<p>About two decades ago, Bharatinagar MLA N Rajanna narrated an unusual complaint on the floor of the Assembly: a drunk man accosted him during an early-morning walk to protest that bars were opening too late. It was a curious snapshot of a society negotiating its relationship with liquor. </p><p>Today, that anecdote reads more like a warning unheeded. If Rajajinagar MLA S Suresh Kumar’s recent observations are any indication, the state has shown remarkable ‘improvement’ in addressing that old grievance. Bars opening at 6.30 am – or even earlier – are no longer isolated violations but part of a pattern. </p><p>Suresh Kumar’s morning walks have revealed a troubling normalisation: people beginning their day not with coffee or tea but with a drink. In residential areas, this raises concerns about safety, public order, and the social environment in which children grow up.</p>.Liquor industry in Karnataka apprehensive about govt’s next move.<p>Two factors underpin this drift. The first is fiscal. Karnataka’s dependence on excise revenue has increased significantly, with a target of Rs 45,000 crore for 2026-2027. This creates implicit pressure on vendors to push sales, often by stretching – or ignoring – regulatory boundaries. The second is administrative complicity. Excise officials and the police, empowered to enforce the law, too often appear to look the other way. This reality contradicts the government’s stated commitments. </p><p>In his Budget, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah sought to distinguish between revenue generation and harm mitigation, assigning the health department the task of promoting responsible drinking and addressing the negative externalities of alcohol consumption. Awareness campaigns and expanded de-addiction services were promised. However, these promises risk being rendered ineffective if the basic regulatory framework is not enforced. Public health messaging cannot coexist with a marketplace that incentivises consumption at dawn. </p><p>The irony is sharper still when one considers the existence of the Karnataka State Temperance Board, established in 1976 to discourage alcohol abuse and promote moderation. Today, it is largely invisible, its mandate eclipsed by the state’s growing reliance on excise income.</p>.Excise reform is a test of intent.<p>At its core, this is a question of governance. The state has the right to tax, and excise revenue funds are essential for welfare and infrastructure. But that right cannot override its duty to protect public health and social order. Revenue cannot become an end in itself. </p><p>Without firm regulation and institutional accountability, the state is effectively borrowing against its future; the short-term fiscal gain will eventually be eclipsed by the long-term cost to the health, safety, and welfare of families. In the end, the damage will outlast revenue.</p>
<p>About two decades ago, Bharatinagar MLA N Rajanna narrated an unusual complaint on the floor of the Assembly: a drunk man accosted him during an early-morning walk to protest that bars were opening too late. It was a curious snapshot of a society negotiating its relationship with liquor. </p><p>Today, that anecdote reads more like a warning unheeded. If Rajajinagar MLA S Suresh Kumar’s recent observations are any indication, the state has shown remarkable ‘improvement’ in addressing that old grievance. Bars opening at 6.30 am – or even earlier – are no longer isolated violations but part of a pattern. </p><p>Suresh Kumar’s morning walks have revealed a troubling normalisation: people beginning their day not with coffee or tea but with a drink. In residential areas, this raises concerns about safety, public order, and the social environment in which children grow up.</p>.Liquor industry in Karnataka apprehensive about govt’s next move.<p>Two factors underpin this drift. The first is fiscal. Karnataka’s dependence on excise revenue has increased significantly, with a target of Rs 45,000 crore for 2026-2027. This creates implicit pressure on vendors to push sales, often by stretching – or ignoring – regulatory boundaries. The second is administrative complicity. Excise officials and the police, empowered to enforce the law, too often appear to look the other way. This reality contradicts the government’s stated commitments. </p><p>In his Budget, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah sought to distinguish between revenue generation and harm mitigation, assigning the health department the task of promoting responsible drinking and addressing the negative externalities of alcohol consumption. Awareness campaigns and expanded de-addiction services were promised. However, these promises risk being rendered ineffective if the basic regulatory framework is not enforced. Public health messaging cannot coexist with a marketplace that incentivises consumption at dawn. </p><p>The irony is sharper still when one considers the existence of the Karnataka State Temperance Board, established in 1976 to discourage alcohol abuse and promote moderation. Today, it is largely invisible, its mandate eclipsed by the state’s growing reliance on excise income.</p>.Excise reform is a test of intent.<p>At its core, this is a question of governance. The state has the right to tax, and excise revenue funds are essential for welfare and infrastructure. But that right cannot override its duty to protect public health and social order. Revenue cannot become an end in itself. </p><p>Without firm regulation and institutional accountability, the state is effectively borrowing against its future; the short-term fiscal gain will eventually be eclipsed by the long-term cost to the health, safety, and welfare of families. In the end, the damage will outlast revenue.</p>
