IN the tussle between the smokers and the self-righteous -- the social activists, health faddists, moralists, child specialists, et al -- India's smokers have been left fuming with smoke coming out of their ears.

On Oct 2, which marked the 139th anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi's birth, India joined a growing number of nations in imposing a total ban on smoking in public.

But there are doubts about how effectively the diktat could be imposed in the land of the hookah, so vast and diverse.

Mercifully, political parties have not taken sides. It is basically a problem of commerce -- of sales that have not yet registered a fall but most likely will; of advertising revenue and possibly jobs, with retrenchment of workers by cigarette-makers, many of them no-mercy multinational corporations.

Indeed, there are the individual habits to tackle.

They are so varied, so compelling -- smoking to relax, smoking when you are busy or tired, smoking to get over stress, smoking while travelling, smoking while reading or writing, smoking after a hearty meal and smoking along with the peg.

Most men thought smoking was smart, till they grew up. When it was no longer cool, it had become a habit for many.

All that, very personal, on which only family members or close friends could comment, has now come under the public, nay, the police scanner.

Smoking was banned earlier in government offices, hospitals, airports and aircraft, railway stations and trains.

This has now been extended to offices, theatres, restaurants, shopping malls, public parks and recreational areas -- in short, any place where groups of people gather.

The only place left is the home. But that is where one's nearest and dearest live. One may be subjecting them to passive smoking and harming their health.

Anyone found smoking on the streets will be liable to a fine of US$5 (RM17.50). It seems a small penalty, but India has poor people, too. Smoking is not the preserve of the well-off.

The man to catch and levy the fine would be a police officer, raising the alarm that erring smokers may be subjected to "Inspector Raj". Those caught smoking in office premises will be fined US$125, with the onus on the employer to levy the penalty.

Outside of home, one can now smoke in peace only in a specially designated area in a restaurant or pub. But there are millions of smokers who do not visit such places.

Are only smokers to be faulted? What about tobacco chewed or used as paste?

Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss, the medico-politician most smokers are cursing, says the people have "overwhelmingly responded" to the ban.

He may be right, or just rhetorical, pressing his point, as all politicians do, in the name of the people. But he has won grudging approval from two heavy smokers, Bollywood stars Shahrukh Khan and Saif Ali Khan.

His tongue firmly in cheek, SRK said: "It is a good step to make sure that the country is smoke-free. A better step would be to ban cigarettes, make them illegal and hang anyone who smokes. We cannot do that as we are a democratic country."

However, he added on a sober note: "I hope everyone calls upon their good selves to do it. I, myself, will try my best."

This must be good play-acting with a dialogue from some unrehearsed script.

Taking in the larger picture, Ramadoss says that while the tobacco industry generated US$9 billion annually, the government and private hospitals and clinics spend an equal amount in treating tobacco-related diseases.

Government estimates are that some 900,000 Indians die annually of tobacco-related diseases. They don't deserve to.

I say this after kicking the weed that I loved for years, when I flirted with pipe, cigars, cheroots and the very Indian biri.

But I was honest: I would not smoke while writing on the Anti-Tobacco Week for my newspaper.

The joke was: "Smoking is so easy to give up. I have done it many times."

Ramadoss is not the first minister to seek a ban, but the first one to succeed. His peers were stonewalled by the Commerce Ministry that raised the spectre of revenue losses and woes of tobacco growers.

Mercifully, nobody has so far gone to court complaining that his freedom is being curbed.

How Ramadoss has succeeded where others failed remains inexplicable in these times of 21st century laissez faire.

How has the ban worked? The first day's score was some 500 persons fined in Tamil Nadu and 80 in Delhi -- 79 men and a woman.

A quick look on Day One across a number of cities showed that the ban was being observed more in its breach in public places like bus stops and market places, but quite effectively in theatres, hotels, restaurants, pubs and malls as well.

Sale of cigarettes continued as usual at all corner shops, roadside vendors and even at shopping malls. However, some smokers exhibited discretion by moving away from the main roads to by-lanes and continued to puff away, even as passers-by ignored them.

Police in many cities say it will take some days to ensure the ban is effective in pubs and restaurants as they do not have the manpower to go around the hundreds dotting Bangalore alone.

Strangely, after Day One, the story is off the TV screens and newspaper columns. It is difficult to gauge the impact of the ban, unless one encounters sulking smokers. And there are many.

I am waiting for surveys, perhaps six months or a year from now, on the economics of the ban. Much later, perhaps, its social impact. Hopefully, some individuals may say how much they saved thanks to reduced smoking.

Will they quit smoking? A few may. For the rest, some habits die hard.