Gadkari’s Ethanol Defence Is Losing The Public Argument

By K Raveendran

Nitin Gadkari has invested considerable political capital in presenting ethanol-blended petrol as a national solution to several problems at once. It is meant to cut India’s crude oil import bill, reduce emissions, support farmers, create a market for agricultural produce and strengthen energy security. Each of these objectives has merit. Yet the transport minister’s increasingly combative defence of E20 petrol is turning what should have been a carefully managed technological transition into a crisis of public confidence.

The controversy is no longer limited to claims about a possible conflict of interest arising from the involvement of Gadkari’s sons in businesses linked to ethanol production. The minister has repeatedly said that ethanol accounts for only a small part of their commercial interests and that he receives no financial benefit from the blending programme. That explanation may satisfy the narrow test of personal enrichment, but it does not dispose of the broader question of public propriety.

Conflict of interest is not established merely by proving that a minister or relative made money from a policy. It also concerns whether a reasonable citizen might perceive that a public official’s advocacy overlaps with family business interests. The appropriate response to such a perception is maximum transparency, independent scrutiny and emotional distance. Gadkari has instead treated many questions as politically motivated attacks, making his defence sound less persuasive with each repetition.

The minister’s larger problem is that the argument has moved beyond his family. Millions of motorists are asking why they must use a fuel that may provide lower mileage, particularly when owners of older vehicles were given little effective choice. The government maintains that extensive testing has found no widespread engine damage and that the fall in fuel efficiency is marginal. Studies and statements from sections of the automobile industry have supported the safety of E20, including for several vehicle categories.

But official assurances do not answer every consumer concern. Ethanol has a lower energy content than petrol, making some decline in mileage physically plausible even when an engine remains undamaged. The precise impact varies according to the vehicle, engine calibration, driving conditions and whether the model was designed for higher ethanol content. Owners of vehicles manufactured before E20 compatibility became standard cannot be expected to dismiss uncertainty simply because newer models are equipped to handle the blend.

The C-Voter findings expose the depth of the credibility gap. More than half of supporters of the governing alliance reportedly said they did not want to use E20 petrol, while resistance was even higher among respondents outside the alliance. The survey also indicated widespread concern about mileage, vehicle performance and the price charged for blended fuel. That opposition cannot easily be dismissed as a campaign by political rivals or petroleum interests when it extends to BJP voters and activists.

Public resistance is particularly damaging because ethanol policy was initially sold as an economic gain for consumers. Political claims over the years created expectations that increased ethanol use would substantially reduce petrol prices. Instead, motorists are buying E20 petrol at prices that do not visibly reflect the lower energy value of ethanol or the savings generated through reduced dependence on imported crude. Consumers see no direct reward for accepting the transition, while the risks, real or perceived, remain theirs.

Gadkari’s assertion that people unwilling to use ethanol-blended petrol can buy costlier unblended fuel worsens this imbalance. It frames consumer choice not as a legitimate requirement in a transition but as a privilege for which sceptical motorists should be penalised. The remark carries an unmistakable suggestion that those questioning E20 are obstructing national progress and should bear a financial cost for their resistance.

That approach is politically unwise. A government cannot mandate a major change in the composition of a universally used fuel, reduce the availability of alternatives and then imply that unconvinced citizens are being unreasonable. Motorists did not choose the engines in their existing vehicles on the assumption that fuel standards would be accelerated years ahead of the earlier timetable. Many bought cars and two-wheelers whose manuals indicated compatibility with E10 rather than E20. Their anxiety is not an ideological objection to renewable energy; it is an ownership and consumer-protection issue.

The rollout also suffers from weak communication. Petrol pumps often do not offer meaningful differentiation between fuel grades. Vehicle owners struggle to obtain model-specific guidance from manufacturers. Warranty language can be difficult to interpret, and there is no widely trusted mechanism for compensating motorists who believe higher ethanol content has damaged components or sharply reduced performance. The government has emphasised national savings and investment in ethanol capacity, but it has not communicated individual costs with comparable clarity.

The argument that reversing E20 could endanger nearly ₹1 lakh crore in annual financing and investment linked to ethanol infrastructure is an argument for better planning, not for suppressing consumer choice. Sunk investments cannot become the sole justification for continuing a policy unchanged. Infrastructure should serve public policy; public policy should not become captive to infrastructure created before doubts were adequately resolved.

The latest indication that the government may proceed more cautiously with blends beyond E20 suggests that policymakers recognise the political and technical risks. Standards for E22, E25 and still higher blends may exist, but moving towards them without resolving the E20 dispute would deepen distrust. Long-duration testing of E25 on E10- and E20-compliant vehicles is itself evidence that compatibility questions require more than rhetorical certainty.

A credible course would preserve E20 while restoring access to E10 or unblended petrol at a fair, transparently calculated price during a defined transition period. Fuel pumps should clearly display ethanol content, manufacturers should publish model-by-model compatibility information, and an independent technical authority should investigate complaints. Pricing should account for differences in energy content instead of asking consumers to pay the same amount for potentially fewer kilometres.

Gadkari’s achievements in highway building and infrastructure have given him a reputation as one of the government’s most effective ministers. That makes his handling of the ethanol debate more surprising. He is arguing as though technical confidence should automatically produce public consent. It does not. Consent is built through disclosure, choice, fair pricing and respect for citizens who raise questions.

By portraying opposition as ignorance, conspiracy or unwillingness to support farmers, the minister risks converting a defensible energy policy into a test of political obedience. E20 may ultimately prove safe and economically beneficial for most vehicles. But Gadkari will not establish that case by sounding hostile to the people who remain unconvinced. The more he insists that sceptics must simply pay more, the clearer it becomes that the government has secured a blending target without securing the trust required to sustain it. (IPA Service)