JD(S) Legislator’s Controversial Free Liquor Proposal Divides Karnataka Assembly

JD(S) Legislator’s Controversial Free Liquor Proposal Divides Karnataka Assembly

JD(S) Legislator’s Proposal for Free Liquor Bottles in Karnataka Sparks Fierce Debate

Bengaluru : A controversial proposal by JD(S) legislator MT Krishnappa in the Karnataka Assembly has ignited heated debates across political circles. Krishnappa, speaking during an assembly session on Tuesday, suggested that the Congress-led government distribute two free liquor bottles per week to men as part of the state’s welfare schemes. The remarks, which quickly garnered public attention, are now at the center of a larger conversation about the state’s financial priorities and welfare initiatives.

The Proposal: Two Bottles of Liquor Per Week for Men

Krishnappa’s statement was made in response to the Congress government’s new excise revenue targets, which were recently increased from Rs. 36,500 crore to RS. 40,000 crore. He criticized the government’s welfare schemes—particularly the Rs. 2,000 monthly assistance for women—suggesting that instead of cash handouts, the government should offer liquor to men.

Krishnappa said, “At their cost, you’re giving Rs. 2,000 per month to women, free electricity, and free bus travel. That’s our money anyway. So, for those who drink, give them two bottles of liquor free every week. Let them drink. How can we give men money every month? Instead, give them something—two bottles a week. What’s wrong with that? The government can provide this through societies.”

The proposal has sparked a fierce debate over both its practicality and ethics, leading to a swift backlash from several political quarters.

Strong Reactions from Congress and Other Assembly Leaders

Krishnappa’s remarks did not go unnoticed, particularly by Congress leaders who were quick to dismiss his proposal. Energy Minister KJ George responded sharply, stating, “You win the election, form the government, and do this. We are trying to make people drink less.” This comment emphasized the Congress-led administration’s focus on curbing alcohol consumption in the state, rather than promoting it through welfare schemes.

Similarly, Speaker UT Khader expressed concern over the implications of the proposal, remarking, “Without giving two bottles, we are already struggling. What will happen if we give them liquor for free?” This pointed out the financial and social consequences of implementing such a scheme.

Krishnappa’s suggestion also faced strong opposition from female legislators, with many criticizing the proposal as out of touch with the state’s evolving priorities. Women legislators pointed out that the focus should be on empowering women economically and socially, rather than promoting alcohol consumption, which could have detrimental effects on families and society.

The Welfare Debate in Karnataka

Krishnappa’s remarks come against the backdrop of the ongoing debate over the Congress government’s welfare initiatives in Karnataka. The Congress, led by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, has introduced a number of ambitious social welfare programs aimed at alleviating poverty and improving quality of life for the state’s residents.

The most notable of these initiatives has been the Rs. 2,000 monthly assistance to women, which has been hailed by supporters as a step toward gender equality and empowerment. Additionally, the Congress government has rolled out free bus travel for women and free electricity to certain households, positioning these measures as key aspects of its election manifesto.

However, these welfare programs have drawn criticism from the opposition, including the JD(S) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who argue that such initiatives are financially burdensome. Critics suggest that while these schemes aim to win over voters, they could create significant fiscal strain in the long run.

Krishnappa’s proposal to offer free liquor bottles as an alternative to cash assistance brings yet another layer to this complex debate about how best to allocate the state’s resources. His comment about using “our money” highlights concerns over how public funds are being spent, but it also touches on broader issues surrounding the state’s excise policies and their social impact.

Karnataka’s Excise Policy and Rising Revenue Targets

The excise revenue target hike has also become a central issue in this debate. The Siddaramaiah government has set an ambitious target of ₹40,000 crore in excise revenues, which is a significant increase from the previous goal of Rs. 36,500 crore. This rise in targets aligns with the government’s efforts to boost its fiscal resources but raises questions about how these revenues will be spent and whether they will further burden certain sections of society.

Critics of the state’s excise policies have pointed to the growing reliance on alcohol revenue as potentially harmful, with some arguing that the state is promoting alcohol consumption as a means to fund its welfare programs. On the other hand, supporters of the policies argue that increasing excise revenues is necessary to fund the state’s ambitious welfare schemes.

The Broader Implications: What’s at Stake?

Krishnappa’s suggestion to provide free liquor bottles as a form of welfare is not just a matter of political theater, but rather a reflection of the deep divisions in Karnataka over how best to address the state’s financial challenges and social needs. The debate centers on the role of the state in regulating social behavior while also meeting the needs of its citizens through welfare schemes.

As the Assembly session continues, it is likely that this issue will remain a point of contention. The proposal has brought to light the complex relationship between government spending, public welfare, and social responsibility, forcing lawmakers and citizens alike to grapple with these important questions.

Conclusion

While the idea of giving free liquor bottles as a welfare measure may seem far-fetched, it has succeeded in raising significant questions about Karnataka’s welfare policies, fiscal health, and the government’s priorities. As the state grapples with these issues, the coming months will be crucial in determining whether these debates will shape future policies or fade into the political background.