A dramatic upheaval in the Lok Sabha on February 2, 2026 saw Parliament repeatedly adjourned after Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi attempted to quote from an unpublished memoir attributed to former Army Chief General Manoj Mukund Naravane during the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address. The incident has set off intense political debate over parliamentary rules, national security disclosure and political accountability.
Gandhi sought to reference excerpts from what he described as Naravane’s unpublished book titled Four Stars of Destiny specifically claims about India’s stand‑off with China in Doklam and the 2020 Galwan Valley clashes. He held up a Caravan magazine article that had quoted portions of the manuscript, arguing its relevance to national security and political leadership. However, senior ministers including Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Home Minister Amit Shah and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju strongly objected, asserting that Parliament cannot entertain citations from material that has not been officially published or authenticated.
Speaker Om Birla intervened, invoking Rules 349 and 353 of the Lok Sabha’s Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business to bar Gandhi from reading the excerpts. Rule 349 restricts members from reading books, newspapers or letters unless connected to House business, while Rule 353 prohibits unvetted defamatory or incriminatory statements. Though experts note that Parliament has often quoted external reports, the Chair ruled the unpublished status of Naravane’s memoir made the reference non‑compliant.
The disruption plunged the House into chaos, with repeated adjournments first until afternoon and then for the remainder of the day as tempers flared across party lines. supporters of Gandhi including Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav argued that issues related to China’s actions on the border deserved parliamentary scrutiny. Critics from the ruling side accused Gandhi of wasting time and flouting parliamentary norms.
Outside Parliament, Gandhi defended his stance, insisting his references were authentic, based on a published article. His sister, Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, also rejected claims that the action was intended to defame the Indian Army. However, the incident has reignited debates on how sensitive defence related accounts especially those by retired officials should be handled in public forums, and on the boundaries of acceptable material in parliamentary debate.
Meanwhile, the unpublished status of Four Stars of Destiny remains at the centre of the controversy. Naravane’s manuscript reportedly awaits clearance from the Ministry of Defence a standard process for works involving operational and strategic details to ensure no sensitive information is released prematurely. This has underscored tensions between transparency, national security, and political maneuvering in India’s democratic institutions.
As the Budget Session continues, this row is likely to shape discussions on procedural norms and the scope of parliamentary debate in matters of defence and foreign affairs highlighting broader questions about how Parliament handles classified or sensitive material in the public interest.
