-Ramphal Kataria
Civilian Control or Convenient Silence? The Naravane Memoir Controversy
Abstract
The controversy surrounding former Army Chief General (Retd.) M.M. Naravane’s memoir Four Stars of Destiny has exposed deeper fissures in India’s parliamentary functioning and civil–military relations. The refusal of the government and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to permit discussion of excerpts—already available in the public domain through a detailed review in The Caravan—raises serious questions about selective application of parliamentary rules, erosion of the Speaker’s neutrality, and the avoidance of political accountability in matters of national security. This article argues that the issue at stake is not the legality of a memoir but the constitutional responsibility of political leadership in moments of military crisis, and Parliament’s diminishing capacity to interrogate executive power.
Introduction: When a Book Shuts Down Parliament
In February 2026, repeated disruptions and adjournments of Parliament followed Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s attempt to cite excerpts from Four Stars of Destiny, the unpublished (and briefly available) memoir of former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane. The excerpts, drawn from an extensive review by journalist Sushant Singh in The Caravan magazine, pertained to the Indian Army’s handling of the Rechin La/Kailash Range standoff in Eastern Ladakh on 31 August 2020.
What followed was extraordinary. The Defence Minister, the Home Minister, the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, and ultimately the Speaker of the Lok Sabha intervened to block discussion, arguing that the book was “unpublished” and therefore inadmissible under parliamentary rules. More strikingly, the Speaker ruled that even if the book were published, its contents could not be read in the House.
This episode invites a deeper examination of parliamentary procedure, civil–military doctrine, and the political management of truth in contemporary India.
Naravane’s Account and the Question of Political Direction
At the centre of the controversy is Naravane’s account of a critical moment during the 2020–21 India–China military standoff. According to the memoir—as summarised and quoted in The Caravan—Chinese tanks advanced towards Indian positions on the strategically significant Kailash Range. The Northern Army Commander sought guidance from Army Headquarters, which in turn sought political direction from the highest levels of government.
Naravane recounts that despite repeated calls to the Defence Minister, the National Security Adviser, and others, no clear directive was issued for over two hours. Eventually, the Defence Minister reportedly conveyed the Prime Minister’s message: “Jo uchit samjho, woh karo” (Do what you deem appropriate).
The significance of this account lies not in its dramatics but in its doctrinal implications. The Indian military operates under firm civilian control. Decisions involving escalation against another state—particularly a nuclear-armed adversary—are not discretionary military choices but political decisions. Delegating such responsibility, implicitly or explicitly, raises serious constitutional questions.
Civilian Control and the Limits of “Operational Freedom”
Successive governments have emphasised civilian supremacy over the armed forces as a cornerstone of Indian democracy. This principle has been repeatedly reaffirmed in practice, including during recent operations where political clearance was explicitly sought for military action.
Indeed, official narratives during later crises—such as Operation Sindoor—claimed that the armed forces were given “complete operational freedom.” Yet senior military officers subsequently indicated that delays in political decision-making had operational consequences, including loss of aircraft. The Prime Minister himself has acknowledged that critical military decisions are taken within the Cabinet Committee on Security.
Against this backdrop, Naravane’s account—whether fully accurate or contested—cannot be dismissed as a mere personal recollection. It directly engages with the question of political responsibility in moments of crisis.
Parliamentary Rules and Selective Enforcement
The government’s procedural objection relied primarily on Rule 349, which restricts references to materials not in the public domain. This argument is difficult to sustain.
First, The Caravan article is unequivocally in the public domain. Parliamentary practice has long allowed members to cite books, journals, and newspapers, subject to later authentication. Second, Rahul Gandhi physically produced the book in the House. The absence of a formal ban or notification under the Official Secrets Act further weakens the claim that the material was inadmissible.
The selective nature of this enforcement became evident when, shortly thereafter, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey read excerpts from a book critical of Jawaharlal Nehru—reportedly M.J. Akbar’s Nehru: A Political Biography—without objection. The contrast underscores how parliamentary rules are increasingly deployed not as neutral safeguards but as political instruments.
The Speaker and the Question of Institutional Neutrality
The Speaker’s intervention marked a departure from established parliamentary conventions. By ruling that even a published book could not be read in the House, the Chair effectively foreclosed debate rather than regulating it.
Equally significant was the refusal to allow The Caravan article to be placed on record for authentication. Parliamentary privilege exists precisely to enable representatives to scrutinise executive actions. Denying this opportunity transforms procedure into pre-emptive censorship.
Such conduct erodes the perception of the Speaker as an impartial guardian of the House and reinforces concerns about the shrinking space for opposition voices.
Delayed Review and Avoidable Crisis
The memoir was reportedly scheduled for release in April 2024. Nearly two years later, the Ministry of Defence has neither cleared nor formally rejected it. Indefinite review has become a mechanism of avoidance.
Had the government either approved the book with redactions or imposed a reasoned prohibition, the present controversy might have been avoided. Instead, delay has fuelled speculation and politicisation.
The precedent of Major General (Retd.) V.K. Singh’s prolonged legal battle under the Official Secrets Act has already cast a long shadow over military memoirs. Naravane’s case reinforces a chilling message: that truth, when politically inconvenient, is best left unpublished.
Media Silence and Democratic Consequences
While excerpts from the memoir circulate widely on social media, much of the mainstream print and electronic media has largely avoided sustained engagement with the issue. The result is a paradox where Parliament refuses debate, and the media declines amplification.
This convergence of institutional reticence weakens democratic accountability. When Parliament cannot debate matters of national security and political responsibility, and the media hesitates to interrogate power, public discourse is impoverished.
Conclusion: Beyond the Book
The controversy over Four Stars of Destiny is not fundamentally about a memoir. It is about Parliament’s capacity to question the executive, the political leadership’s responsibility in moments of military crisis, and the integrity of constitutional norms governing civil–military relations.
Even if Naravane’s account is disputed, the appropriate response in a democracy is debate, clarification, and accountability—not procedural silencing. The Defence Minister could have resolved the issue with a clear statement explaining what decision was taken on the night of 31 August 2020.
That opportunity was lost. What remains is a deeper concern: that Parliament is increasingly being managed not as a forum for truth-seeking but as a space for damage control.
References
1. Singh, Sushant (2026): “What Naravane’s Memoir Reveals about India’s China Crisis,” The Caravan, February.
2. Naravane, M.M. (forthcoming): Four Stars of Destiny. Penguin Random House (under review).
3. Lok Sabha Secretariat: Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, Rule 349.
4. Akbar, M.J. (1988): Nehru: A Political Biography. Penguin.
5. Official Secrets Act, 1923.
6. Army Rules, 1954.
No comments:
Post a Comment