Why put unnecessary strain on your society to get from a 90% reduction to a 100% reduction if there are other initiatives that can be more easily accomplished and make that 10% look like small peanuts in comparison?
The answer is no one is gonna actually do this and this specific 100% number is just Govt and Businesses cynically trying to bargain.
It's up to you to defend the 100% reduction number I'd say, which is the whole point I'm making.
Why not 99% for example?
Clearly this would have a larger impact than allowing 1% of cars sold to be hybrid or gas.
Now how about a reason you'd want 100% of cars to be electric and not 99? What about 98? Have you done any actual analysis here or are you just reflexively making the largest demands possible?
A hypothetical 10% of new cars being ICE eventually means only ~10% of gas stations survive, that’s just not enough. It’s vastly more efficient to do that in lockstep so people aren’t stuck with relatively new cars their unable to fuel which then get scrapped.
You seem to be mixing market forces with government mandate here a bit. Why not still allow 1% ICE and see how the market reacts? Maybe you're right and it would result in near-0 but why enforce 0 ICE?
It’s simply bad policy to create a situation where a lot of 5-15 year old cars get scrapped because nobody can find a gas station. The country is much better off when people scrapping cars because they can’t get gas are doing that to 20+ year old cars.
I haven't advocated for 100% of cars being electric; you appear to have me confused with someone else. You keep repeating this in every comment (to me and others) and try to hang responsibility for it on other people. It's sufficient to say you don't agree with the policy goal of the Indian government, rather than projecting it onto everyone you interact with.
It seems you already agree with this so why argue?