Combining these two objectives means that the state genuflects in the direction of nimbu-pani virtue and at the same time, stretches both hands toward excise-tax rupees. It's an awkward posture but not impossible. By adopting the principle of ``less is more'', the UT Administration has done it. The just-announced UT Excise policy for 1999-2000 seeks to increase the sales of ``light'' alcoholic beverages by reducing their price and making them available at up-market provision stores as well as vends. Between ``light'' and 96-proof stuff, ``light'' is the better choice, but one should be under no illusion that ``light'' necessarily spells the end to alcohol abuse or alcohol-related dangers.

A basic premise of the new Excise policy is that wine or beer isn't like whiskey. This is both true and false. When champagne goes down, the stuff that the body goes to work on is C2H5OH. A nip of hard liquor such as whiskey (or thara) confronts the system with ... C2H5OH! It's the same stuff. Champagne or thara - chemically speaking; it doesn't matter. Get enough of it into the blood stream and the effect is the same: depression of the central nervous system, including the brain, resulting in impairment of judgment, physical reflexes and muscular coordination. Other factors, such as individual tolerance, fatigue and blood-sugar levels also have a bearing on just how quickly a given quantity of alcohol intoxicates.

Between wine and beer - the two ``lights'' which the UT Administration is favouring, wine is unlikely to gain much popularity even if it becomes cheaper by a few rupees. The price of the cheapest bottle of wine will still be somewhere around Rs 220 - well beyond the pocket money carried by most school and college students. However, a bottle of ``near-beer'' (the kind whose alcohol content is less than 5.25 per cent) is well within purchasing range at just Rs 15 per mug. Millilitre for millilitre, this variety of beer will be cheaper than soft drink - and very attractive to young people eager to experience grown-up beverages. It would be irresponsible if the administration were to promote ``light'' drinks without accompanying steps to ensure that vends and provision stores do not sell any alcohol to those below the age of 18.

Likewise, public drunkeness and driving under the influence of alcohol should attract severe penalties. It would be unfair to ask the administration to perform the impossible task of protecting a reckless drinker from himself, but it must be held to its obligation to protect the rest from the havoc alcohol can wreak.