When Silence Becomes Strategy: A Memoir, a Parliament in Uproar, and the Burden of Unmade Decisions

When Silence Becomes Strategy: A Memoir, a Parliament in Uproar, and the Burden of Unmade Decisions

The controversy surrounding Four Stars of Destiny, the unpublished memoir of former Indian Army Chief General Manoj Mukund Naravane, has evolved into more than a dispute over a delayed book. It has become a moment of political reckoning one that has exposed deep anxieties within the Indian state about leadership, accountability, and the delicate balance between political authority and military command during moments of national crisis.

Sarah Rasul Taus Banihali

The memoir itself follows a familiar trajectory. Written after retirement and submitted through established clearance procedures, it reflects on nearly four decades of military service, including Naravane’s tenure as Chief of Army Staff during the tense military stand-off with China in eastern Ladakh in 2020. Such accounts are neither unusual nor unprecedented. What is unusual is the prolonged uncertainty surrounding its publication and the defensive posture adopted once its contents entered public debate.


The matter reached a political flashpoint when Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi quoted from the manuscript during a debate in the Lok Sabha. The passages referred to a critical moment on August 31, 2020, when Chinese armoured units advanced towards Rechin La. According to Naravane’s account, he sought clear political direction on whether the Indian Army should respond militarily. After consultations at the highest levels of government, he was informed that the army should act as it deemed appropriate.


This detail lies at the heart of the controversy. The issue is not tactical judgment, but constitutional responsibility. Decisions involving the use of force against a rival nuclear power are, by their very nature, political decisions. They require civilian leadership to assume responsibility for escalation, restraint, and consequence. To leave such a decision entirely to the military, however capable its leadership, is not a sign of confidence—it is a retreat from accountability.


Rahul Gandhi’s intervention focused squarely on this principle. His remarks were not directed against the armed forces, nor framed as a critique of operational competence. Instead, he posed a fundamental question: what is the role of political leadership in moments of national peril? Outside Parliament, he articulated his charge bluntly—that a leader who avoids making decisions in a crisis fails the basic test of leadership itself.


The government’s response was immediate yet revealing. Senior ministers objected not to the substance of the claim, but to its procedure. They challenged the legitimacy of quoting from an unpublished book, questioned the authenticity of the excerpts, and accused the Opposition of misleading the House. Parliamentary proceedings were disrupted and eventually adjourned, not because the claims were disproven, but because they were deemed procedurally improper.


What remained conspicuously absent was a substantive rebuttal. At no point did the government categorically deny that political direction had been withheld. Nor did it offer an alternative account of events. The debate was redirected towards technicalities, allowing the core question—whether civilian leadership had decisively exercised its authority—to remain unanswered.


This pattern of response reveals a broader weakness in the government’s approach to crisis management. Strong administrations confront uncomfortable questions directly; they clarify, defend, or accept responsibility. Here, the instinct appeared to be one of containment rather than engagement. Silence, framed as procedure, became a shield against scrutiny.


The continued withholding of Four Stars of Destiny has only reinforced this impression. The book, once publicly listed, quietly vanished from circulation. The explanation that it awaits official clearance has grown less persuasive with time. If inaccuracies exist, they could be corrected. If sensitivities remain, they could be addressed through redaction. Prolonged suppression suggests not concern for security, but unease with the implications of the narrative itself.


At stake is more than a memoir. The episode touches upon the health of civil–military relations in a democratic system. When political leadership hesitates to provide clear direction, it shifts the burden of decision-making onto military commanders, exposing them to political fallout for choices that should properly belong to elected authority. Over time, such ambiguity corrodes institutional clarity and weakens the principle of civilian supremacy—not through overt interference, but through abdication.


Rahul Gandhi’s role in forcing this issue into the open has therefore been consequential. Regardless of partisan alignments, his challenge compelled a public examination of how power is exercised at the highest levels. It exposed the fragility of a governance model that places great emphasis on image, decisiveness, and narrative control, yet appears uncomfortable when confronted with scrutiny over actual decision-making.


There is also a moral dimension to this debate. Soldiers are trained to act under orders, to accept risk, and to bear consequence. Political leaders, by contrast, are entrusted with the responsibility to decide when such risks are justified. When that responsibility is diluted or deferred, the ethical balance between command and sacrifice is disturbed.


In this context, the words of Allama Iqbal resonate with particular force:

“جس کھیت سے دہقاں کو میسر نہ ہو روزی

اس کھیت کے ہر خوشۂ گندم کو جلا دو”

A system that fails to nourish responsibility and truth, however abundant it may appear, ultimately hollows itself from within.


Whether Four Stars of Destiny is published or not, its impact is already evident. It has revealed a state uneasy with its own record, a leadership wary of uncomfortable questions, and an opposition willing to press where answers are lacking. In democratic life, history cannot be postponed indefinitely. When power hesitates to confront its past, it signals not strength, but uncertainty. And it is that uncertainty—more than any memoir—that now stands exposed.


The writer is a researcher, presenter and content writer can be reached:   rasoolsara134@gmail.com

 

Facebook Twitter

Related Detail