Deepavali has come and gone. The crackers have fallen silent, the sweets have begun to disappear, and the cinema crowds have had their fill of heroes.
But one institution has emerged from the festivities with its familiar thirst intact: TASMAC - Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, a state-owned corporation that holds a complete monopoly over the wholesale and retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and beer in the state.Tamil Nadu's prohibition policy has wobbled through history like a tippler returning from the bar. Governments have promised sobriety, shut shops, opened others and periodically preached abstinence.
The treasury, meanwhile, cannot become a teetotaller, addicted as it is to liquor revenue. Between welfare and whisky, the State has found a remarkably convenient partnership.This Deepavali fell on Sunday, November 8, giving Tamil Nadu a long festive weekend, with Monday extending the holiday mood.
And the state's kudimagans, its drinking citizens, had apparently begun their celebrations well before the crackers were lit.An independent tracker analysing TASMAC's published shop inventories estimates liquor sales worth approximately Rs 650 crore during November 6–8, around 41% above comparable ordinary days. Its calculations suggest roughly 3.7 crore bottles moved through the counters.
These are estimates based on stock movements, not officially audited TASMAC sales figures. Bottles sold and replenished between observations may escape the count.
Even allowing for that limitation, the spectacle is revealing. The festival of lights had acquired a liquid accompaniment.
Cinema provided the make-believe intoxication; TASMAC supplied the bottled variety. Bacchus could scarcely have asked for a better weekend.THE BOTTLE AND THE BALLOTThe immediate drama, however, began before Deepavali.
On November 1, the Vijay government introduced a revised Rs 10 environmental and social welfare cess within the printed maximum retail price of liquor bottles. Customers could recover the amount by returning their empties.
Previously, the Rs 10 bottle-return charge had been collected separately. The government argued that bringing it into the official billing system would improve transparency, prevent unaccounted collections and support recycling.The bottle was empty, but the controversy was full.TASMAC employees complained that scanning, collecting, storing and refunding empty bottles had been thrust upon already stretched workers without adequate manpower, equipment or storage.
Hundreds of outlets shut during protests. More than 650 shops were affected, and disciplinary action followed, including suspensions and show-cause notices.Customers went searching for open counters.
Queues lengthened. Workers demanded better arrangements.
The government refused to yield a quarter and insisted that its reforms could not be held hostage.For a corporation whose business depends upon uninterrupted sales, the dispute was a kick on its shins. The employees refused to handle the empties.
The administration found its patience running dry.Prohibition and Excise Minister K. Vignesh also questioned the accounting of earlier bottle collections.
He cited a pilot study suggesting returns of only 55–65%, against much higher claims under the previous administration. His estimates raised questions about substantial sums potentially remaining unaccounted for.
Those figures warrant a proper audit, not an instant presumption of wrongdoing.THE TREASURY'S DRINKING PROBLEMThe deeper contradiction is financial. Tamil Nadu's liquor-related tax revenue reached Rs 50,845.84 crore in 2025–26, against Rs 48,381.07 crore the previous year.
That represented growth of about 5.1%.The latest figure comprises approximately Rs 39,010 crore in sales tax and Rs 11,836 crore in excise duty. It is revenue to the State, not TASMAC's net profit or the total value of bottles sold.
Higher tax collections do not automatically mean higher consumption. Prices, tax rates and the composition of sales also influence the figures.
Nevertheless, the dependence is substantial.Vijay's government ordered the closure of 717 TASMAC outlets in May, particularly near educational institutions, places of worship and bus depots. It was a visible response to public complaints and an election campaign that had criticised the social costs of liquor.But shutting a shop does not necessarily stop a sale.
Customers may travel farther, buy elsewhere or stock up. Revenue can rise even when the number of outlets falls.
The morning after a closure announcement, the treasury may still have reason to say cheers.Tamil Nadu collects enormous sums from liquor while governments spend heavily on welfare, public services and social support. The collections are not earmarked exclusively for welfare schemes but strengthen the common pool from which expenditure is financed.The State warns citizens against drinking and then counts upon their purchases.
Whisky at one counter, welfare at another. The same government manages both.Successive administrations have built a substantial welfare apparatus alongside a state-sponsored liquor trade.
The contradiction is institutional, not simply moral. The hangover is a handover.FROM SANGAM CUPS TO TASMAC COUNTERSTamil civilisation, incidentally, did not discover alcohol when TASMAC opened its shutters.
Sangam literature knew kal, the fermented drink, and varieties described as naravu, theral and toppi. Their ingredients and preparations differed, but the ancient Tamil cup was hardly empty.Avvaiyar offers a particularly delightful glimpse.
In Purananuru 235, lamenting the death of her patron Adhiyaman Neduman Anji, she recalls that when he obtained a little kal, he gave it to the poets, apparently including her. When there was plenty, he happily joined the drinking as they sang.
The generous chieftain evidently believed in serving his literary guests first and raising his own goblet when supplies permitted. The poet remembered the hospitality long after the last round.Thiruvalluvar, however, offered a sterner prescription.
His Kallunnamai chapter warned against intoxicants and the loss of dignity and judgement they could bring. Tamil civilisation thus accommodated both the chalice and its critic long before modern governments began issuing licences.Even the divine Soma of Vedic tradition and the Greek Bacchus remind us that intoxication has travelled through many civilisations.
But ancient poetry is no licence for modern policy. The Sangam tavern did not possess a government sales target.Tamil Nadu's modern prohibition policy has staggered through successive regimes like a drunkard's gait.
Rajaji introduced prohibition in parts of the Madras Presidency in 1937. And to compensate for the revenue loss, he introduced the General Sales Tax -- people paid extra for their clothes so that their neighbours did not lose theirs.
The policy later spread across the state. Karunanidhi suspended prohibition in 1971 amid financial pressures, famously saying 'Tamil Nadu cannot remain a solitary island of camphor in the midst of a raging ring of fire'.
MGR subsequently altered the arrangements, moving between restrictions and regulated sales.Later governments experimented with closures, reopening and tighter control. Jayalalithaa's administration gave TASMAC the retail monopoly in 2003.
The bottle had found a permanent government address.The policy changed hands and directions repeatedly. The treasury, however, rarely lost sight of the kitty.KUDI, KUDIMAGAN AND THE COST OF A CUPTamil offers an unusually revealing play on words.
Kudi can refer to drinking, but also to a household, community or habitation. Kudimagan ordinarily means citizen, though popular usage can mischievously turn it into a description of the habitual drinker.Hence the familiar warning: Kudi kudiyai kedukkum — drinking destroys the household.The double meaning carries the argument.
The state's drinking citizens may contribute to its revenue while damaging his own family's finances, health or peace. The government collects at the cash till; the household may settle another bill afterwards.Warnings on bottles and advertisements have become so familiar that some customers may treat them as part of the packaging, and a reminder.
The caution is printed. The purchase proceeds.There is mappu, Tamil slang for intoxication, and mattai, the colloquial description of someone thoroughly drunk.
Neither is a desirable public-health objective, however enthusiastically cinema may occasionally celebrate the spectacle.Alcohol-related harm extends beyond the consumer. Families confront lost earnings, dependence, domestic conflict and medical expenses.
Roads and hospitals bear their own burdens. The damage falls particularly hard upon vulnerable households.But prohibition is no automatic cure.
Illicit liquor, smuggling and dangerous substitutes can flourish when regulation fails. The 2024 Kallakurichi hooch tragedy, which killed dozens, remains a grim warning that unsafe alcohol can be deadlier than the regulated variety.The State must therefore distinguish between controlling consumption, protecting health and merely controlling the business.SOUTHERN SPIRITS, DIFFERENT STRATEGIESTamil Nadu is hardly alone in its fiscal predicament.
Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Kerala all draw substantial tax revenue from alcohol, though their retail systems and policies differ.Karnataka's Excise Department collected 22,191.63 crore during April–September 2026, including liquor and beer duties, licence fees and related receipts. Tamil Nadu's 50,845.84 crore represents liquor-related sales tax and excise duty for the entire preceding financial year.
These are different periods and revenue classifications, not comparable sales figures or a ranking of drinking habits.Kerala has its own state-controlled retail arrangements and recurring disputes over access, pricing and social harm. Andhra Pradesh has changed its liquor policy substantially across governments, while Telangana also depends heavily on excise collections.Across the South, the pattern is familiar.
Governments speak the language of restraint while finance departments study revenue targets. The political glass may be half empty or half full.
The excise department prefers it refilled.CAN VIJAY CHANGE THE HABIT?Vijay's first six months have brought visible interventions: outlet closures, changes to bottle-return accounting, digital-payment measures and a confrontation with TASMAC employees over implementation.These are administrative actions, not yet proof of reduced alcohol dependence.The Rs 10 scheme may improve collection and recycling, but its success requires functioning scanners, adequate storage, transparent refunds and credible auditing. Employees cannot be expected to perform an elaborate environmental service without the means to do it.Likewise, closing 717 outlets is meaningful only if it improves neighbourhood conditions and reduces harm without merely shifting sales to another street.
Revenue trends must be studied alongside consumption volumes, hospital data, road accidents and household expenditure.There is also a political challenge. A government can announce prohibition in a speech.
It must confront the fiscal consequences in its Budget. Welfare commitments, salaries, infrastructure and public services require dependable financing.
Replacing liquor revenue demands difficult decisions about taxes, expenditure and economic growth.The treasury cannot become a teetotaller merely because the Chief Minister delivers a stirring temperance tirade.Vijay's real opportunity lies in replacing symbolic gestures with measurable progress: cleaner retail practices, less overcharging, effective recycling, accessible treatment for dependence, firm action against illicit liquor and a credible long-term reduction in alcohol-related harm.The goal need not be to punish every drinker or romanticise the dry State. It should be to reduce the damage while acknowledging the financial realities.The LAST ROUNDDeepavali celebrates the triumph of light over darkness.
Tamil Nadu's liquor debate offers no such easy victory. The government wants fewer shops, cleaner streets and healthier families.
The treasury wants its revenue. The customer wants his bottle, and now the State wants the empty one back.
Everyone has a claim.The real question is whether Tamil Nadu can reduce the harm without merely moving the shop, shifting the cost or refilling the same old argument.For generations, politicians have raised the toast of prohibition while keeping one eye on the excise counter. Vijay has an opportunity to alter that arrangement, but the test will be what changes in homes, hospitals and public finances, not merely in the number of TASMAC signboards.The crackers have stopped.
The bottle, and the debate, remain uncorked.- Ends