As Bihar prepares for its 2025 Assembly elections, the debate over the state’s liquor prohibition has resurfaced at the heart of the political discourse. Among the most striking promises in the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) manifesto is the proposal to exempt toddy—a traditional, naturally fermented drink—from the state’s liquor ban. The promise, made by RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, signals not just a policy shift but a calculated political outreach aimed at reclaiming the party’s traditional support base and reviving the debate over one of Nitish Kumar’s most contentious policies.

The liquor ban, which was implemented in April 2016 by the Nitish Kumar-led government, prohibited both the sale and consumption of all forms of alcohol in Bihar. The prohibition included toddy, or tari, a mildly alcoholic beverage made from fermenting the sap of palm and date trees. At the time, Nitish Kumar justified the move as a step toward promoting women’s welfare, arguing that alcohol abuse had devastated families, especially in poor and rural households. He said the policy aimed to end domestic violence and improve household savings, and he frequently cites statistics on reduced alcohol consumption and increased social order to defend the ban.

However, nine years after its enforcement, the law continues to divide opinion. Critics argue that it has led to the emergence of a thriving black market, recurring hooch tragedies, and large-scale corruption within the enforcement system. The opposition has used these failures to question whether the prohibition has achieved its intended social benefits or merely driven the trade underground.

It is within this context that Tejashwi Yadav’s toddy exemption proposal must be understood. Speaking recently at a gathering of the Pasi community—a Scheduled Caste group traditionally involved in toddy tapping—Yadav said, “As the then deputy chief minister in the Mahagathbandhan government, I had tried hard to convince Nitish Kumar to keep toddy out of the liquor category, as the Pasi community had been extracting toddy for generations as their traditional occupation. But the CM did not listen.” He added that it was only fair to recognize toddy as a cultural and economic livelihood rather than a criminalized product.

The RJD has now formally included this exemption in its election manifesto, presenting it as a blend of social justice and economic pragmatism. By doing so, it not only distances itself from the liquor ban’s unpopular consequences but also seeks to reclaim the moral high ground among marginalized communities. The move also echoes an earlier decision by Tejashwi’s father, former Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, who had waived taxes on toddy during his tenure in the 1990s.

The Pasi community, numbering around 13 lakh in Bihar—less than one percent of the state’s population—belongs to the Mahadalit sub-category, among the most economically and socially disadvantaged groups. Yet, their symbolic significance in Bihar’s caste matrix is substantial. By championing their traditional livelihood, the RJD’s proposal is seen as part of a broader strategy to strengthen its connection with Dalit voters and revive its image as a protector of backward classes and marginalized communities. In this sense, the toddy exemption goes beyond being a mere policy promise; it represents a form of caste outreach, wrapped in economic reasoning and cultural preservation.

This issue has also become a major point of differentiation among Bihar’s political players. The Jan Suraaj Party, led by Prashant Kishor, has gone even further—promising to completely lift the liquor ban if it comes to power. Kishor argues that prohibition has failed both socially and economically, and that legalizing and regulating the liquor trade could generate as much as ₹28,000 crore in annual revenue for the state. “There is a law in place that has shut down liquor shops and started home delivery,” he remarked, pointing to the widespread availability of illegal liquor despite strict enforcement. His comments reflect a growing public sentiment that prohibition has not eliminated drinking but has merely pushed it into the shadows, enriching smugglers and criminal networks while depriving the state of much-needed revenue.

The ban’s critics extend even into the ruling NDA camp. Union Minister and Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular) leader Jitan Ram Manjhi has publicly called for a review of the policy, arguing that its implementation unfairly targets the poor, while influential bootleggers and middlemen escape punishment. Although there have been three official reviews of the prohibition policy over the years, Nitish Kumar has remained steadfast in his commitment, citing reduced alcohol consumption and improved household well-being as proof of its success.

Empirical evidence on the effects of the ban paints a mixed picture. A study published in The Lancet in May 2024 found that Bihar’s liquor prohibition led to a measurable decline in alcohol consumption and a reduction in partner violence—suggesting that the social benefits envisioned by Nitish Kumar may not be entirely unfounded. However, the same study and subsequent analyses highlighted unintended consequences, including increased illicit production, corruption, and overburdened policing systems. Research by Aaditya Dar and Abhilasha Sahay further noted that enforcement of the alcohol ban has diverted police resources from other essential duties, weakening the state’s ability to address other forms of crime. Meanwhile, illicit liquor consumption, often more potent and dangerous, continues to claim lives, particularly in rural districts.

The broader economic and social implications of the ban are equally significant. Bihar’s complete prohibition has resulted in a major loss of excise revenue, which before 2016 had contributed substantially to the state’s finances. This financial vacuum, critics argue, has limited the government’s capacity to fund welfare and development programs. It has also encouraged illegal cross-border liquor trade, especially from neighboring Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh, creating a parallel economy that thrives on smuggling and bribery.

Bihar’s experience with prohibition is not unique. Similar attempts in other Indian states and abroad have produced mixed outcomes. Gujarat, for instance, has maintained a strict alcohol ban since 1961, but despite its longevity, bootlegging and black markets persist. Mizoram reintroduced an alcohol ban in 2018 to curb domestic violence and public disorder, but inconsistent enforcement led to widespread smuggling and a gradual erosion of the policy’s credibility. Internationally, the United States’ Prohibition Era (1920–1933) is often cited as the classic example of how total bans can fuel organized crime and unregulated underground consumption. Likewise, in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia—where alcohol bans are enforced on religious or moral grounds—illicit production and smuggling remain common despite harsh penalties.

These comparisons underscore a central dilemma: while the social goals of prohibition are well-intentioned, enforcement challenges and unintended economic distortions often outweigh the intended benefits. In Bihar, this dilemma has become deeply political. For Nitish Kumar, lifting the ban would be seen as a personal and ideological retreat from a policy he has repeatedly championed as his signature reform. For his opponents, particularly Tejashwi Yadav and Prashant Kishor, challenging the policy provides an opportunity to question the moral and economic legitimacy of Nitish’s governance model.

The RJD’s call for toddy exemption thus occupies a middle ground between total prohibition and complete deregulation. It appeals to voters who view toddy tapping as a harmless traditional occupation, distinct from commercial alcohol trade. It also resonates with those who believe prohibition has failed but who may not support a full rollback. For the RJD, this nuanced stance allows it to criticize the government’s failures without appearing to undermine the moral arguments that initially justified the ban.

At the same time, the political calculation is evident. The RJD’s focus on toddy is as much about cultural symbolism as it is about economic relief. By promising to restore dignity and income to the Pasi community, the party is reviving the social justice plank that once formed the core of Lalu Prasad’s electoral success. It also positions the RJD as a defender of traditional livelihoods in the face of bureaucratic overreach and misplaced moral paternalism.

Whether this promise will translate into electoral gains remains uncertain. The liquor ban continues to polarize Bihar’s electorate, with many women’s groups and rural families still supporting Nitish Kumar’s stance for its perceived social benefits. However, growing frustration over enforcement excesses, corruption, and the persistence of illicit trade has created fertile ground for debate and potential political shifts.

As Bihar heads into elections, the toddy question encapsulates a broader conflict between moral governance and pragmatic economics. It pits Nitish Kumar’s vision of social reform against the RJD’s promise of livelihood justice and the Jan Suraaj Party’s call for economic realism. The outcome of this debate will not only shape Bihar’s liquor policy but also reveal how far its voters are willing to go in redefining the balance between state control, tradition, and individual freedom in one of India’s most socially complex states.