Resistance is growing in India against the government's aggressive push to expand the use of ethanol-blended gasoline, following a demonstration on Tuesday demanding that authorities reconsider the decision to introduce E20 fuel as the national standard.
Opposition leader Arvind Kejriwal marched to the residence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with petitions signed by over 200,000 people, but police stopped him before he reached his destination.
India, the world's third-largest automotive market, asserts that the transition to biofuel helps reduce dependence on imported crude oil and increases farmers' income.
Nevertheless, car owners are expressing concerns about vehicle performance, and the government's campaign has caused dissatisfaction among India's broad middle class—Modi's key electoral base—who fear incurring costs associated with this transition.
What is ethanol-blended gasoline?
Fuel E20, which has become the center of the dispute, is gasoline mixed with 20% ethanol, which is primarily produced from sugarcane.
India has considered using biofuels for decades, mainly because over 80% of its crude oil needs are met by other countries.
In the last decade, the Modi government accelerated the biofuel program: the proportion of ethanol blending increased from less than 1.5% in 2013–14 to 20% by 2025–26.
According to the government, this has allowed India to save approximately $20 billion (328 billion rupees) in foreign currency since 2014–15 and increase farmers' income by $16.4 billion over the same period.
Why are drivers concerned?
Many drivers fear that the E20 blend could damage engines and increase maintenance costs in vehicles designed for lower ethanol concentrations.
In recent months, videos circulating on social media have shown alleged damage to vehicle parts and reduced fuel efficiency.
Political analyst Techsin Punavalla, who led a street protest against E20 last month, accused the government of hastily implementing the nationwide program while ignoring legitimate public concerns.
The government acknowledged that E20 might lead to a slight decrease in fuel efficiency—in the range of 3% to 5%—but rejected claims of engine damage.
Deputy Petroleum Minister Suresh Gope told parliament last week that over 200 million motorcycles and 300 million cars were operating on E20 without 'confirmed evidence of widespread engine failures or vehicle breakdowns.'
The government also cited manufacturer data from the past year, noting that 'no corrosion, abnormal wear, or reduction in component lifespan related to E20 had been registered,' even in cars not originally designed for this blend.
India's Minister of Road Transport, Nitin Gadkari, referred to a study showing that some older vehicles might require replacement of rubber components and gaskets, but maintained that such work is 'easily manageable during routine maintenance.'
What do automakers say?
The Indian automotive industry has generally supported the government.
Representatives from Maruti Suzuki, the country's largest automaker, reported that testing the E20 fuel on vehicles designed for E10 showed no issues.
Furthermore, one of the largest domestic motorcycle manufacturers, Hero MotoCorp, stated that its service data did not show an increase in vehicle damage when running on E20 compared to older fuels.
Some automakers cautioned against the spread of misinformation. Toyota India stated that the problems raised in the viral complaint were caused by fuel contamination and 'are not related to the use of E20 fuel.'
What next?
Critics have called on the government to offer vehicle owners a choice between E10, E20, and unadulterated gasoline at no extra charge.
Despite opposition parties taking to the streets, the government shows no clear signs of yielding.
A statement made by the Indian petroleum ministry last month indicated that offering multiple options at gas stations would be logistically complex and costly.
The ministry noted: 'Maintaining several grades of base gasoline in this vast supply chain would create a huge logistical problem, increase processing costs, complicate inventory management, and reduce operational efficiency.'



