Will the ban on smoking fizzle out?

When the legendary Marlboro man, who projected the ultimate macho male and made smoking a stylised pursuit, got fatally afflicted with Hodgkin's disease, he made a fervent appeal from his deathbed to all smokers: give up the cancer stick or face the wrath of God.

Though ironical, the message was unambiguous: you cannot continue to smoke and get away with it. The appeal not only struck a sympathetic chord in the hearts of billions across the globe but also made the political decision makers sit up and realise that it was time to make most areas a no-smoking zone. Thus, Bulgaria became the first country in the world to come out with anti-tobacco legislation in 1970.

In India also, where millions puff, chew or sniff their way to bad health and sustain the country's 80-billion-sticks-a-year cigarette market, the Delhi government has come out, though belatedly, with legislation for putting the smokers on the mat. The Delhi Prohibition of Smoking and Non-Smokers' Health Protection Act, 1996, which was enforced from this year's Republic Day (January 26), seeks to ban smoking in places of ''public work or use,'' which include all government offices in Delhi, educational institutions, courts, hospitals, dispensaries, auditoria, cinema halls, amusement centres, stadia (closed area only), banquet halls, monuments, libraries, hotels and restaurants (unless the owners have designated separate places for smokers), and all public service vehicles.

The act also prohibits selling cigarettes and bidis (tobacco in leaf) within a radius of 100 meters from educational institutions. Advertisements promoting smoking have been banned. Children below 18 years of age cannot purchase tobacco. Besides, owners, managers and officers in charge of affairs at every place of work have been directed to prominently put up signs stating that the place is a ''no-smoking zone'' or that ''smoking is an offence.''

Delhi Health Minister Harsha Vardhan says officials from the level of superintendents to undersecretaries have been empowered to evict people who light up cigarettes in public places. Cases would be tried on the basis of written complaints only, at a court of metropolitan magistrate. Fine could range from Rs 100 for a first offence to Rs 500 or Rs 1,000 for subsequent violations, he says, adding that mobile courts will also be set up for effective implementation of the act.

The exercise is not novel. In 1987, Maharashtra became the first Indian state to make smoking a cognizable offence under Sections 116 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Later, the federal cabinet secretariat passed an executive order banning from June 6, 1990, smoking in select public places and government offices. The order, which had the blessing of then prime minister V P Singh, talked of ''widespread public demand for measures to protect the majority of non-smoking public from the polluting impact of tobacco smoking by a small minority'' and ''the need to save smokers from their own excesses.''

However, many of the then senior bureaucrats, being heavy smokers, dug their heels in at some of the proposals. Thus the environment ministry's plan to issue orders under the Environment Protection Act that entailed imprisonment of up to five years and a Rs 100,000 fine for smoking in banned areas was speedily scotched.

While the anti-smoking lobby is visibly jubilant, there are cynics who are unwilling to give it much of a chance to succeed. ''It may turn out to be a charade,'' says an environment ministry official, adding, ''Our record of enforcing irksome public controls has been dismal.'' To support his contention, he says mobile courts may come out a cropper considering the fact that these courts have not been a success story in traffic control.

Health activists aver that a ban on smoking must be buttressed by a sentimental offensive that will chip away at the sedulously fostered myth that it is associated with status and virility for males and is an ''emblem of emancipation'' for females.

They also argue that cigarette advertisements are the biggest health scams in history. Most of these ads show healthy, young, robust, sexy, fun-loving smokers to give the impression that smoking is macho for men, and to light up is a surefire conduit for popularity.

According to them, emotive slogans like ''Smoking leads to cancer'' and ''For the sake of your children, stop smoking'' would be more effective than statutory warning on cigarette packs. In America, restaurants segregate smokers; in Canada, except for designated smoking room ventilated to the outside, the law prohibits smoking in all federally designated places; and in Britain, there is a group called smoke busters who have clubs especially for children to warn them against and wean them away from the deadly habit.

''A smoker in America is pariah. Those who light up in the prohibited zone may face social ostracism,'' they say, and argue for a similar campaign if it is to succeed in India.

But in India, there are traditions and myths and a crass imitation of western lifestyles which prop the consumption of tobacco. ''Americans have long ago kicked out Marlboro Man from the billboards, but in India cigarette ads continue to inspire neophyte smokers, '' fumes the anti-tobacco lobby.

The problem is compounded by the fact that those who cannot afford to smoke cigarettes because of its rising prices have taken to smoking bidis, euphemistically called diminutive cigars, handrolled in leaf and inexpensive. About 900 billion bidis are consumed nationally in a year as against 70 billion cigarettes, says a 1991 report.

A common refrain of employees in government offices and private sector bodies is that their bosses are smokers. ''Would a middle-rung officer have the gumption to wave the relevant provisions at their senior officers?" they ask.

''It does not make any sense that smoking is a crime inside the buses but not on the road,'' said the driver of a Blueline bus in New Delhi. When the passengers shouted at him to stop smoking, he shot back in an abusive tone: ''Don't hustle me to put out my cigarette, otherwise I will cut the engine. Then who will drive the bus, your pop?'' Ironically, this statement is from the one who has been empowered to ban smoking.

The most potent argument against a campaign to ban smoking comes neither from the advocates of individual freedom nor the smokers, but from straight money talk. The tobacco industry earns the exchequer a whopping Rs 20 billion in excise annually, says a 1990 report. There is also the problem of high employment potential of bidi-making in the country.

India's thriving cigarette market has lured Western tobacco giants on the lookout for new export outlets to offset tumbling sales at home because of a strong anti-smoking campaign. According to the World Health Organisation, cigarette smoking is declining in industrialised nations at a rate of 1.1 per cent a year, but it is rising in the Third World by 2.1 per cent annually. This led former American congressman Chester Atkins to remark: ''Our trade policy seems to be saying to our partners that we consider Asian lungs more expendable than American lungs.''

For the tobacco industry and chronic puffers, the ban may merely mean a slight inconvenience of furtive smoking rather than a reduction in tar and nicotine levels, but the Delhi health minister is optimistic. ''If it can be a great success in the United States and in Bombay, why not in Delhi?'' he asks.

UNI