Accountability is not antagonism

Thecontroversy surrounding ‘Four Stars of Destiny’, the forthcoming memoir of former Army chief Manoj Mukund Naravane, has raised questions that go well beyond the contents of a single book. Even before its official release, the memoir has triggered political ripples, administrative scrutiny, and public debate.

In a democracy, books are meant to provoke thought not fear. When a military leader, who served during one of India’s most sensitive border crises, puts his experiences on record, the appropriate institutional response is engagement, not anxiety.

The Galwan shadow:

The backdrop to the present debate is the violent clash in June 2020, where 20 Indian soldiers were martyred. The incident marked the most serious escalation on the Line of Actual Control in decades. In the days that followed, the Prime Minister stated that no one had intruded into Indian territory, a formulation that has since been interpreted and debated in multiple ways.

If General Naravane’s account offers details of operational decisions, communication gaps, or the civil-military interface during that period including developments in areas such as it would contribute to a historical record that the country deserves. Democracies mature by documenting crises honestly, not by suppressing uncomfortable details.

India’s strength lies in its robust tradition of civilian control over the military combined with professional autonomy in operational matters. The relationship between political leadership and military commanders is not merely procedural; it is constitutional. If questions are being raised about clarity of directives or political oversight during a critical juncture, they warrant institutional clarification.

Across established democracies from the United States to the United Kingdom, retired generals have written candid memoirs. These works are often subject to security vetting but are rarely treated as political provocations. Transparency, within reasonable limits, enhances institutional credibility.

The anxiety surrounding this memoir risks creating the impression that narrative control is being prioritised over public understanding.

The question of process:

Meanwhile, the publisher, Penguin, has clarified that no official retail copies have yet been released. The Ministry of Defence has indicated that due process is underway. It is a standard practice for manuscripts dealing with national security to undergo review and legal vetting. Advance reading copies marked “not for sale,” are also common in publishing.

The appearance of a hardbound copy in Parliament displayed by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has added a political dimension. Yet the deeper issue is not about who accessed a copy first; it is about why a book has generated apprehension before it has even reached readers.

Accountability is not antagonism:

Criticism and introspection about policy decisions during border crises should not be equated with undermining national security. Indeed, the opposite is true. A nation confident in its institutions allows scrutiny. The 1962 war with China led to internal assessments such as the portions of which remain classified, but whose existence symbolised institutional learning.

Similarly, debates over structural reforms like the need for informed discussion about the future of India’s armed forces. When experienced commanders’ articulate concerns or perspectives, they enrich rather than weaken democratic discourse. To characterise every uncomfortable revelation as politically motivated is to conflate patriotism with conformity. In a parliamentary democracy, questions belong in Parliament. If opposition leaders seek clarifications regarding statements made during the Galwan crisis or the government’s handling of the situation, the constitutional response is debated. Avoiding discussion risks deepening mistrust.

A confident executive does not fear documentation. It welcomes it as part of the democratic archive.

Fear of image or faith in institutions?

At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: is the apprehension about national security, or about political optics? If the facts align with the government’s stated position, the book’s publication should pose no threat. If there are divergences, transparency offers an opportunity for explanation.

India’s armed forces command deep public respect. That respect is strengthened not diminished when their experiences are recorded with candour. Shielding citizens from informed debate in the name of unity risks infantilising the electorate.

Strong militaries and strong democracies are not adversaries; they are allies. The publication of Four Stars of Destiny should be treated not as a crisis but as a contribution to national memory.

In the long arc of history, it is not suppression but openness that safeguards institutional legitimacy. Democracies do not fear books. They read them, debate them, and grow stronger in the process.