When former Army Chief General Manoj Mukund Naravane went on record in an exclusive interview with Republic TV to clarify that excerpts attributed to his yet-to-be-published book were unauthenticated—and that the manuscript itself is still awaiting mandatory clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs—it should have settled the matter. Instead, it has exposed something far more troubling: a disturbing casualness with facts inside the Lok Sabha. The controversy stems from the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, citing alleged portions of that unpublished book on the floor of the House, insinuating serious lapses relating to India’s handling of China. The problem is elementary yet profound: the book is not published, not cleared, and not authenticated. Even the publisher has publicly stated that it remains pending government clearance—a mandatory protocol for retired senior military officers writing on sensitive operational matters. Yet, in Parliament, these supposed “excerpts” were presented as though they were verified fact. General Naravane’s response was measured but unmistakably sharp. He declined to dignify every political allegation with a rebuttal, remarking that anyone can say anything. On the sensational claim that India ceded 2,000 sq km to China after the Galwan clash, he responded with biting sarcasm—perhaps it would be better to ask China how much land it occupied. In one line, he dismantled the insinuation without theatrics. The contrast is stark: a soldier exercising restraint; a politician stretching inference into accusation. This episode is not merely political sparring. It raises serious questions of parliamentary propriety. Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha clearly prohibits members from making allegations of a defamatory or incriminatory nature without prior notice and authentication. Rule 380 authorises the Speaker to expunge objectionable remarks. Speaker Om Birla has repeatedly underscored the need for adherence to procedure. Ignoring these safeguards is not robust opposition. It is procedural defiance. Compounding the issue is the reliance on reported material from The Caravan, which was allegedly cited to buttress the claim. A magazine article—however detailed—does not become parliamentary evidence unless authenticated. Parliament is not a place to amplify speculative reporting; it is where verified facts must withstand scrutiny. Now, a BJP Member of Parliament, Nishikant Dube, has reportedly moved a resolution accusing Rahul Gandhi of misleading the House. When the second phase of the Budget Session resumes on March 1, the matter could escalate into a formal debate.
Under Article 105 of the Constitution, Parliament enjoys the power to regulate its proceedings and punish for breach of privilege. If the House determines that it was deliberately misled, it may treat the matter as a breach of privilege. The Lok Sabha retains the authority to admonish, suspend, or even expel a member through a vote of the House. Expulsion, while rare, is not unprecedented. And while expulsion itself does not automatically translate into long-term disqualification, legal consequences can follow if subsequent judicial proceedings result in a conviction. Under Article 102 of the Constitution, read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, conviction leading to imprisonment of two years or more triggers disqualification. Whether the ruling party chooses to push the matter to that extreme remains to be seen. But the larger issue transcends partisan politics. National security is not a debating society topic. Allegations involving the Army and territorial sovereignty must be handled with documentary precision, not rhetorical flourish. The Leader of the Opposition carries institutional weight; his words echo beyond Parliament—to the armed forces, to foreign capitals, and to the public. Opposition is essential in a democracy. But credibility is indispensable. If unauthenticated material can be elevated to parliamentary record without consequence, then rules become ornamental, and privilege becomes a shield for political theatre. General Naravane has clarified his position. The facts, at least on publication and authentication, are clear. The question now is whether Parliament will defend its own standards—or allow them to be diluted in the name of political combat. Because when truth becomes negotiable inside the House, institutional dignity becomes collateral damage.
