Andhra Pradesh Earned Rs 812 Crore from Arrack in a Year, Until Its Poorest Women Rose in Protest

What did the women of Dubagunta do, and what change were they demanding from the government?

In 1991, women in Dubagunta, Andhra Pradesh, marched to their local arrack shop and forced it to close. They carried broomsticks, sticks and chilli powder. Their demand was larger than one shop: they wanted the government to stop selling arrack, which was damaging family finances and causing conflict at home.

The women first destroyed toddy pots after speaking with families who depended on that trade. They then ransacked the arrack shop, attacked the local godown and drove out liquor contractors, despite police action. Women in nearby villages copied them. The campaign soon challenged contractors, officials, police and the Chief Minister.

Their pressure produced major policy changes. The government banned arrack across Andhra Pradesh from 1 October 1993. Because other liquor sales continued, women's groups demanded total prohibition. N T Rama Rao imposed that wider ban on 16 January 1995, although it was lifted on 1 April 1997.

What is arrack, and why did it cause such serious problems for many households?

Arrack was the cheap country liquor sold widely across Andhra Pradesh. It was not merely a drink in the women's account. Its easy availability made it a household issue, because money that families needed for daily life was being spent at liquor shops.

The article gives striking figures. In 1991-92, an average Andhra Pradesh family earned Rs 1,840 and spent Rs 830 on liquor. Women spoke about men returning drunk, abusing literacy workers and creating fear at home. These experiences helped turn private suffering into public protest.

Arrack also created a political problem. The government earned important excise revenue from its sale, while families bore the financial and social costs. Women asked why liquor was always available when water and schools were scarce. Their protests eventually led to an arrack ban, followed by total prohibition in 1995, though prohibition was lifted in 1997.

How large was the liquor economy in Andhra Pradesh, and how much household income was being spent on liquor?

Liquor was a major source of government income in Andhra Pradesh. State excise revenue rose from Rs 39 crore in 1970-71 to Rs 812 crore in 1991-92. Nellore district alone had 864 arrack shops, showing how deeply the trade had entered local life.

The household burden was equally stark. In 1991-92, the average family in Andhra Pradesh earned Rs 1,840 and spent Rs 830 of that income on liquor. That means liquor consumed a large share of household earnings, leaving less money for food, education and other needs.

This scale explains the conflict between the government and the protesters. The state argued that liquor revenue supported welfare programmes. Women challenged that logic by offering a day's wages instead, showing they were proposing another source of funds. Their campaign helped win an arrack ban in 1993 and total prohibition in 1995.

How did adult literacy classes turn private household suffering into a statewide women’s movement?

The anti-arrack movement began in an adult literacy night school, not at a political meeting. When the National Literacy Mission started its Nellore campaign in January 1990, women learning to read began speaking openly about problems inside their homes. Many identified arrack as a shared cause of financial hardship and conflict.

The classes created a regular space where women could compare experiences. According to Rekha Pande, drunk men abused literacy workers, and the women drove them away. A night-school story about a woman called Sitamma also encouraged them. These moments connected learning with collective action.

Once women recognized that their private suffering was widespread, they organized beyond the classroom. Dubagunta women attacked the local shop, neighbouring villages followed, and the campaign reached 50,000 protesters in 1992. About 80% were women. The movement then confronted contractors, police, officials and the state government.

What political and economic consequences followed the protests, from the arrack ban to the later policy of total prohibition?

The protests changed state policy and electoral politics. The Chief Minister banned arrack from 1 October 1993. Since Indian-made foreign liquor remained available, women's groups continued pressing for total prohibition. N T Rama Rao of the Telugu Desam Party promised it during the 1994 election campaign.

After taking office, Rama Rao imposed total prohibition on 16 January 1995. This extended the policy beyond arrack to the continuing liquor sales that had frustrated the movement. The change showed that a local women's campaign could influence a statewide election promise and government action.

The policy did not last. On 1 April 1997, about 28 months after prohibition began, the next chief minister lifted it. The article does not state the reason for that reversal. It does show that the movement's political legacy continued: in 2016, women in Rajasthan's Kachabali village helped win a 94% vote to close its only liquor shop.

Why did the government first resist the women’s demands, and why was prohibition eventually lifted after about 28 months?

The government initially resisted because liquor revenue was financially valuable. It argued that closing shops would remove money used for welfare programmes. Rekha Pande records the calculation: the state spent Rs 1.50 on each kilogram of subsidised rice but earned Rs 3.50 from liquor.

Women challenged this fiscal argument. They offered a day's wages as an alternative source of money and asked why water and schools were scarce while arrack was always available. Their protests, including a 50,000-person march in 1992, increased pressure on officials and the Chief Minister.

The pressure produced an arrack ban in October 1993 and total prohibition in January 1995. However, the next chief minister lifted prohibition on 1 April 1997, roughly 28 months later. The source does not explain why it was lifted. It records the policy reversal, not the government's stated reason.

How can a government depend on alcohol taxes to fund public welfare while alcohol consumption causes financial and social harm to families?

A government can depend on alcohol taxes because the money arrives through a reliable, visible source of revenue. In Andhra Pradesh, the state spent Rs 1.50 on each kilogram of subsidised rice but earned Rs 3.50 from liquor. Officials therefore argued that closing liquor shops would weaken welfare spending.

The same revenue system transferred costs to families. In 1991-92, the average family earned Rs 1,840 and spent Rs 830 on liquor. Women described lost money, household conflict and abuse. They answered the government's argument by offering a day's wages instead. This showed they were proposing replacement revenue, not simply rejecting government needs.

The conflict reveals why alcohol policy is difficult. Public revenue can support welfare, while alcohol sales can damage the households welfare is meant to help. The article records bans and later reversal, rather than a lasting solution. It also shows that communities may demand a voice over what is sold locally.

Key Facts:

📌 Dubagunta women shut their local arrack shop in 1991.

📌 They used broomsticks, sticks and chilli powder.

📌 The government banned arrack from 1 October 1993.

📌 Arrack was cheap country liquor.

📌 Families spent Rs 830 of average earnings on liquor.

📌 Women connected drinking with household abuse and financial strain.

📌 Andhra Pradesh earned Rs 812 crore in excise revenue in 1991-92.