Raising taxes is all very well; I cannot complain about having to pay more for what is not only not a necessity but actively harmful to me. I remember Yashwant Sinha, when he was finance minister, saying during his Budget speech in Parliament, “And now, I have absolutely no compunction about raising the tax on cigarettes,” to loud table-thumping. Politicians, of course, have few compunctions about anything to do with other people’s money. But that’s when the hypocrisy of the whole system came home to me.
An Indian cigarette costs, to manufacture, about a tenth of what it sells for. ‘Indian-made foreign liquor’ may cost about a fifth. That’s all right; high-end toothpastes, those loaded with common salt and calcium (powdered eggshells) also sell for five to ten times their value. The difference is that while the toothpaste margins go on advertising, marketing salaries and dividends, the bulk of the margin from tobacco and liquor sales is channelled back to the government.
What do they do with it? As far as I know, no one tracks this. It certainly does not go into bolstering up the health budget, which is small change in comparison to the GDP. What is necessary is not more taxes alone, but the spending of that extra money on sanitation and health education. Government attitudes are all too simplistic. If gambling is bad, ban casinos. If tweets are hostile, ban Twitter. If aids is bad, ban sex. They can’t ban smoking and drinking because one, there’s too much money in it; and two, there are too many people dependent for their livelihoods on beedi-rolling, tendu leaf-picking and the extraction of molasses from sugarcane.
Forget the tendu-lkars. India’s upper crust is highly Americanised: most of their pet betes blanches (to coin a phrase) are adopted from Hollywood and New York. Who taught us, and the rest of the world, to smoke? Can anyone remember a frame of Humphrey Bogart’s without cigarettes? I went to college intent on learning to smoke not because of the old Wills ads, good though they were (‘the made for each other blend/ that set the filter trend’), but because smoking, from the films I’d seen and the books I’d read, had romantic connotations. So did the use of alcohol.
Well, who romanticised these evils for the rest of the world? And who is being sanctimonious now? Since 1968, when the surgeon-general first determined that smoking is injurious to health, Americans have got increasingly moralistic about smoking. One upper-crust-type lady said to me once, “Good God, you smoke! Don’t you know it’s bad for your health?” (“So is life,” I wanted to say.) I guess Oprah thinks eating with fingers is bad for our health, too. And Carl Sagan wrote that washing our bums with our hands was “unaesthetic and unhygienic”. Paper’s better?
These are all different horses I’m riding. But who knows? Some of our newspapers carry a ‘medical page’ in which items touted as good for health are repudiated by research a mere six months later. Red meat, red wine, anti-oxidants, good and bad cholesterols—all these have seen their day and will see it again. I admit it’s unlikely, but I wouldn’t bet against someone discovering that nicotine or tar (or molasses) stabilises a gene which promotes equanimity or a tat-tvam-asi attitude.
The third essential hypocrisy in this business comes from the consumer. Florida courts have done strange things, but to award $3.2 billion to the family of a smoker who died of cancer is sheer lunacy. How can they pretend he didn’t know what he was doing? A literate American? Since 1980, the evils of smoking have been common knowledge. It’s not necessary to enumerate the names of all 108 devils present in nicotine on every pack. I suppose, in the New American Bible, Job’s wife says, ‘Sue God, and die’.
I know my sins will catch up with me one day. I do not have a dry cough yet; both lungs and heart are in excellent condition. Thanks to the shenanigans of successive FMs (how many of them smoke?) I buy very low-end cigarettes, at 40 bucks a pack of ten. (In 1981, a Wills cost 27.5 paise.) I solemnly swear, however, that the day a finance minister ploughs the entire cigarette and liquor tax into the health budget, I will switch to Dunhill’s, or whatever it was that killed the Marlboro Man.
Brilliant honesty from Vijay Nambisan (Tryst with Marlboro Man, Sep 8). And kudos to Outlook for publishing it. It was about time that someone wrote a piece like this. If the bleeding hearts of the world were so concerned with the outcome of smoking, tobacco cultivation would have been banned long ago. The $3.2 billion paid to a smoker’s dependents probably gave the tobacco company enough advertising mileage. Typical of the West to profit even from the dead. The departed probably enjoyed his last smoke and was reimbursed posthumously.
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.
Brilliant honesty. And kudos to Outlook for publishing it. It was about time that an article like this one was published. If the bleeding hearts of the world were so concerned with the outcome of smoking, tobacco cultivation would have been banned long ago. The $ 3.2 billion paid to the smoker's dependents probably gave the tobacco company enough advertising mileage. Typical of the west to profit from even the dead. Not to mention the departed probably enjoyed his smoke and was reimbursed posthumously.
"India is not only the world's largest democracy; we are also the world's largest hypocrisy."
A wise quote by late father of Sashi Taroor, Member of parliament.
Vijayan Nambeesan deserves a salute for this humorous
essey on smoking.
. "I admit it’s unlikely, but I wouldn’t bet against someone discovering that nicotine or tar (or molasses) stabilises a gene which promotes equanimity or a tat-tvam-asi attitude."
Vaikkam Mohammed basheer, or Bephoor Sultan, a man of letters in Malayalam
said' : For oral hygiene one should eat betal leaves along with tobaaco or smoke.
Since you have brought 'Tat-tvam-Asi attitude let me offer some.
1 Smoking kills bacteria in mouth.
2 In Temples you lit Agarbatti. God resides in self. So to please Atma one smokes.
3 It relieves tension and stress
4 Smokers dont get angry.
5 It helps in digestion.
6 It burns fat in body.
7 reading is a good habit and to read a lot you need to smoke.
Will MNC's that produce smokers kit, appoint me as their spoke person?
"Smoking should be banned and declared as a crime. Period"
Why impose your views on others?
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