To ban or not to ban gutkha

The issue is whether a ban is a solution to the problem of gutkha or not? The ban was imposed in 2002 by the state government and the outcome was that zarda and supari were sold separately simply because they could be mixed to produce gutkha. Supriya Saxena discusses the problem

Any development relating to consumption of liquor and tobacco in our country has always sparked a debate. Expressing concern over the growing number of students falling prey to the habit of chewing gutkha and tobacco products, the Maharashtra government had decided to ban the production, sale, distribution, storage and advertisement of gutkha and paan masala for five years.

The act was in public interest and yet the Supreme Court struck down the ban recently stating that it is the duty of the central government and not the state to impose such a restriction. So while the gutkha sellers rejoice at this move of the apex court, the anti-gutkha lobby is not pleased with the verdict.

The issue is whether a ban is a solution to the problem of gutkha or not? The ban was imposed in 2002 by the state government and the outcome was that zarda and supari were sold separately simply because they could be mixed to produce gutkha. Perhaps a ban is the simplest thing to do both at the state or central level.

Getting addicted to products like gutkha and paan masala is very simple. They are easily available in both the urban and rural areas and there is no awareness even amongst the educated pertaining to the harmful chemicals it contains like magnesium carbonate, calcium carbonate and phosphate. Blissfully unaware, 65 per cent of our men consume tobacco in some or the other form.

The government actually has two weapons to combat the gutkha wave - forbid or educate. First is to impose a ban and be over with it. Second is to create awareness and educate the people about the harmful effects of chewing gutkha.

Banning also has effect on labour and agricultural sectors. While a ban would save millions from health hazards it would adversely affect labour and agricultural sectors. Thousands of farmers, gutkha manufacturers and sellers would face unemployment and poverty. In the event of a ban, some alternative should be worked out to take care of the issue with a humane face.

It is not surprising that the Supreme Court has revoked the state government's orders either on constitutional basis or under the pressure of gutkha lobby in the state of Maharashtra.

Apparently, a ban seems to be a positive move towards restricting the supply of gutkha however it would be more effective if it is implemented well and is accepted by the public. Spreading awareness on the adverse effects of tobacco could help.

In India, where even an unskilled worker with a daily wage of thirty rupees spends a tenth of his income on this addiction, creating consciousness about the problem would help win half the battle. A ban would then be meaningless as people will be alert as well as responsible.