Omar Abdullah Faces Firestorm Over Liquor Shop Remarks

Srinagar: Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has found himself at the centre of a political and social storm after publicly defending the presence of liquor shops in the Union Territory, even as the administration leads an aggressive campaign against rising drug abuse. His remarks—delivered casually on the sidelines of an event in Ganderbal near here—triggered a wave of criticism from the public, religious groups, and opposition parties, forcing him to issue a clarification a day later.

Abdullah initially argued that visiting such shops was a matter of personal choice, not government coercion. “No one is being compelled to consume alcohol. People go there by their own choice. We are not dragging anyone,” he said, responding to concerns that the availability of liquor undermines the ongoing anti‑drug drive.

The Chief Minister stressed that his government had neither advertised alcohol nor increased its availability. However, critics were quick to point out that the number of liquor shops has grown significantly over the past decade, particularly after August 2019 when Jammu and Kashmir lost its special status and was reorganised into two Union Territories. Many questioned how the administration could justify liquor sales while simultaneously urging youth to stay away from drugs.

The backlash was swift. Former IAS officer Kifayat Rizvi questioned the political maturity behind Abdullah’s comments, accusing the leadership of being insensitive to religious sentiments. Writer and critic Fazal Mehmood Qari responded with biting sarcasm, comparing Abdullah’s logic to telling citizens to simply avoid adulterated milk, spurious medicines, or toxic food—reducing governance to a disclaimer of “consume at your own risk.”

Adding fuel to the controversy, an old video of Abdullah resurfaced online in which he had accused previous administrations of flooding residential areas with liquor shops. “For the last 10 years, our youngsters did not get anything other than liquor shops and drugs,” he had said then—an apparent contradiction that opponents seized upon.

The debate comes at a time when concerns over substance abuse in J&K are at an all‑time high. Official data shows that Srinagar alone generated excise revenue of ₹5,489.67 lakh in 2023–24, rising to ₹6,557.66 lakh in 2024–25. Across Kashmir, excise earnings from liquor touched ₹18,448.50 lakh over two years, despite the region’s religious and cultural sensitivities. Overall, J&K earned nearly ₹2,152 crore from liquor sales during the same period. Religious leaders and political groups argue that if the government is serious about combating drug addiction, it must also consider banning alcohol.

Among the most vocal critics was PDP leader Iltija Mufti, who accused Abdullah of habitual “U‑turns” and questioned the contradiction between the government’s participation in the “Nasha Mukht Abhiyan” and its defence of liquor outlets. She argued that no religion permits alcohol consumption and cited Bihar and Gujarat—both dry states with Hindu-majority populations—as examples J&K could follow. “If they can ban alcohol there, why can’t it be banned in Jammu and Kashmir?” she asked, alleging that Abdullah was indirectly promoting an alcohol culture.

Facing mounting criticism, Abdullah attempted to clarify his remarks on Monday, saying his earlier comments were being distorted by political opponents. He admitted that the sensitivity of the issue required a more carefully worded response but maintained that his government had neither opened new liquor shops nor encouraged alcohol consumption. “Our religion does not permit it, nor do we want our people to go there,” he said, asserting that the shops exist primarily for tourists, non‑local residents and individuals whose faith permits alcohol consumption.

He added that the administration had deliberately avoided opening new outlets and had taken steps to ensure liquor shops were not located in areas where local youth could be influenced. Abdullah also accused opposition parties of hypocrisy, pointing out that PDP’s former Finance Minister Haseeb Drabu had himself stated in the Assembly that alcohol would not be banned during the PDP-led government.

Ruling National Conference (NC) spokesperson Tanvir Sadiq echoed this sentiment, reminding critics of their own past positions. He asserted that the NC remains firmly opposed to alcohol consumption and does not support its promotion in any form. “We are Muslims, and no Muslim supports alcohol. We do not want it to be consumed here,” he said.

As the controversy continues to simmer, the debate has reopened long-standing questions about governance, religious sentiment, public health, and the economic realities tied to excise revenue. With political parties trading accusations and public anger rising, the issue of liquor regulation in J&K appears far from settled.

Various political, social, and religious organisations—along with several independent critics—have once again challenged the government’s justification for allowing liquor shops to operate in J&K. They argue that the administration’s repeated claim that these outlets exist primarily because the region is a “tourist‑frequented place” does not hold up to scrutiny. Their central counterpoint: if states with far higher tourist inflow can enforce complete prohibition, why can’t J&K?

Citing Gujarat as a prominent example, critics point out that the western state welcomed 18.59 million domestic and international tourists in 2023–24, ranking third in India for foreign tourist arrivals with over 2.27 million international visitors in 2024. Despite this massive tourist footprint, Gujarat has upheld a strict, statewide prohibition on the sale, manufacture, and consumption of alcohol since 1960, the year it was carved out as a separate state. The contrast, they argue, exposes the weakness of the “tourism” argument often invoked in J&K.

Kashmir’s chief Muslim cleric, Mirwaiz Muhammad Umar Farooq, echoed this sentiment while questioning the government’s stance. “Gujarat has maintained a comprehensive prohibition for more than six decades, even though it receives far more tourists than Jammu and Kashmir. If it can be done there, why not here?” he asked, underscoring that the presence of liquor shops in a Muslim‑majority region cannot be justified merely by citing tourist demand.