The renewed debate on the Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act has once again exposed deep divisions within Naga society. In recent public discourse, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) advocating for the lifting of the NLTP Act have increasingly blamed the Nagaland Baptist Church Council (NBCC) and the churches, portraying them as the primary obstacles to reform. While such accusations may resonate with certain sections of the public, they risk oversimplifying a complex issue that demands careful moral, legal, and social reflection.
One of the most troubling aspects of the current debate is the proposal to lift the NLTP Act only in Dimapur district. The justification commonly offered is Dimapur’s proximity to the Assam border and its allegedly porous nature, which supposedly facilitates the inflow of liquor. This argument lacks coherence. If proximity to the border is the determining factor, then every district in Nagaland becomes effectively close to the border, because Dimapur itself is an integral district within the state. What is permitted in Dimapur does not remain confined there; it inevitably moves inward, closer to our homes, villages, and communities across Nagaland.
Even while the NLTP Act remains in force, alcohol consumption and sale have been blatantly visible, including during major public events such as the Hornbill Festival. This reality raises a fundamental question: is the problem the absence of law, or the deliberate ignoring of an existing law? To argue for lifting the Act on the basis of poor enforcement is to confuse administrative failure with legislative intent. Weak enforcement calls for reform and strengthening, not abandonment of the law itself.
CSOs pushing for the lifting of the NLTP Act argue primarily on economic and regulatory grounds. They claim that legalization would improve state revenue, ensure the availability of better-quality alcohol, and curb the circulation of adulterated liquor. These arguments focus narrowly on revenue generation and consumer choice, while paying insufficient attention to the broader and well-documented social costs associated with alcohol consumption.
At the end of the day, whether cheap or premium, alcohol continues to destroy lives. It breaks families, fuels domestic violence, deepens poverty, reduces productivity, and renders individuals non-contributive to society. Public health studies across the world consistently show that increased availability leads to increased consumption and related harm—an outcome Nagaland, already grappling with unemployment and social stress, can ill afford.
Ironically, even within Dimapur—where calls for lifting the Act are strongest—there exist localities and colonies that have voluntarily regulated or banned the sale of alcohol. These communities demonstrate that responsible citizenship, collective discipline, and moral consensus can succeed where enforcement mechanisms struggle. Such examples weaken the argument that prohibition is inherently unworkable or irrelevant.
Some proponents of lifting the NLTP Act often cite the failure of alcohol prohibition in the United States as evidence that the law is outdated. This comparison is misplaced. Nagaland’s socio-cultural and religious context differs fundamentally from early twentieth-century America. Community life in Nagaland remains closely knit, value-driven, and faith-informed. Policies must be evaluated within their own cultural realities, not through imported historical analogies.
At present, many citizens are psychologically restrained from consuming alcohol precisely because it is illegal. Legalization alters this restraint. When alcohol becomes openly available and socially sanctioned, curiosity easily turns into experimentation, and experimentation into habit—especially among the youth. Open availability is not a guarantee of control; rather, it carries the risk of an uncontrollable rise in consumption.
While CSOs are well within their rights to raise concerns and propose reforms, placing the blame squarely on the NBCC and the churches diverts attention from the real issues—administrative weakness, lack of manpower, and poor enforcement. The Excise Department itself has acknowledged shortages in manpower and capacity. A more constructive approach would be to strengthen the NLTP Act, reform enforcement mechanisms, and foster collaboration between the state, civil society, and faith institutions, rather than singling out the Church as a convenient scapegoat.
The NLTP Act represents more than a legal restriction; it reflects Nagaland’s moral vision, cultural values, and concern for social well-being. Selectively lifting the Act in Dimapur risks inconsistency, wider social harm, and deeper division. The real challenge before Nagaland is not whether to discard the law, but whether we are willing to enforce it responsibly, reform it wisely, and uphold the common good above narrow economic interests.
Dimapur Baptist Pastors’ Fellowship
Dimapur Baptist Women Union
Sunday, February 15, 2026