The latest in the line of “pub culture” haters is Shripad Naik. One would have thought that he has seen enough of Parliament and Ministerial positions to understand that even casual remarks reflecting his very limited world view carry the weight of government policy or at the very least thinking. His boss, lest he forget, is not Parrikar but Narendra Modi. Even as Modi ruled Gujarat, a dry state, for ten years, not once did he ever make a remark against banning pubs or controlling “pub culture”. Naik should understand that his audience is no longer the people of Old Goa and Ribandar or the flower sellers in temples in Ponda and Bicholim. As a Union minister, his remark on the sidelines of a certificate distribution function, has been picked up by agencies, is trolling on the internet and evoking angry responses on Facebook.
Contrary to popular belief, the class that invests in India, the universe of industrialists, businessmen, investors and consultants pick up these inputs and take them into account when they invest in India. A remark against pubs by the Tourism Minister of India becomes a policy thought irrespective of the occasion and the context in which it was said. They send signals internationally and affect the climate. Even before going into how banal and archaic these statements are, let this be said that these are irresponsible remarks reflective of personal biases, prejudices and narrow mindedness. More importantly, Sudin Dhavlikar can still be dismissed because, as Manohar Parrikar said, he is not the Tourism minister or Chief Minister, but Shripad Naik, unfortunately is India’s Tourism Minister and with a mindset such as this, he is not the right man for this job. With all due respect to his election victory and seniority in the party, he cannot be in charge of a showcase national ministry, with a world view limited to a North Goa taluka. He is an embarrassment.
So what really is this ‘pub culture”. Is it defined in the mind of a Sudin Dhavlikar or a Shripad Naik as a social habit where men with loose morals meet women who are likewise either by choice or compulsion or both and transact business where carnal needs meet monetary ones, fuelled by gallons of alcohol? Or even if we keep women out of the equation, does the definition of pub culture get reduced to a relationship between man and alcohol that debases men and defiles society? If that is the definition, then, may we ask what is the difference between what supposedly happens in the posh pubs where people speak English, and the tavernas and other watering holes in villages and towns, that are very much in the backyards of Dhavlikar and Naik?
Society and cultures are never benchmarked according to the manner in which Shripad Naik and Sudin Dhavlikar benchmark them. And if this is seen in the context of places where tourism is the mainstay, then there are glorious examples in South Asia of countries steeped in religion, culture and customs which have a healthy (to put it mildly) nightlife, bustling shopping centers and pubs, nightclubs and gaming areas. From Thailand to Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia and Phillipines and Malaysia, there is culture and there is pub culture with the two never at loggerheads.
Ultimately people have to choose within the parameters of law that the state needs to set but the state cannot dictate how we live. And as a parting shot, Naik and Dhavlikar could do a bit of homework to see how many BJP MLAs have stakes and interests in pubs, nightclubs and hotels that have pubs. Their findings will be interesting, to say the least.
