In recent weeks, two issues have dominated public discourse in Mizoram. One is the terrible road condition between Buichali and Kawnpui, which has crippled the state’s access to fuel and other essential supplies. The other, surprisingly, is the Chief Minister’s car. But why would a car become such a talking point in a state plagued by larger infrastructure problems?
The controversy began when the Chief Minister, Lalduhoma, who had previously promised not to use an expensive vehicle if elected, was seen travelling in a new Toyota Innova. The car, which typically costs between ₹28 to ₹30 lakh, struck a nerve with many who remembered his campaign vow.
On Tuesday, July 29, ZPM spokesperson Lalrintluanga Sailo addressed the issue in a press conference. He said that the Chief Minister had indeed declared during the campaign that he would not ride in a costly vehicle, but after taking office, the vehicle previously used by his predecessor was found to be nearly 15 years old. The government, therefore, decided to purchase the Innova as a replacement.
Defending the move, Sailo added that the Toyota Innova is not a luxury vehicle. In fact, he remarked that “in other countries, this is a car fit for a woman to drop her children to soccer practice.”
He went on to cite the Chief Minister’s Z+ security category and the sensitive situation along the Myanmar border as reasons why such a vehicle was necessary. According to him, in light of escalating regional tensions, “it is not ideal to think of a cheap car for our state leader.” He even noted that the Chief Minister could have requested a bulletproof vehicle, but chose not to, which, he argued, should be praised.
Not everyone agreed.
The MNF Party quickly responded on July 30, questioning Sailo’s logic. “If they believe this car is what women use for soccer runs, then we ask them what they consider to be an expensive car,” said Lalremruata Chhangte, Chairman of the MNF’s Publicity Board. He added that Lalduhoma had broken his campaign promise by purchasing a car worth ₹29,79,000 on July 17, and instead of apologising or asking for understanding, the ZPM was now justifying the move in a way that insults public intelligence. Chhangte also cited a GAD notification from June 28, 2016, which stated that no government vehicle should exceed ₹15 lakh in cost.
The backlash extended beyond political circles. A professor who preferred to remain anonymous said, “If they consider this car ordinary, like the ones women drive to soccer in other countries, they should at least build roads that match those countries. We deserve more from the taxes we pay. Comparing the USA to Mizoram is not only irrelevant, it’s demeaning.”
At the heart of the controversy is not the car itself, but the growing frustration among voters who had placed their trust in ZPM’s promises of change. After three decades of alternating rule by the MNF and Congress, both plagued by accusations of inefficiency and broken promises, the ZPM emerged as a fresh alternative. It branded itself as the “people’s government” and vowed to usher in a new era of transparency, frugality, and integrity.
During the campaign, ZPM leaders, including the Chief Minister, had made it a point to declare they would practise austerity. They vowed there would be no unnecessary government spending, and expensive cars were cited specifically as examples of what they would avoid. In this context, the decision to purchase a nearly ₹30 lakh vehicle, especially when the public is struggling due to fuel shortages and unmotorable roads, appears tone-deaf.
What made matters worse was the spokesperson’s comment about the car being suited for women. In a state where patriarchy still dominates and women drivers are relatively few, such a statement is not only outdated but deeply problematic. The underlying suggestion that a car driven by women is inherently less valuable or less “worthy” of scrutiny is troubling. It reinforces gender stereotypes in a society that has yet to achieve gender parity.
Ultimately, this controversy reflects a deeper disconnect between the government and the people it claims to serve. The problem is not whether the Chief Minister should ride in comfort or safety. It is that when he promised not to, and when his government campaigned on that very promise, people expected them to mean it.
In a state grappling with broken roads, unreliable infrastructure, and now disillusionment with its newest government, a Chief Minister’s car has become more than just a vehicle. It has become a symbol of promises made, and perhaps, promises broken.
Also Read: Why experts are flagging technical flaws, legal gaps in Teesta Dam rebuild plan
The truth is that this car model and its design is indeed popular among women in other countries, such as developed countries, where the majority of owners are women. Although the car wasn’t designed specifically for women, it has attracted a predominantly female ownership. Many men might not prefer driving this model due to its design, which some find more suited to women. So, when the ZPM spokesperson said that this car is suited for women, meaning indeed it is popular among women in other countries, which is the truth. And he is talking about the design. However, its suitability may vary in Mizoram.
The key point is that this car isn’t a luxury vehicle or designed for high-profile individuals like Chief Ministers. Yet, the decision to purchase it was likely made due to budget constraints.
Secondly, promises can become outdated or impractical as time passes. The CM’s promise to not purchase new cars or expensive ones may no longer be relevant after a certain period. It’s understandable that they didn’t buy new cars at the start of their term, but purchasing one after a year and a half seems reasonable, especially if their current vehicles required frequent repairs.
You can’t stick to the same old car when it’s no longer fit for your needs or business. In such cases, it’s better to get a new car that can help you achieve your goals more efficiently. Sometimes, practicality takes precedence over promises made under different circumstances.
Finally, as a journalist, it’s essential to remain impartial and not act as an advocate by presenting a one-sided view that blames others. Instead, consider interviewing both sides and writing an article that includes both positive and negative perspectives. Your current approach, focusing only on the negatives, can exacerbate the situation.