Repeal Appealed

Moslems never drink, because the Prophet told them not to. Hindus seldom do, because they consider it impolite to women and old men. One of the foremost aims of the Indian National Congress has been to introduce prohibition throughout India--as a demonstration that Indians can rule themselves as well as control themselves. British officials have opposed prohibition because liquor excise taxes have recently contributed 25% of provincial revenues. Besides, they say, why prohibit something which is already taboo? But last August the Congress Cabinet of the Bombay Presidency (pop. 26,400) prevailed, and put prohibition into effect.

Its beginnings were not auspicious. The first day of prohibition brought violent riots, caused not by eleventh-hour drinkers but by bone-dry natives furious that property taxes had been increased to compensate for lost liquor taxes. Soon smuggling became a problem. Hotels shorn of their licenses lost money. For Europeans club life without chotapegs (half-sized whiskey-sodas) was as dull as billiards without cues. At Government House parties and receptions, guests beefed because His Excellency, Governor Sir Lawrence Roger Lumley, said he sympathized with prohibition, and would not serve even shandygaff (half beer, half ginger ale) to the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow himself.

Then came war. The Viceroy announced that Indians would gladly fight--without having first consulted the Indians. In protest eight of eleven Congress Party Cabinets resigned, among them the one which had devised Bombay's prohibition law. With prohibitionists out of power, a British High Court last week pleaded complicated legal technicalities and effectively nullified prohibition outright.

Congress Party members--anxious lest Bombay's noble experiment be put out of the ring on a technical knockout--decided to appeal to Sir Lawrence to issue a special ordinance re-enforcing the law.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.