Paid Campaign, Anti-National, Petrol Lobby: Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari Counterattacks Critics

Union Minister Nitin Gadkari has stepped up his defence of India’s ethanol blending programme, accusing critics of running a “paid campaign” on behalf of petrol import lobbies. He described opposition to the E20 fuel rollout as anti-national and argued that blending ethanol with petrol is not only viable but necessary for the country’s energy security and rural economy.

Framing Ethanol as a National Priority

Gadkari has claimed that much of the criticism of E20 fuel is orchestrated to protect entrenched oil importers. He points to India’s annual fossil fuel import bill of around ₹22 lakh crore as evidence that domestic ethanol production is an economic and strategic necessity. Positioning ethanol blending as a patriotic move, Gadkari suggests that opposing it amounts to defending foreign economic interests.

He has argued that while social media is full of complaints about reduced mileage and possible engine damage, no official complaints have been submitted through formal channels. This distinction, he insists, separates online chatter from verifiable problems.

Defending Policy with Personal Examples

The minister has gone so far as to cite his own use of 100 percent ethanol in his personal vehicle as proof that concerns are exaggerated. He also points to Brazil’s use of 27 percent ethanol blends to argue that India’s 20 percent target is conservative by global standards. These references are designed to show that higher blending is technically feasible, although anecdotal evidence cannot fully resolve questions of compatibility across India’s vast and varied vehicle fleet.

Criticism from vehicle owners focuses on mileage losses and uncertainty about the long-term effects of ethanol blends on older engines. Many manufacturers have not yet provided clarity about warranty coverage or compatibility with E20 for existing vehicles. This lack of clear assurances fuels hesitation among consumers.

Political Allegations and Industry Pushback

The debate has also acquired a political edge. Opposition parties, particularly the Congress, allege that Gadkari’s family members are linked to ethanol-producing companies that have benefitted from government policy.

The BJP has dismissed these charges as baseless, but they have given critics more ammunition. Gadkari’s own comment about his “brain being worth ₹200 crore” underlined both his personal investment in the policy debate and the sometimes theatrical nature of his defence.

At the same time, sections of the automobile industry have expressed caution. Some carmakers back the ethanol push, while others have yet to endorse E20 use across their portfolios. This split makes it harder to establish consensus about the programme’s immediate viability. Petrol importers and retailers, whose business models depend on conventional fuels, also face disruption. Gadkari’s claim of organised resistance reflects the financial stakes for these players.

Balancing Benefits and Concerns

The ethanol programme is designed to reduce India’s dependence on oil imports while creating economic opportunities in rural areas where sugar mills and distilleries operate. Ethanol production has already provided an alternative revenue stream for sugar mills that struggle to compete internationally, while boosting incomes for farmers growing sugarcane and corn.

But questions remain about agricultural sustainability. Critics point out that diverting farmland to ethanol crops may affect food security, particularly if demand for ethanol rises sharply. There is also concern that dismissing all technical complaints as propaganda risks alienating motorists whose cooperation is essential for the success of the programme.

A Policy Still Under Scrutiny

For now, the ethanol policy has strong political backing and even legal support. The Supreme Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the E20 rollout, clearing the way for nationwide adoption. Yet the real test lies in reassuring vehicle owners and addressing industry ambivalence.

Comprehensive independent testing across vehicle categories, greater transparency about potential conflicts of interest, and clear communication from manufacturers on compatibility will all be critical. Gadkari’s combative defence may strengthen his political position, but building lasting public trust in ethanol-blended fuels will require more than rhetoric.