The American experiment with Prohibition offers lessons for State-level prohibition policies in India. Discuss with reference to Article 47.

Article 47 directs the State to "endeavour to bring about prohibition" of intoxicating drinks injurious to health. The United States imposed a national ban through the 18th Amendment and repealed it in 1933 [2]. Its record shows that the goal of Article 47 is sound, but a blanket ban is the weakest way to reach it.

The American experiment (1920–33)

• Underground supply: demand did not disappear. Bootleggers kept liquor flowing, and violent organised crime grew [2].
• Loss of public support: the law lost legitimacy, drinking increased and opposition grew, which led to the 21st Amendment (5 December 1933) [2].
• Fiscal pressure: during the Depression, the federal government's need for tax revenue hastened repeal [1].

Lessons for Indian States

• Enforcement capacity: a ban is only as good as its policing. Dry States such as Bihar and Gujarat face illicit liquor, recurring hooch tragedies and crowded prisons. These are the Indian versions of bootlegging.
• Fiscal cost: alcohol is kept outside GST, so state excise duty made up about 14% of States' own tax revenue in 2022-23. In prohibition States, that excise revenue is close to zero [3]. The money lost could have funded health and de-addiction services.
• Federal flexibility: liquor is a State List subject (Entry 8, List II). This lets States experiment and reverse course, much as U.S. states chose their own path after 1933 [2].
• Social rationale: prohibition responds to real harms, such as domestic violence and household spending lost to drink. Women's groups have backed the bans, so ending prohibition outright carries a political cost.

Reading Article 47 correctly

• It is a non-justiciable Directive Principle (courts cannot enforce it). It sets a goal but leaves the method to the State.
• Its first concern is public health and nutrition. Regulation can serve that purpose better than an absolute ban that pushes drinking underground. Useful tools include higher taxes, licensing, limits on outlet density, age checks and de-addiction centres.

Conclusion

The American experience shows that moral goals delivered through prohibition alone create black markets and drain public money. Indian States can meet the spirit of Article 47 through graded regulation, public-health campaigns and treatment for addiction. Such an approach fits the right to life and health under Article 21 and SDG target 3.5 on preventing substance abuse.