India, June 21 -- I won't deny I enjoy a little tipple. In fact, of an evening, I often look forward to it. In Cambridge, Saturdays were occasions to drink. Many of my friends would want to get smashed. But I'm now too old for such youthful frolic. A measured, controlled drink suits me perfectly. You can, therefore, guess that I'm not a supporter of the teetotalism forcibly imposed on Gujarat and Bihar. And if you tell me that many of the denizens of these states are also opposed to it, I wouldn't be surprised. People, I believe, should be free to do what they want within the limits of the law. Drinking is not a crime. But nor should it be compulsory. That's the point, believe it or not, I want to make today. The good people of Ladakh want less opportunities to drink and less availability of alcohol. Not more. It's not what I would have expected, but it's the truth. The Lieutenant Governor's administration decided in May to announce a new excise policy increasing retail outlets selling alcohol from two to 20. In the process, the sale of alcohol would be extended to remote parts of the Union Territory such as Nubra, Changthang, Sham, and Zanskar. This has upset the local population. "Our stand is clear", the Ladakh Buddhist Association said in a statement. "We do not support the opening of 20 new wine shops or the unrestricted sale of alcohol in hotels, guest houses and homestays." The Kargil Democratic Alliance, a sister body, echoed this sentiment. "If liquor is banned in Bihar and Gujarat, why introduce it in Ladakh?" This posed a perplexing dilemma for me. I believe alcohol should not be banned. In fact, it should be freely available for all adults who wish to imbibe. But what happens when they don't? When they actually want it restricted? When they want to be teetotallers? What then? I would say they have as much of a right to have their way as drinkers have to lawfully quaff. But it does pose a peculiar problem for the Union Territory's administration. They are not being asked to increase opportunities to buy alcohol but to limit and restrict them. If I understand correctly, neither the Ladakh Buddhist Association nor the Kargil Democratic Alliance want a complete ban. That's not what they are calling for. They just don't want the excise policy expanded and liberalised. I presume they are happy with the situation that prevails today. Now, you and I may find their position rather odd and peculiar. But there it is. And the question arises: Don't they have a right to be heard and adhered to? If people don't want more booze shops, why should these be forced upon them? Just as some have a right to drink and buy it easily, others have a right to make it difficult for themselves and less accessible. After all, the only people affected are the people of Kargil and Ladakh. In writing this, I'm presuming that the LBA and the KDA as well as Ladakh's MP, Haji Hanifa, actually represent the majority opinion of the Union Territory. The accounts I have seen in newspapers, headlined 'Civil society groups up in arms over new Ladakh liquor policy', suggest they are speaking for the vast majority. If that is the case, I guess the Union territory has a right to ensure that alcohol remains difficult to access and only available in certain parts. You could say it's a strange world. But in a democracy the majority have a right to get their way as long as their wishes are lawful and don't cause injury or disadvantage to others. In this instance they do, of course, make it difficult for those who want to drink. But I guess that has to be accepted. At least, Kargil and Ladakh are not asking for a complete ban on alcohol. Meanwhile, I look forward to a drink tonight. Also, I'm in absolutely no hurry to visit Kargil and Ladakh. I'll patiently wait till the liquor policy is liberalised!...