Welfare at the Bottom of a Bottle? Uttarakhand’s New Policy Sparks Ethical Debate

Dehradun, June 10 – In a move that’s both controversial and ironic, the Uttarakhand Cabinet has approved a welfare policy where 1% of the cess collected from English liquor sales will fund aid for orphans, destitute women, and disaster-affected individuals. While the intent appears noble, the funding mechanism has drawn sharp criticism from social activists, religious groups, and policy analysts alike.

Drink More, Help More?

Under the newly approved Chief Minister’s Women and Child Multidimensional Assistance Fund Rules, the state plans to funnel liquor tax revenue into welfare schemes for the most vulnerable sections of society. The logic is unsettling: the more people in Uttarakhand drink, the more money will be available to help orphans and women in distress.

While the state government justifies the decision as a practical approach to earmarking a sustainable revenue source, critics argue that tying the welfare of society’s most fragile groups to the consumption of alcohol sets a deeply flawed precedent. It positions addiction and public health compromise as a gateway to social support—an equation many believe is ethically untenable.

How the Policy Works

The new rules allow:

• Financial aid for food, shelter, education, health, and skill development.
• Quick disbursal by block-level (₹5,000) and district-level (₹10,000–₹25,000) committees within 15 days.
• A state-level committee can approve up to ₹5 lakh in financial aid.
• Self-employment initiatives are also covered under the scheme.

There is no doubt that the beneficiaries—orphans, adolescent girls, destitute women, and disaster-affected individuals—need urgent and consistent support. But the core issue remains: why is such vital welfare dependent on alcohol consumption?

---

A Welfare Model Based on Vice?

Uttarakhand, a state with strong religious and cultural roots, is no stranger to social movements against liquor. From Devprayag to Gangotri, locals have repeatedly protested against opening new liquor outlets, arguing that alcohol has already taken a heavy toll on families, youth, and village economies.

Now, with this policy, the state risks sending a mixed message: condemning addiction on one hand while economically depending on it for social reform on the other.

Social activist Savita Rawat remarks, “We’re basically telling society that drinking more is a form of charity. It’s absurd and dangerous.”

Others have questioned the moral optics: would the government publicly promote increased liquor sales if revenue targets fall short? What happens to aid funds if alcohol consumption decreases?

---

Fiscal Desperation or Policy Blindness?

Analysts argue that this move exposes a deeper issue — the lack of dedicated and diversified revenue streams for welfare programs. Instead of robust planning, the policy seems like a patchwork solution: easy to implement, politically marketable, but long-term damaging.

Many are calling on the government to reconsider and reframe the policy, ensuring that funding for vulnerable groups comes from progressive taxation, CSR contributions, or dedicated state welfare budgets — not the liquor shops on every corner.

---

A Regressive Step Cloaked in Reform

It’s hard to ignore the irony: in a state battling the social fallout of alcohol, the government is now anchoring its most sensitive social policies to liquor revenue. Welfare should uplift, not rely on vice.

Until this model is reconsidered, Uttarakhand may find itself walking a dangerous tightrope—balancing public health against public compassion, with liquor sales as the fulcrum.