The U.P. Government and Temperance

ON the face of it, there is nothing in the communique issued by the U.P. Government regarding the temperance movement in that province, which is open to serious exception. “With the temperance movement,” says the communique, “the Government have very sympathy so long as it proceeds on legitimate and peaceful lines” — which is the phrase now adopted in article I of the Congress constitution as a substitute for “constitutional” — “but it has been reported that supporters of non-co-operation are using wrongful restraint in order to compel the customers of country spirit to abandon their habits and to prevent excise vendors from practising their trade. Both consumer and vendor are entitled to protection from outside interference and to have the vicinity of shops cleared of picketing. The local Government accordingly is pleased to direct in all cases where there are complaints of intimidation that effort should be made to give the protection which the law affords.” There is nothing in this of which, from the point of view of law and order, anyone can complain, or which can be said to be unusual to a Government which is accustomed to place law and order above other considerations. But the question that we put to the U.P. Government is, if it is performing its proper functions by reserving its support for the traders and the consumers of spirits and asking the advocate of the temperance movement to be satisfied merely with its sympathy. Is it unaware of the strong movement that has been set on foot in more than one western country to abolish the curse of drink, and does it not occur to it that in a country like India where the drink habit is condemned by every religion, and enlightened public opinion is in favour of the suppression of this habit, it is its duty to do something more than merely sympathise with the temperance reformers?