The Hindu Business Line : Why not stub it out?

THE Health Ministry's move to ban showing of smoking in films and television has revived the old question: Why allow tobacco production at all? Glorification of smoking by teenage heart-throbs does inveigle impressionable minds despite protestations to the contrary by the film fraternity. But the point is if a harmful product were kept out of the reach of people, there would simply be no scope for its advertisement or glorification. The anti-tobacco lobby, in fact, did start its campaign with a strident demand for stopping production of cigarettes and other tobacco products. But the government of the day pussyfooted the whole issue by leaving its root cause — availability — unaddressed and instead chose the line of least resistance — prohibiting advertisement of tobacco products.

Production of guns and ammunitions is licensed and regulated because of the anxiety that they should not fall into wrong hands. Similarly, narcotics are strictly under state control. Cynics rant against these measures by saying that despite these controls, guns and narcotics are freely available though admittedly bought and sold on the sly. Such cynicism does not help matters. For, nobody can seriously contend that law against rape and murder should be abolished because they have failed to arrest these crimes. In the event, the only lasting and meaningful solution to the vexed and life-threatening problem of smoking is to root out its root cause — availability.

Tobacco companies know how to move into other industries. ITC, the tobacco giant, has perhaps seen the writing on the wall. It is gradually moving into garments for the upmarket and aata (wheat flour) and biscuits. The latter products are incidentally a perfect fit for it given their basic agricultural moorings.

Other companies can easily follow suit. If this happens and there is no reason why it should not, there should be no large-scale displacement of labour, as apprehended in some quarters. Only it will have to be given some kind of a reorientation. Prophets of doom had to eat their words when extensive computerisation did not reduce employment opportunities in a big way with people responding enthusiastically to reorientation programmes. Similarly, the tobacco farmers can be persuaded to switch to other equally remunerative crops. In fact, one understands that ITC's e-chaupal programme addresses this facet of the problem admirably.

This leaves the revenue consideration to be addressed. It is true that tobacco contributes significantly to the exchequer chiefly by way of excise duty. But the government should look for alternative sources of revenue. Service tax promises to garner huge funds for it, especially when almost the entire service sector is brought within its purview. India with its immense service potential — already some 50 per cent of its GDP is from this sector — should then soon reap bulk of its revenue from services relegating in the process excise duty — tax on manufacture — to the secondary status. At any rate, health considerations should not be held to ransom by revenue considerations.

Fillip to illicit trade in proscribed items has been a stereotype perpetuated by nay-sayers to stymie Prohibition. Large-scale bootlegging and smuggling are trotted out as excuses for not stopping liquor production. It has not occurred to them that the fillip to bootlegging and smuggling in the wake of Prohibition would be more out of administrative inertia and ineptitude. The remedy then lies in cracking the whip on bootleggers and smugglers and not in blaming Prohibition.

Smokers will smoke, come what may is another famous and disingenuous refrain of the tobacco lobby. Are we so helpless as to take shelter behind such fatalistic views? When the health of the nation is involved no sacrifice is too heavy and no effort draconian. The fig leaf of free choice to customers cannot be a ground for permitting gradual self-destruction, especially of our prime asset — the youth. Choking supply of a harmful product by strict policing and by lending a helping hand to move to alternative sources of livelihood is infinitely more preferable to attacking soft targets. Even the WTO would not frown upon ban on import of cigarettes if such a ban were justified on health grounds.

(The author is a New Delhi-based Chartered Accountant.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Imponderables in the EU

Airfare is an unpredictable beast

Why not stub it out?

Is it an Advani gambit?

Pulling the plug on power reforms?

Small-Scale Industry — The right time to make it big

After CET, the deluge?

The charm and challenge of empowerment

Power reforms

Agricultural crisis

Privatisation issues