Share the post “Mohsin Naqvi Explained the Buggy Ride—But Completely Missed the Question”
Pakistan did not struggle for independence so that, 79 years later, public servants could recreate the visual language of the colonial rulers and then defend the spectacle as a matter of scheduling convenience. The controversy was never merely about which two men occupied the ceremonial buggy in Islamabad. It was about why any minister, chief guest, police chief or administrative officer in a debt-stressed republic believed such imperial theatre belonged at an Independence Day celebration in the first place.
Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi has acknowledged that the incident was “not appropriate,” but his clarification has made the contradiction more visible rather than resolving it. According to his statement published on X, he and the unidentified chief guest were delayed because President Asif Ali Zardari was meeting Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. The audience had reportedly been waiting since 5:00 pm, and at approximately 6:00 pm the Islamabad officials were instructed to begin the programme without them.
Naqvi said the buggy had originally been arranged for the chief guest and that the Inspector General of Islamabad Police and Islamabad’s Chief Commissioner initially resisted beginning the ceremony in the senior guests’ absence. They proceeded, he maintained, only after receiving specific instructions intended to spare the public any further delay. The Express Tribune’s account independently records the same explanation.
That may explain the chronology. It does not justify the culture.
The Buggy Was Not the Question
The public was not primarily asking why the Inspector General and Chief Commissioner occupied seats supposedly reserved for somebody else. Pakistanis were asking why a ceremonial carriage, complete with an attendant holding an umbrella over senior officials, had been inserted into a celebration of freedom from colonial rule.
That distinction matters. If an object or ceremony is inappropriate because it converts public office into a performance of inherited social superiority, changing its occupant does not make it appropriate. A minister cannot cure the symbolism by saying that the wrong officials sat in the right buggy. The deeper objection is that the entire arrangement represented the wrong idea of public authority.
Naqvi’s explanation therefore answers an administrative question while evading the democratic one.
| Question raised by the controversy | Clarification offered | What remains unanswered |
|---|---|---|
| Why did the programme begin without the expected guests? | The crowd had waited for approximately one hour and officers were instructed to proceed. | Why was the event not designed to begin punctually without depending upon VIP arrivals? |
| Why were the IG and Chief Commissioner in the buggy? | The buggy was meant for the chief guest and was used after the senior guests were delayed. | Why should any unelected or elected office-holder receive royal-style carriage protocol? |
| Were the officers acting independently? | Naqvi says they initially resisted and followed instructions. | Which written protocol authorised their use of ceremonial arrangements intended for another office-holder? |
| Was public convenience protected? | Starting the programme prevented further delay. | Were road closures, access restrictions and the hour-long wait themselves compatible with public convenience? |
| Was the spectacle consistent with austerity? | No financial breakdown has been publicly supplied. | What did the ceremony, deployment, transport and protocol cost taxpayers? |
The facts should not be distorted. There is presently no publicly established evidence in the cited reporting that the two officials committed corruption or illegally spent a specific amount of money merely by riding in the carriage. Nor is every civil servant arrogant, corrupt or detached from the people. Sweeping abuse against the entire bureaucracy is intellectually lazy and unfair to officers who serve honestly under difficult conditions.
But rejecting collective abuse does not mean accepting institutional absurdity. Public criticism of visible privilege is legitimate, particularly when the state itself is officially instructing departments to reduce unnecessary expenditure.
