort to reform men in which de-addiction and rejection of alcohol is a strong component. However, given the present political climate in which we are all nearly breathless with the toxic fumes of Hindutva Rahu, the move towards prohibition only increases the capacity of the poison to penetrate deeper.

First of all, there is no contradiction between disagreeing with prohibition and admitting that Malayalis may have a problem from drinking unwisely. Truly, we may be consuming alcohol excessively, and this may be affecting their health. But then Malayalis consume several things that supposedly take a huge toll on their health: coconut oil, for example. Or bleached sugar. Or even rice, which no longer suits us, now that we are a sedentary people? And what about red meat? The old proverb says that even the nectar or immortality, Amritham, is poison if consumed in excess. So if moderation is the rule for all kinds of consumption, why single out just alcohol? For sure, alcohol and other intoxicating substances are not bad in themselves — I personally know of post-partum medicines fed to lactating new mothers which contain things like cannabis; there were forms of country liquor fed to new mothers to strengthen their bodies! So why not just use it in moderation? As for alcohol that is admixed with other chemicals to increase its potency, it should be tackled through strict vigilance, like the state would have, had greedy fold mixed bone powder with bleached sugar . And why stop at consumption of material goods alone? There is no evidence that the physical and mental well-being of human beings will be harmed if they cease to consume nationalism spiked with Hindutva; there is evidence that excessive consumption of such nationalism can impair one’s capacity for clear thinking and indeed remove one’s inhibitions towards violence. So why not ban this brand of nationalism?

Secondly, though it is true that addiction to alcohol is largely among men in Kerala but it is women who bear the brunt of it, I do not believe that these women are victims of alcohol; they are being victimized by patriarchy. The talk here is as if a single sip of alcohol can turn men into helpless addicts; no, if they have become addicts it is because they have used their patriarchal privilege to indulge in excessive consumption. If alcoholics indulge in domestic violence it is not because alcohol somehow prompts them to do it – it is either an excellent excuse, or it allows for a certain loosening of inhibitions and scruples. I have often wondered why we are so scared of dead-drunk men. Inebriated men are often the weakest – they can be pushed away. And even if they are strong or heavy, one often gets the time to grab the nearest chair because our reflexes are usually quicker if we aren’t frozen with fear. I think it is this society with its stupid notion of femininity that teaches women to undervalue their own physical strength and agility. In my research I have observed that the more self-reliant women are in terms of financial resources and non-familial social networks (both are crucial), the less reluctant they are to throw drunken husbands out and keep them there until they come to their senses.

Thirdly, I do not believe that the present move to shut down a considerably large number of bars will end women’s woes, no, not at all. To start with, the drunkards may well try to resolve the loss of their private-dens-in-public space by simply transporting these private dens from the public to domestic space. Thus we may well see innumerable numbers of private-dens-in-domestic-spaces sprouting. I cannot believe that women in Kerala are so naïve that they don’t see this! Indeed, this apparent naiveté can only be understood as an element in a certain performance of femininity popular in Kerala now. The Kudumabshree women who enthusiastically welcomed the government’s move may well be willing to pick up the broom in case their homes are threatened; however that only adds yet another task to their long list of social duties. And, if they actually do, what will the great champions of the patriarchal family in Kerala – the Hindutvavaadis, the Christian and Muslim puritans, say? Won’t they be aghast that the collapse of the very foundation of social morality? In fact I doubt if the religious puritans will support the women if they decide to act thus.

But more importantly, does the liquor ban bring more money into women’s hands? As long as patriarchal power reigns unfettered in the family, the man can still spend his income on now-more- expensive alcohol and silence the wife who objects. In a larger structural sense this move may be read within the hegemonic neoliberal social framework, as one which orients working class and lower middle class men towards greater responsibility in making the poor family self-supporting. However, unlike the microfinance and microenterprise efforts of Kudumbashree, there is little in this move that actually empowers the woman (in the absence of adequate support for the woman who chooses to complain against her husband who may bring it home) – rather, it is being assumed that this move will make the drunkard husband turn a new leaf. In fact, it seems to rest on more-than-a-century-old gender ideology, according to which women are idealized as the very receptacles of love, who have the inherent ability to reform their family members if the state provides the right conditions! Indeed projecting this as the major concern of Kudumbashree women is regressive. Women in Kerala have largely ignored the rehashed version of this domestic ideology which was prominent served up to them in Kudumbashree’s early years; now it is being thrust on them again, and the moralism of prominent politicians like Sudheeran with his relatively cleaner record make it harder for them to refuse.

Also, it is utterly foolish to think that male homosociality is a flimsy by-product of men’s penchant for alcohol! To reduce public spaces for alcohol consumption does not disrupt male homosociality at all; it only prevents a public and political discussion of the same. Will the restriction on alcohol end domestic violence? Not very likely, since the escalation of domestic violence is also driven by other factors such as women’s increased mobility and increased capacity for self-assertion. And importantly, the fact that over the past twenty years, the assets that women received as inheritance have probably become more fungible, and women themselves are aware of this. Women used to receive the least fungible family assets as inheritance: the house and gold were both seeped in sentimentality of the whole family, and not easily converted into cash. In any case, land was not as valuable as it is today. But now that the sentimentality about both land and gold has decreased and both are extremely fungible, the contests over control over these within the family have also increased.

If even the poorest women are crying out for a ban on alcohol, they are actually railing against a society which first makes women utterly dependent, in all senses, on their husbands and fathers, and then pardons these men every time they fail to fulfill their obligations. This cry actually echoes in a deep chamber of cynicism shaped by the bitter experiences of generations of women, their deep disillusionment, their ingrained feeling that they will neither be able to shake off the dependence nor secure justice against husbands and fathers who fail them. They are crying for what they think is perhaps possible, but sadly, it cannot solve their problem.

Fifthly, I refuse to believe that women should have nothing to do with alcohol, as makers or consumers. I have interviewed senior women, ex-arrack brewers who live in the urban slums of this city, who told me about how they used their income from arrack-making– to send sons to school, even college, get them ‘job cards’ in the market as workers; marry off daughters out of poverty and social stigma; start respectable enterprises. As one woman told me, she sold arrack in the evening and milk in the morning, from the cows bought with the income from selling arrack. The ban on arrack in the mid-90s threw a number of extremely poor women who brewed it into deep economic insecurity – the men who ran the bars continued to make a killing. As for women who drink in excess, they are much fewer in numbers despite the shitty sensationalist stories that appear in the media time to time, and their problems are just as bad and sad as male addicts, no more, no less. And just like men can will themselves to drink in moderation, so can women. Indeed, I would even say that all women must have some first-hand experience with alcohol; otherwise they would, as Malayali first-generation feminist, Chief Justice Anna Chandy, put it, end up being convinced that the stink of whiskey is the energizing fragrance of eucalyptus.

So when mainstream Malayali society continues to avert its eyes from task of reforming men (taking a cue from the Dalit Human Rights Movement), helping them to respect and value domestic and public spaces, preventing them from getting trapped in narrow homosocial spaces that masquerade as the public, making them offer respect and love to women and children, endowing them with the courage to queer their masculinity, it is hard to believe that the step towards prohibition will bring gender or social peace. As for the self-righteous puritans in the Muslim and Christian organizations,  and soft-Hindu champions of public morality in the Congress, they make me remember the Bible: For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: the stalk has no bud: it shall yield no meal: if so be it does yield, the aliens shall swallow it up. [Hosea 8:7, King James Bible]