Recent developments have renewed debate over the Modi government’s handling of national security, particularly in relation to the India–China standoff in eastern Ladakh. The discussion follows the publication of excerpts from the forthcoming memoir of former Chief of Army Staff General Manoj Naravane, which raise questions about decision-making during a critical moment in 2020.
Over the years, the government and its supporters have consistently argued that the armed forces have been granted operational autonomy in matters of national security. The excerpts, published by The Caravan, have prompted renewed scrutiny of this claim and of the broader civil–military decision-making process during periods of heightened tension.
Excerpts From Naravane’s Memoir
General Naravane, who served as Chief of Army Staff from 2019 to 2022, recounts an incident from the night of 31 August 2020, several months after the Galwan Valley clashes. According to the published excerpts from Four Stars of Destiny, Chinese armoured units moved close to a strategic pass near the Kailash Range in eastern Ladakh.
The memoir states that as the situation escalated, General Naravane sought explicit instructions from the civilian leadership regarding the use of force. He reportedly contacted Defence Minister Rajnath Singh at around 9:25 pm to seek authorisation to open fire if required. The response, as described in the excerpts, was that the matter would be discussed with the Prime Minister, after which the Army Chief was asked to call back.
By the time further communication took place, Chinese tanks had reportedly advanced further. The eventual response conveyed to the Army Chief, according to the memoir, was that he should act as he deemed appropriate.
Civilian Control and Military Responsibility
The account has triggered debate over the interpretation of “operational freedom” granted to the armed forces. Military doctrine places the authority to initiate or escalate armed conflict with the civilian leadership, not the uniformed services. Analysts note that ambiguous instructions during moments of crisis can complicate accountability in the event of escalation.
General Naravane’s account suggests that had hostilities intensified, responsibility for the outcome could have fallen primarily on the military leadership. The episode has therefore been cited by commentators as raising questions about clarity in civil–military communication during sensitive situations involving China.
Parliamentary Developments
Following the publication of the excerpts, Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi attempted to raise the matter in Parliament on 2 February by referring to the former Army Chief’s unpublished memoir. His intervention was objected to by senior government ministers, including Amit Shah, Rajnath Singh, and Kiren Rijiju, who argued that an unpublished book under official review could not be cited as an authoritative source.
Speaker Om Birla upheld the objection and directed Rahul Gandhi to discontinue his remarks. Subsequent proceedings were marked by repeated disruptions, leading to the suspension of eight opposition Members of Parliament.
In a subsequent statement, the Speaker said he had advised the Prime Minister not to attend the House, citing security considerations. Opposition parties criticised the decision, questioning the circumstances under which it was taken.
Opposition Allegations
The Congress party alleged that the disruption of proceedings was intended to prevent a discussion on the contents of General Naravane’s memoir and the government’s handling of the China situation. According to opposition leaders, Rahul Gandhi had intended to directly question the Prime Minister on the issue.
The government has maintained that the memoir remains under review and has not been officially cleared for publication. Critics have argued that prolonged review processes risk limiting public discussion on matters of public interest, while the government has defended such scrutiny on grounds of national security.
Additional Issues Raised in the Memoir
According to the excerpts reported so far, General Naravane also refers to the period following the Galwan clashes, stating that permission for retaliatory action was limited and subject to strict conditions of self-defence. This account contrasts with public statements emphasising a firm stance on border security.
The memoir also reportedly describes differences between the Army and the Defence Ministry during disengagement talks with China. The Army, according to Naravane, favoured maintaining formal written records of negotiations to prevent future disputes, a proposal that was not accepted by the civilian authorities.
On the Agniveer recruitment scheme, the former Army Chief states that the Army had initially suggested a smaller proportion of short-term recruits. The final structure of the scheme, which includes a higher percentage of temporary personnel, was introduced by the government. No detailed public record of the deliberations leading to this decision has been released.
Censorship and Disclosure
The controversy has renewed discussion on the absence of a comprehensive disclosure framework in India governing the release of official records and memoirs by former officials. Unlike some other democracies, India does not have a fixed timeline for the declassification of sensitive material, leaving such decisions largely to executive discretion.
Previous governments have also restricted publications by former officials, citing security concerns. The current debate has highlighted the tension between transparency, accountability, and national security considerations.
Conclusion
The excerpts from General Naravane’s forthcoming memoir have introduced new perspectives into the ongoing discussion on India’s national security decision-making, particularly in relation to China. While the government has questioned the appropriateness of citing an unpublished work, opposition parties and commentators have argued that the issues raised merit parliamentary and public scrutiny.
As the memoir awaits official clearance, the episode underscores broader questions about civil–military relations, parliamentary oversight, and transparency in matters of national security.
---
Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur; co-founder TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media
Comments