23-06-2025
Seeman climbs a tree, and Tamil Nadu starts tapping into the toddy debate again
The head of the Naam Tamizhar Katchi (We Tamils Party) caused a stir recently by climbing a palmyra tree and tapping toddy from its inflorescence. In doing so, he defied Section 4(d) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, which bans tapping from any toddy-producing tree, and invited prosecution under Section 4(e), which carries a penalty of up to three months in prison and a fine of ₹1,000.
Tapping toddy from the palmyra or coconut tree and fermenting it into liquor has been an age-old tradition across South India. Ancient Tamil poet Thiruvalluvar, who composed 1,330 couplets on various subjects, even devoted a chapter to verses on "abstinence from toddy". His advice was not just moral but practical, warning of the damage liquor can do to the brain. Yet, despite this counsel tendered 2,000 years ago, toddy consumption continues unchecked in rural areas.
Toddy came into the spotlight 90 years ago when the Government of India Act, 1935, came into effect and elections were held. The Congress came to power in eight provincial assemblies. In Madras Presidency, C Rajagopalachari was elected Premier, and one of his first actions was to implement prohibition in the province, in line with the Congress promise.
Asked about the loss of revenue, Rajaji responded by introducing India's first sales tax legislation, imposing a 1% tax on all goods sold and purchased to offset the shortfall.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
1 Bite Daily On An Empty Stomach Can Transform Your Health
Gundry MD
Learn More
Undo
However, after the Congress resigned from the provincial govts, the British did not waste any time. They lifted prohibition in 1944 and allowed the free sale of liquor to replenish the treasury through abkari contracts.
After Independence, prohibition was reintroduced in 1948, driven by Mahatma Gandhi's insistence on promoting total abstinence from alcohol. The Constitution, which came into force in 1950, included Article 47, which stated that "the state shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption, except for medicinal purposes, of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health".
Madras Province remained dry for nearly two decades under Congress rule. When DMK came to power under chief minister C N Annadurai, prohibition continued. After that, TN's liquor policy became a back-and-forth struggle, with each govt deciding whether the state would be dry based on its own stance on the issue.
In 1971, when M Karunanidhi became chief minister, prohibition was lifted. Just two years later, it was reintroduced.
In 1977, M G Ramachandran (MGR) became chief minister and relaxed prohibition, but liquor consumption was only allowed with a permit. By 1980, liquor was back on the scene, available even in sachets.
When J Jayalalithaa assumed office in 1991, she reimposed prohibition. In 2003, the state govt took control of the procurement and retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), establishing a monopoly. The Prohibition Act and related rules were amended, giving the govt exclusive rights over liquor sales in TN.
It was ironic that the rules allowing the state to monopolise IMFL sales were created under the same Prohibition Act of 1937, effectively mocking the constitutional directive under Article 47.
While toddy is a fermented juice tapped from coconut and palmyra trees, its unfermented form is known as padhaneer. The Prohibition Act defines padhaneer as "juice drawn from a coconut, palmyra, date, or any other kind of palm tree into receptacles treated to prevent any fermentation and not fermented".
Over time, the argument that toddy is a healthier, more natural alcoholic drink than IMFL began to gain traction. In the 1960s, a political party called the Toddy Seekers Kazhagam contested elections, though unsuccessfully, demanding the right to tap toddy.
Since the Tamil Nadu govt established the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) for the retail vending of IMFL, a renewed toddy movement has begun, framing the debate as one between swadeshi (indigenous) and videshi (foreign) alcohol.
The head of the movement even threw an open challenge, offering ₹1 crore to anyone who could prove toddy was harmful to health.
Tasmac emerged as the state's biggest source of revenue, generating ₹50,000 crore annually. As a result, the govt was unwilling to consider pleas for opening toddy shops or permitting the tapping of toddy from coconut and palmyra trees.
In 2007, during Karunanidhi's tenure as chief minister, a public interest litigation was filed, claiming that it was unconstitutional for the state to sell IMFL while prohibiting the tapping and consumption of toddy.
A division bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the case and held that "a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as a privilege" (2007). Though petitioners claimed that toddy was a natural drink, the court observed that it could be adulterated with chemicals to increase its potency and rejected the argument.
To respond to demands from coconut and palm workers who lost livelihoods, the Karunanidhi govt appointed a committee chaired by Justice K P Sivasubramaniam.
It included several govt officials and a police officer. However, the committee's report was not unanimous. Justice Sivasubramaniam said total prohibition was ideal but added that in the absence of such prohibition, there was no harm in allowing the production and consumption of toddy.
Govt officials on the committee dissented. Using this dissent, the Karunanidhi govt appointed another official committee to review the report and submit fresh recommendations.
In his report, Justice Sivasubramaniam remarked on the irony of his appointment, wondering how a teetotaller like him was chosen to head a committee on toddy tapping. Though he was in the minority, he clearly stated that while total prohibition was not being enforced, the state could permit toddy tapping. However, he remained a staunch supporter of prohibition. He declared that he would never allow toddy tapping in his own coconut grove as he believed the decision to lift prohibition brought ruin to thousands of families.
He also noted that the Kongu region of western Tamil Nadu, a stronghold for the prohibition movement during the pre-independence era, was now at the forefront of demands to allow toddy tapping.
Today, as most political parties have distanced themselves from the issue,
Seeman
has reopened the debate. In a dramatic gesture, he climbed a palmyra tree fitted with wooden planks, tapped the juice, and drank it in defiance of the law.
Though the BJP's manifesto includes a promise to permit toddy tapping, the party quickly distanced itself from Seeman's actions. A police official said they were examining whether to initiate prosecution against the NTK leader. Several DMK allies questioned how Seeman could campaign for total prohibition while making an exception for toddy and extolling its virtues.
(The writer is a retired judge of Madras high court)
The head of the Naam Tamizhar Katchi (We Tamils Party) caused a stir recently by climbing a palmyra tree and tapping toddy from its inflorescence.
In doing so, he defied Section 4(d) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, which bans tapping from any toddy-producing tree, and invited prosecution under Section 4(e), which carries a penalty of up to three months in prison and a fine of ₹1,000.
Tapping toddy from the palmyra or coconut tree and fermenting it into liquor has been an age-old tradition across South India. Ancient Tamil poet Thiruvalluvar, who composed 1,330 couplets on various subjects, even devoted a chapter to verses on "abstinence from toddy".
His advice was not just moral but practical, warning of the damage liquor can do to the brain. Yet, despite this counsel tendered 2,000 years ago, toddy consumption continues unchecked in rural areas.
Toddy came into the spotlight 90 years ago when the Government of India Act, 1935, came into effect and elections were held. The Congress came to power in eight provincial assemblies. In Madras Presidency, C Rajagopalachari was elected Premier, and one of his first actions was to implement prohibition in the province, in line with the Congress promise.
Asked about the loss of revenue, Rajaji responded by introducing India's first sales tax legislation, imposing a 1% tax on all goods sold and purchased to offset the shortfall. However, after the Congress resigned from the provincial govts, the British did not waste any time. They lifted prohibition in 1944 and allowed the free sale of liquor to replenish the treasury through abkari contracts.
After Independence, prohibition was reintroduced in 1948, driven by Mahatma Gandhi's insistence on promoting total abstinence from alcohol.
The Constitution, which came into force in 1950, included Article 47, which stated that "the state shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption, except for medicinal purposes, of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health".
Madras Province remained dry for nearly two decades under Congress rule. When DMK came to power under chief minister C N Annadurai, prohibition continued.
After that, TN's liquor policy became a back-and-forth struggle, with each govt deciding whether the state would be dry based on its own stance on the issue.
In 1971, when M Karunanidhi became chief minister, prohibition was lifted. Just two years later, it was reintroduced. In 1977, M G Ramachandran (MGR) became chief minister and relaxed prohibition, but liquor consumption was only allowed with a permit. By 1980, liquor was back on the scene, available even in sachets.
When J Jayalalithaa assumed office in 1991, she reimposed prohibition. In 2003, the state govt took control of the procurement and retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), establishing a monopoly. The Prohibition Act and related rules were amended, giving the govt exclusive rights over liquor sales in TN. It was ironic that the rules allowing the state to monopolise IMFL sales were created under the same Prohibition Act of 1937, effectively mocking the constitutional directive under Article 47.
While toddy is a fermented juice tapped from coconut and palmyra trees, its unfermented form is known as padhaneer. The Prohibition Act defines padhaneer as "juice drawn from a coconut, palmyra, date, or any other kind of palm tree into receptacles treated to prevent any fermentation and not fermented".
Over time, the argument that toddy is a healthier, more natural alcoholic drink than IMFL began to gain traction.
In the 1960s, a political party called the Toddy Seekers Kazhagam contested elections, though unsuccessfully, demanding the right to tap toddy.
Since the Tamil Nadu govt established the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) for the retail vending of IMFL, a renewed toddy movement has begun, framing the debate as one between swadeshi (indigenous) and videshi (foreign) alcohol. The head of the movement even threw an open challenge, offering ₹1 crore to anyone who could prove toddy was harmful to health.
Tasmac emerged as the state's biggest source of revenue, generating ₹50,000 crore annually. As a result, the govt was unwilling to consider pleas for opening toddy shops or permitting the tapping of toddy from coconut and palmyra trees.
In 2007, during Karunanidhi's tenure as chief minister, a public interest litigation was filed, claiming that it was unconstitutional for the state to sell IMFL while prohibiting the tapping and consumption of toddy.
A division bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the case and held that "a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as a privilege" (2007). Though petitioners claimed that toddy was a natural drink, the court observed that it could be adulterated with chemicals to increase its potency and rejected the argument.
To respond to demands from coconut and palm workers who lost livelihoods, the Karunanidhi govt appointed a committee chaired by Justice K P Sivasubramaniam.
It included several govt officials and a police officer. However, the committee's report was not unanimous. Justice Sivasubramaniam said total prohibition was ideal but added that in the absence of such prohibition, there was no harm in allowing the production and consumption of toddy.
Govt officials on the committee dissented. Using this dissent, the Karunanidhi govt appointed another official committee to review the report and submit fresh recommendations.
In his report, Justice Sivasubramaniam remarked on the irony of his appointment, wondering how a teetotaller like him was chosen to head a committee on toddy tapping. Though he was in the minority, he clearly stated that while total prohibition was not being enforced, the state could permit toddy tapping. However, he remained a staunch supporter of prohibition. He declared that he would never allow toddy tapping in his own coconut grove as he believed the decision to lift prohibition brought ruin to thousands of families.
He also noted that the Kongu region of western Tamil Nadu, a stronghold for the prohibition movement during the pre-independence era, was now at the forefront of demands to allow toddy tapping.
Today, as most political parties have distanced themselves from the issue, Seeman has reopened the debate. In a dramatic gesture, he climbed a palmyra tree fitted with wooden planks, tapped the juice, and drank it in defiance of the law. Though the BJP's manifesto includes a promise to permit toddy tapping, the party quickly distanced itself from Seeman's actions. A police official said they were examining whether to initiate prosecution against the NTK leader.
Several DMK allies questioned how Seeman could campaign for total prohibition while making an exception for toddy and extolling its virtues.
(The writer is a retired judge of Madras high court)
