Law On Their Side
The tobacco industry has enough clout and money to secure the support of top politicians-cum-lawyers in courts:
Just about two months back, newspaper readers were taken aback by a series of front-page ads, one of which stated how 14 states had had banned gutka but not cigarettes as they considered the latter “healthy”. It was issued by the Smokeless Tobacco Association (STA) to reinforce its claims of being an unfair victim in the fight against tobacco that, it says, has left the cigarette players unscathed. The truth lies in between, reflecting the many challenges in completely banning tobacco that kills 2,700 Indians a day.
“The STA ads,” says Krishnaraj Rao of the Mumbai-based Voice of Tobacco Victims, “were an attempt to muddy the waters and derive strength from the cigarette lobby.” According to the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS), 2009-10, India has around 27.4 crore tobacco-users. Of them, 16.37 crore are exclusive users of smokeless or chewing tobacco, 4.23 crore, concurrent users and the remaining 6.9 crore smoke tobacco. Given the significantly large number of users of chewing tobacco, and the ease with which people, including women and children, can start consuming it rather than smoke it, activists say the ban on gutka is only a “low-hanging fruit”. “There is nothing like better tobacco,” says Ashok Chaturvedi, a doctor at Mumbai’s Tata Memorial Centre.
Gutka is the only tobacco product banned so far by 16 states and three UTs, along with pan masala that contains tobacco or nicotine. The ban was ordered not under any anti-tobacco law but under the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006, that prohibits tobacco and nicotine in food. (A 2004 Supreme Court order described gutka as ‘food’.) This is why, while gutka may be hard to find, other forms of chewing tobacco—including khaini, zarda and even simple tobacco—are sold openly. And pan masala is sold along with pouches of tobacco. Their sale—including that of bidis and cigarettes—can only be regulated, not banned, under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003. BJD MP Baijayant Panda’s recent private member’s bill calling for plain packaging of cigarette and tobacco products is a move in that direction.
The STA has been contesting the description of gutka as ‘food’ as it is also regulated under COTPA. “If any regulation is to be enforced,” the STA noted in a statement, “it should apply equally on cigarettes and all other tobacco products. Failure to do so would only convey a false message to the public regarding the health effects of tobacco consumption and would indeed seriously undermine the government’s tobacco control efforts.” It also argues that the ban on gutka is likely to promote sale of other forms of tobacco, including bidis and cigarettes. Investment advisory firms like Anand Rathi and Edelweiss have begun sending out mailers predicting growth for the cigarette industry, especially for lower-end brands, as former gutka users switch over to them, urging people to invest. It is also where public sector insurance firms have parked their money. Firms like LIC and UTI account for 30.4 per cent of shares of ITC, which earns more than 60 per cent of its revenues (Rs 36,000 crore for 2011-12) from cigarette sales.
An official with the National Tobacco Control Programme (NTCP), who didn’t wish to be named, thinks it’s “speculation” that cigarette manufacturers will benefit from the gutka ban. He says the ban has helped raise gutka prices manifold as it has to be sold illegally, forcing the consumer to “decide between his food and gutka”. The gutka ban, he adds, represents only an incremental progress in tackling tobacco. “In India, it has been around for 400 years and can’t be eradicated in a day or two.” However, most agree that the sale of tobacco products has grown despite NTCP. “The truth is that all laws are made to support the tobacco industry, not the citizens of the country,” says Chaturvedi. The battle against tobacco has only begun and the hurdles are yet to show up.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
The past experiences testify to the fact that the executive orders enforcing a ban on any consumable item has always proved ineffective and it further results in their being sold on a premium which happened in gutka's case too. A pouch which was being sold at Rs One is now costing Rs. 3 with two different pouches containing plain pan masala and tobacco. The government needs to regulate and monitor the gutka industry to ensure a proper manufacturing and packaging instead of ordering a blanket ban. It should be remembered that gutka has been a poor man's delight and hence they shouldn't be deprived of it. After all the high-profile elite class continue enjoying the expensive cigarettes.
While highlighting the role of tobacco industry played in causing so much premature death of millions of Indian adult men (and also some women), what is completely forgotten is the way we are ignoring the role of rich agriculturalists who cultivate tobacco in placeslike in AP.
Why is it that we are not event taxing those farmers who earn riches through cultivating this deadly crop called tobacco?
Why dont we first end all government benefits (loan waivers, free power etc) for all those who farm the deady mass murdering crop called tobacco?
What about media's own role in hiding the truth on tobacco. More people die in day due to tobacco abuse than in communal riots in entire period of 1998-2004, yet the media which brings gujarat 2002 riots in every discussion keeps complete silence on this important topic that hurts the lives of people of all kinds (hindus, muslims, upper caste, OBC, dalit,adivasi, atheist, rich, middle class, poor, men., women )!!!
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT