Politics often thrives on selective memory. What is defended in government is frequently denounced in opposition. Few issues illustrate this contradiction better than the recent debate over ethanol-blended fuel and the broader criticism directed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s development agenda.
Two videos circulated widely on social media this week prompted this reflection. One features former Union Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar speaking in Parliament years ago in support of ethanol blending as an alternative fuel. The other shows noted filmmaker Subhash Ghai praising the pace of infrastructure and economic transformation witnessed during the last decade.
Viewed together, they raise an uncomfortable question for the Congress and its INDIA alliance partners: why oppose today what was once advocated as sound national policy?
India’s push towards E20 fuel is not an overnight political experiment. The concept of ethanol blending predates the Modi government. Successive governments recognised the need to reduce dependence on imported crude oil, improve energy security, support sugarcane farmers and lower vehicular emissions. The Modi government accelerated that policy, setting ambitious blending targets and expanding ethanol production capacity.
Ironically, many of those now questioning ethanol’s viability belong to political formations that once endorsed the very same policy. Mani Shankar Aiyar’s parliamentary intervention is a reminder that ethanol blending was never considered a partisan issue. It was viewed as a strategic national necessity.
The recent geopolitical instability in West Asia has only reinforced that necessity. Any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz—through which a substantial share of India’s crude oil imports passes—has immediate implications for fuel prices and energy security. While India has diversified its sources of crude imports over the years, reducing dependence on imported petroleum remains an economic imperative.
Constructive debate on the pace of implementation, vehicle compatibility or agricultural sustainability is both legitimate and necessary. However, dismissing ethanol itself as fundamentally flawed ignores years of policy continuity across governments.
The second issue concerns the larger narrative surrounding India’s development under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Critics often describe government publicity as propaganda, while supporters argue that the visible transformation across infrastructure, digital governance, highways, airports, railways, defence manufacturing and public welfare schemes speaks for itself.
Subhash Ghai’s remarks attracted attention precisely because they came from someone not generally associated with partisan politics. His observation that India’s infrastructure has expanded at an unprecedented pace reflects a sentiment shared by many citizens who have witnessed significant improvements in connectivity and public infrastructure over the past decade.
Naturally, opinions differ on whether the pace of development has been adequate or whether every promise has been fulfilled. Democracy thrives on such debate. Yet it becomes increasingly difficult for the Opposition to convince voters that “nothing has changed” when millions experience tangible improvements in everyday life—from better roads and expanded digital services to faster railway modernisation and improved public infrastructure.
This perhaps explains why repeated attempts to portray India as an economy in decline often fail to resonate with large sections of the electorate. While every economy faces challenges—including inflation, unemployment and global uncertainties—India has simultaneously emerged as one of the world’s fastest-growing major economies and an increasingly influential geopolitical player.
Equally contentious is the debate over foreign funding of non-governmental organisations. The Modi government has tightened enforcement of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), arguing that transparency and accountability in foreign funding are essential for national security and public confidence. Critics contend that these measures have also constrained legitimate civil society organisations. Like many public policy questions, this remains an area where vigorous democratic debate is both expected and necessary.
The Opposition has every constitutional right to question the government, scrutinise its decisions and expose shortcomings. Indeed, a strong Opposition is indispensable in any healthy democracy. However, opposition politics becomes less effective when it appears inconsistent or when previously supported policies are rejected solely because they are being implemented by political rivals.
As India moves towards another cycle of crucial Assembly elections before the 2029 Lok Sabha polls, the electorate is likely to judge political parties less by rhetoric and more by consistency, credibility and governance. Voters today have unprecedented access to information and increasingly compare present narratives with past positions.
Ultimately, democracy rewards conviction over contradiction. Governments must continue to be questioned. Equally, the Opposition must demonstrate that its criticism is grounded in principle rather than political expediency. The ethanol debate serves as a timely reminder that national interest should transcend partisan convenience, and that credibility, once lost through inconsistency, is not easily regained.
