The government’s determined bid to block Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi from debating revelations by former Army Chief Gen. Manoj Naravane in his unpublished memoir yet again underscores the reality of an elected government unwilling to submit to parliamentary scrutiny or explain itself to the people.
In Four Stars of Destiny, Gen. Naravane recounts that on the night of August 31, 2020, when Chinese tanks advanced on the Kailash Range, he sought clear political orders from the government but was told by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh to “do whatever you deem appropriate.”
The former Army Chief states that this tepid response shifted the entire onus of a potential war onto him. He was justified in feeling that way.
At that critical juncture, the defence forces looked to the political leadership for clarity and direction.
What the Army received instead was a vague reply designed to serve as a ruse if things went bad. The contrast was stark — public displays of machismo accompanied by indecision in moments demanding political resolve.
By attempting to quote from the book, Rahul Gandhi was performing his role as leader of the Opposition. Gen. Naravane’s account of the 2020 standoff with China should not merely be a matter of public record; it deserves serious debate.
Since the book remains under Defence Ministry review, Gandhi relied on excerpts published in a magazine.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Home Minister Amit Shah blocked the references, arguing that quoting from an unpublished work violates parliamentary rules and could harm national security.
Blocking discussion on a former Army Chief’s account of a border confrontation with India’s most formidable neighbour amounts to evading legislative oversight on national security.
Procedural technicalities are being deployed to avoid a public accounting of the government’s handling of the crisis, particularly amid allegations that unspecified tracts of territory were occupied by Chinese forces.
The refusal to engage with Gen. Naravane’s narrative raises uncomfortable but necessary questions.
Do political leaders entrusted with defence possess the resolve required for difficult decisions?
Do they view themselves as policymakers responsible for guiding the armed forces, or as observers while professionals handle crises?
Would the response attributed to Rajnath Singh inspire confidence among soldiers operating under extreme conditions?
While Gen. Naravane’s revelations suggest a government reluctant to confront difficult questions, the effort to block parliamentary debate reinforces that perception.
The government’s discomfort with the memoir extends beyond the China standoff.
It also arises from the author’s account of the introduction of the Agnipath recruitment scheme, which he suggests was implemented without adequate regard for the Army’s professional inputs.
Naravane notes that the Army had originally proposed a limited Tour of Duty programme for a small percentage of recruits.
According to his account, this proposal was substantially altered by the Prime Minister’s Office into a contractual model that reportedly surprised sections of the military leadership.
The result is a time-bound recruitment system whose ability to produce seasoned soldiers remains contested.
By preventing parliamentary debate, the government has avoided a necessary discussion on whether Agnipath was introduced despite reservations within the armed forces.
Whether in the context of Agnipath or Ladakh, the episode strengthens the perception of a government that projects national security strength symbolically while avoiding substantive accountability and transparent decision-making.