Nitin Gadkari, India's Road Transport and Highways Minister, has found himself at the center of a storm over the country's ethanol blending program. The program, aimed at reducing vehicular pollution and cutting India's import bill, has faced criticism and allegations of conflict of interest. In an exclusive interview with TOI's Dipak Dash, Gadkari defended his push for alternative fuels, including ethanol-blended petrol, methanol, hydrogen, and electric vehicles. He dismissed claims of engine damage to vehicles and argued that misinformation has been weaponized against him and the government.
One of the key points of contention is Gadkari's family business, which has a small share in the ethanol business. Critics have alleged that the minister has a personal interest in promoting ethanol, but Gadkari insists that the business is run by his sons and that he has no influence over it. He also pointed out that the ethanol blending program dates back to the Vajpayee government and was supported by the UPA administration.
Gadkari's defense of the program is rooted in his belief that alternative fuels are essential for reducing pollution, especially in cities like Delhi, where vehicles contribute up to 40% of air pollution. He also emphasized the program's potential to lower import dependence and support farmers, citing examples of countries like Brazil and Indonesia that have successfully used ethanol for decades.
However, Gadkari acknowledges that there are concerns about the quality of highways and the potential for engine damage to vehicles. He has reviewed 950 highway projects and has zero tolerance for poor quality construction. He has also asked officers to take strict action against those who have compromised on quality.
In conclusion, Gadkari's defense of the ethanol blending program is a reflection of his commitment to reducing pollution and cutting import dependence. While there are valid concerns about the program's impact on vehicles and the quality of highways, Gadkari's emphasis on the program's potential benefits and his efforts to address quality issues suggest that he is committed to making it a success. However, the criticism and allegations of conflict of interest will likely continue to dog him, and it remains to be seen whether the program will achieve its goals in the face of such opposition.
