Open Bar, Closed Conscience – Assam’s Liquor Bonanza Risks Its Social Fabric
Guwahati is no longer just expanding in terms of infrastructure or population. It is also rapidly evolving into a sprawling liquor economy, where access to alcohol has become easier, more visible and increasingly normalised. From arterial roads to narrow residential lanes, from bustling marketplaces to neighbourhoods close to schools, liquor outlets have become a common sight across the city. What was once regulated and relatively discreet has transformed into a highly visible and rapidly expanding network, raising uncomfortable questions about whether the state is prioritising revenue over responsibility.
ALSO READ: Education Under Pressure: The Challenges Facing Students Today
The numbers tell the story. Guwahati today has 334 liquor shops, 237 bars, 75 late-night bars, 67 IMFL and country spirit off-shops, 23 wholesale IMFL warehouses, seven country spirit warehouses, five bottling plants and six microbreweries. Over the past six years alone, the Excise Department has issued 20 new IMFL off-licences through tenders and close to 100 new bar licences. Operational hours have also been relaxed, with liquor shops now remaining open until 11 pm and bars operating even later, making alcohol more accessible than ever before.
The government's justification is straightforward.
A senior Excise Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, defended the policy by arguing that wider availability discourages smuggling from neighbouring Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh.
"The idea is to make liquor easily available so that smuggling from Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh is prevented. Earlier, a lot of liquor used to come through the black market. This way, we can ensure that people buy only legally and the state gets its due revenue," the official said.
It is an argument rooted in regulation and revenue. Critics, however, believe it ignores a far more important question; what happens when making liquor more accessible also makes it more acceptable?
Assam's excise revenue has risen dramatically over the past decade. From Rs. 147.75 crore in 2011-12, it climbed to Rs. 799.53 crore in 2023-24, an increase of more than five times. Government figures indicate that the state now earns close to Rs. 10 crore every day from liquor sales.
From a financial perspective, it is an impressive achievement. Socially, however, the picture is far more complicated. Across Guwahati, the growing number of liquor outlets has blurred the line between regulated consumption and easy availability. In many localities, liquor shops operate close to schools, residential neighbourhoods, playgrounds and places of worship—locations that many residents believe should remain free from alcohol retail.
Child counsellor Rajkamal Pandey believes this visibility has long-term consequences.
"When children see liquor shops and alcohol logos every day, they become curious about them. It creates a culture of normalisation. Assam should follow Tamil Nadu's model, where liquor shops are regulated more strictly and kept away from schools and residential areas," he said.
For many parents, the concern is deeply personal.
"My teenage son walks past a liquor shop every day on his way to tuition," says Beltola resident Anjali Deka. "Earlier, liquor was sold only in a few places. Now it's everywhere, on our streets and near our schools."
Public health experts have long argued that accessibility and consumption go hand in hand.
Sociologist Dr Sanjeev Bordoloi puts it bluntly.
"When you increase access, you increase consumption. It's as simple as that. Assam's alcohol policy has become an economic one, not a social one."
According to him, expanding liquor outlets while extending operating hours is likely to increase alcohol dependency, particularly among young people. That contradiction is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
On one hand, the government celebrates record excise collections. On the other, it runs awareness campaigns warning against alcoholism. Public policy analyst Dr Anita Bhattacharya sees this as a conflicting message.
"On one hand, you flood the market with liquor. On the other, you preach moderation. The result is confusion and hypocrisy," she said.
The debate has intensified further following the introduction of a new Standard Operating Procedure under the Assam Excise Rules, 2026. The SOP introduces Minimum Guaranteed Revenue (MGR) targets for licence holders, effectively requiring wholesale warehouses, IMFL retailers and country spirit outlets to generate predetermined levels of revenue. Critics argue that the move fundamentally changes the purpose of regulation.
"When you fix revenue targets, you are indirectly pushing sellers to maximise sales," said social activist Bhaskar Das. "This is no longer about regulation. It is about incentivising consumption. The state is behaving like a business chasing profit rather than a government safeguarding public welfare."
Residents across Guwahati say they are already witnessing the impact.
"Two new liquor shops have opened within 100 metres of each other," said Ramesh Sharma of Kahilipara. "We see drunk people loitering around late at night. It is becoming unsafe for women and children."
Another issue that has quietly emerged is the changing nature of liquor outlets themselves. Bars that were originally licensed only for on-premise consumption are increasingly functioning as retail counters, openly selling sealed bottles to customers.
"You can now walk into a bar, buy a sealed bottle and walk out," admitted a local Excise inspector. "This wasn't allowed earlier. It's happening because enforcement has become lenient."
Critics argue that this effectively increases retail availability without officially increasing the number of liquor shops. Meanwhile, the social costs are becoming harder to ignore. De-addiction centres in Guwahati report a noticeable rise in alcohol dependency, particularly among younger individuals.
"Over the last two years, we've seen nearly a 35 per cent increase in alcohol dependency cases among men aged between 18 and 30," said a counsellor at a city-based rehabilitation centre. "Easy accessibility has changed drinking habits completely."
Experts say increased availability is not merely a matter of convenience—it changes behaviour. Law enforcement agencies have also reported a rise in alcohol-related road accidents, domestic disputes and public disorder. While establishing direct causation may be difficult, experts believe the correlation is too significant to dismiss.
"Alcohol does not exist in isolation," said Dr Bordoloi. "It intersects with domestic violence, mental health and public safety. When availability increases, those risks increase as well."
Yet, even as these concerns grow, the government's focus continues to remain on record excise collections. Officials argue that the revenue generated is essential for funding welfare schemes and infrastructure projects. However, there is little public clarity on how much of that revenue is actually reinvested into de-addiction programmes, rehabilitation, counselling or public awareness. That absence of transparency has only fuelled scepticism.
"Every rupee the government earns from liquor should be matched by investment in de-addiction and rehabilitation," Dr Bordoloi argued.
"Otherwise, the state is merely collecting revenue while society bears the consequences."
Across India, states have adopted very different approaches to liquor regulation. Tamil Nadu has imposed stricter controls on the location and visibility of liquor outlets, while Kerala has reduced the number of bars over the years. Bihar chose complete prohibition, though with mixed results. Assam, meanwhile, appears to have taken the opposite path, expanding availability while celebrating record revenue.
The question is not whether people should be allowed to drink. Nor is it whether the government should earn revenue from liquor. Every government taxes products that carry social costs, and excise revenue forms an important part of state finances. The real question is whether revenue has begun driving policy.
Should the success of an excise department be measured by how much liquor it sells? Should a government set revenue targets for a product that it simultaneously warns people against consuming? Those are questions worth asking.
Because public policy cannot be judged by revenue figures alone. A balance sheet may show rising excise collections, but it does not record broken families, addiction, alcohol-related violence or lives quietly altered by dependency. Those costs rarely appear in government statistics, yet they are borne by society every single day.
No one is suggesting that liquor should be banned. But there is a vast space between prohibition and proliferation. Stricter zoning norms, stronger enforcement, tighter licensing policies and greater investment in rehabilitation can coexist with legitimate revenue generation. The choice does not have to be between earning revenue and protecting society. It is about recognising where one ends and the other begins.
Assam's liquor policy today reflects more than an economic strategy. It reflects the state's priorities. And while the revenue graphs continue to climb, perhaps it is time to ask another question. Is the government counting the money it earns from liquor… or measuring the price society is paying for it?