Explained: Why Naravane’s memoir in Rahul’s hand wasn’t quotable in Lok Sabha

New Delhi: Rahul Gandhi holding up Gen M.M. Naravane’s memoir in the Lok Sabha settled one question for television cameras: the book exists. The Congress party appeared to believe this was perhaps enough to create the impression that its narrative against the government also existed.

That gap between existence and admissibility has now turned into a fresh “quoting wars” template in the House, with contested texts flashed for effect, blocked by procedure, and then read out outside the gates.

This time, the backdrop was Four Stars of Destiny, Naravane’s unreleased memoir, which Gandhi cited during the Motion of Thanks debate to target the Modi government over the 2020 Ladakh standoff.

The Treasury benches objected, arguing the material was unpublished and unauthenticated, and should not be read into the record.

The Speaker invoked Rule 349 of the Lok Sabha’s Rules of Procedure, which governs what members can read or cite while speaking.

Rule 349(i) states that a member “shall not read any book, newspaper or letter” except in connection with the business of the House, a restriction Speakers have historically used to prevent speeches from turning into readings of outside material without the Chair’s permission.

The rule’s defenders say it forces members to authenticate documents and prevents disputed texts from being smuggled into proceedings as “facts” under parliamentary privilege.

The Opposition’s counter has been that the government is using procedure to choke debate.

The government’s line has been that it is stopping the House from being misled by material that is neither released nor verifiable to all members.

Those positions have hardened into a pattern now visible across multiple disruptions, session by session: a member insists on quoting a contested source, the Chair invokes procedure, the member persists, the House descends into protest, and the same claim is then carried outside the House, where the Speaker’s ruling has no force.

That is exactly what played out in this case. After being disallowed in the Lok Sabha, Gandhi held up a physical copy of Naravane’s memoir in the Parliament complex and cited it to allege that Prime Minister Narendra Modi “shed responsibility” during the Ladakh crisis.

The message “jo uchit samjho woh karo”, he argued, amounted to the Prime Minister passing the buck.

Senior ministers objected inside the House, questioning whether the material Gandhi was quoting was officially published and authenticated.

The ruling side also argued that even if a copy exists, that does not make it admissible for quotation in Parliament.

A book can exist as a copy, a typescript, or a proof, while still failing the public-domain and authentication tests that parliamentary practice demands before a text is read into the record.

The controversy has also reopened a parallel question that sits outside partisan shouting: why is a former Army chief’s memoir still unreleased?

The book was earlier slated for publication in April 2024, based on pre-order announcements, but remains “maturing”, and Naravane has said the next step is with the publisher and the Ministry of Defence.

Business Standard earlier reported that the Army and the MoD were reviewing the manuscript, and that the publisher had been asked not to share excerpts or soft copies until the review was over.

This has been cited by those arguing this is a standard clearance pipeline for sensitive military material, not a simple “ban vs no ban” binary.

As the procedural fight raged, the book’s retail footprint became a story by itself.

Searches on Amazon, Flipkart and Penguin Random House India’s website showed the title could not be found or was listed as unavailable, hours after Gandhi displayed a copy and quoted from it.

Gandhi claimed the book was “available abroad” and “published abroad”, alleging that the government was not allowing it to be published in India.

The book’s online unavailability, whether due to clearance, publishing delays, or retailer listing choices, has since been folded into the political battle, with the Congress projecting suppression and the BJP projecting procedural discipline and national security caution.