When National Security Becomes a Soundbite

The recent uproar in Parliament over a reported excerpt from Four Stars of Destiny, an unpublished memoir by former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane, offers a familiar reminder: national security is often discussed most loudly when it is least understood.

At the centre of the controversy is an incident allegedly described in the book—one that reportedly pertains to a perceived Chinese movement across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Eastern Ladakh on the night of 31 August 2020. The manuscript, it is said, has remained unpublished for over fifteen months, pending clearance from the Ministry of Defence, owing to the sensitivity of certain operational details.

In theory, the public is entitled to ask questions about decision-making during border incidents. In practice, however, such questions must be framed with an understanding of how the military, the government, and diplomatic agreements intersect—especially under conditions of uncertainty, time pressure, and escalation risk.

Decision-making under constraints is not weakness

According to accounts available in the public domain, the episode involved telephonic communication between then Northern Army Commander Lt Gen Yogesh Joshi and the Army Chief regarding reports of Chinese tanks and infantry columns moving towards the Kailash Range area. General Naravane is believed to have informed the Defence Minister, and the matter reportedly reached the Prime Minister, who is said to have advised that the Army handle the matter as deemed appropriate.

Some critics have interpreted this as a lack of direction. But that interpretation conveniently ignores a crucial reality: operational responses at the LAC are shaped not merely by intent or political will, but by established protocols and bilateral understandings.

One of the most significant among them is the Sino–Indian agreement of 29 November 1996, which restricts the use of firearms in areas close to the LAC. It exists precisely to prevent tactical incidents from spiralling into strategic crises. That agreement—and the broader logic of escalation control—means military commanders do not always have unlimited freedom to respond with force, even when confronted with provocations.

And the consequences of this framework are not theoretical. They were tragically visible in Galwan Valley, where 19 Indian soldiers lost their lives in a brutal hand-to-hand clash in which firearms were not used. In that aftermath, every commander and policymaker knows that even a single night of miscalculation can carry irreversible costs.

If there was confusion, policy must be examined—not politicised

A reported movement involving armour and infantry would naturally demand vigilance and readiness. But the choice to use firepower carries consequences: violation of established agreements, escalation into a wider military confrontation, and the triggering of a chain of actions that cannot be easily reversed.

That is precisely why professional military leadership may seek government-level clarity. That is not cowardice. It is responsible command. It is also why governments, in turn, often defer tactical execution to trained professionals once strategic boundaries are understood.

Reports later suggested that the perceived intrusion did not escalate, and communication between commanders may have helped clarify intent. If so, that outcome reflects the quiet work of deterrence, readiness, and crisis management—none of which is designed for theatrical political consumption.

The uncomfortable truth about defence memoirs

There is also a separate issue that deserves attention: the publication of defence-related memoirs is not merely a literary exercise. Senior officers who have held the highest commands possess information that can affect diplomacy, operations, and institutional credibility. Government clearance is not a formality—it is an established safeguard.

When unpublished manuscripts or sensitive excerpts enter public circulation before clearance, the damage is not limited to reputations. It can cloud public understanding, politicise professional decisions, and risk exposing the very frameworks that keep conflict contained.

The question we should be asking

The real question is not whether one statement in a memoir offers a convenient political angle. The real question is whether India’s operational constraints at the LAC need a structured policy review—especially when agreements made in an earlier era do not always fit today’s realities.

If the episode raises concerns about how frontline forces are expected to respond under restrictive rules of engagement, that is a legitimate debate. But such debates must be conducted with seriousness and responsibility—not reduced to partisan theatre.

National security cannot be treated as a talking point. It is a domain where caution is often competence, restraint is often strategy, and silence is sometimes the most professional response of all.

The Three Laughing Mystics Of China

In one of his discourses, Osho tells a remarkable story.

I have heard about three Chinese mystics. Nobody knows their names now, and nobody ever knew their names. They were known only as the "Three Laughing Saints" because they never did anything else; they simply laughed.

These three people were really beautiful - laughing, with their bellies shaking. And then it would become an infection and others would start laughing. The whole marketplace would laugh.

These three people were really beautiful - laughing, with their bellies shaking.
When just a few moments before, it was an ugly place where people were thinking only of money, suddenly these three mad people came and changed the quality of the whole marketplace. Now they had forgotten that they had come to purchase and sell. Nobody bothered about greed. For a few seconds a new world opened.

They travelled all over China, from place to place, from village to village, just helping people to laugh.

They travelled all over China, from place to place, from village to village, just helping people to laugh. Sad people, angry people, greedy people, jealous people - they all started laughing with them. And many felt the key - you can be transformed.

Then, in one village it happened that one of the three died. The village people gathered and they said, "Now there will be trouble. Now we have to see how they laugh. Their friend has died; they must weep."

But when they came, the two were dancing, laughing and celebrating the death. The village people said,

"Now this is too much. When a man is dead it is profane to laugh and dance."

They said, "The whole life we laughed with him. How can we give him the last send-off with anything else? We have to laugh, we have to enjoy, we have to celebrate. This is the only farewell that is possible for a man who has laughed his whole life. We don't see that he is dead. How can laughter die? How can life die?"


Then the body was to be burned, and the village people said, "We will give him a bath as the ritual prescribes." But those two friends said, "No, our friend has said, 'Don't perform any ritual and don't change my clothes and don't give me a bath. You just put me as I am on the burning pyre.' So we have to follow his instructions."

Laughter is eternal, life is eternal, celebration continues. Existence is continuous, it is a continuum.

And then, suddenly, there was a great happening. When the body was put on the fire, that old man had played the last trick. He had hidden many fireworks under his clothes, and suddenly there was a festival! Then the whole village started laughing. These two mad friends were dancing, then the whole village started dancing.

Osho concludes by saying that it was not a death - it was a new life. He says:

Laughter is eternal, life is eternal, celebration continues. Actors change but the drama continues. Waves change but the ocean continues. You laugh, you change - and somebody else laughs - but laughter continues. You celebrate, somebody else celebrates, but celebration continues.


Existence is continuous, it is a continuum. There is not a single moment's gap in it. No death is death, because every death opens a new door - it is a beginning. There is no end to life, there is always a new beginning, a resurrection.

If you change your sadness to celebration, then you will also be capable of changing your death into resurrection. So learn the art while there is still time.

India Versus China or India & China?

Walk into any Big Bazaar or a Metro outlet or a Wall-mart (in America) and you won't be surprised to see the shelves sagging with Chinese-made goods - everything from shoes and clothes to toys and electronics. China would grab 10% of the world trade by 2010 while India would be struggling to double its present share of 2%. This ubiquitous "Made in China" label interprets a serious matter on the invasion of China all over the world.

Why is the gap in GDP and other benchmarks still so wide? Why we are finding it difficult to match our economic growth with its population growth?

It is true that India is no match as compared to China when it comes to direct foreign investment. It may be investors or Diasporas, India attracts less of FDI. Irony is, Indians live abroad are not interested in building a powerful India. China’s FDI is a substitute for domestic entrepreneurship. During the past 20 years the Chinese economy has boomed, but left the country's private sector with no world-class companies as to compete the multinational titans.

In 1992, the income accruing to foreign investors with equity stakes in Chinese firms was $US5.3 billion; today it is more than $US22 billion. Good news to China is this money is not leaving the country; it is often reinvested in China. For democratic, post-colonial India, allowing foreign investors huge profits at the expense of indigenous firms is simply unfeasible.

However, the statistics tell only part of the story - the macro-economic story. At the micro level, things look different. There, India displays much dynamism. "Can India surpass China?" is no longer a silly question, and if it turns out that India has indeed made the wiser bet, the implications could be enormous. - for China's future growth, and for how policy experts think about economic development generally.

China has been far bolder with external reforms but has imposed substantial legal and regulatory constraints on indigenous, private firms; it is only four years since domestic companies gained the same constitutional protections that foreign businesses have enjoyed since 1980s. The restrictions were designed not to keep Chinese entrepreneurs from competing with foreigners but to prevent private domestic businesses from challenging China's state-owned enterprises.

In a World Bank study published last year, only 52% of the Indian firms reported problems obtaining capital compared with 80% of the Chinese companies polled. The Indian firms relied much less on internally generated finances: only 27% of their funding came through operating profits, against 57% for the Chinese firms.

It is worth recalling that India's economic reforms began in earnest only in 1991, more than a decade after China began liberalizing. In addition, India has had to make do with a national savings rate half that of China (another area where no interest is shown), and 90 % less FDI.

That India's annual growth rate is only about 20% lower than China's is, then, a remarkable achievement. (And, of course, whether the Chinese data are accurate is an open question.) The speed with which India is catching up is due to its own efficient deployment of capital.

Let us not worry about China's misallocation of resources that would become a drag on its economy. In the early 1990s, Beijing invested massively in the state sector. Most of them were not commercially viable, leaving the banking sector with a huge number of non-performing loans – as high as 50% of its assets. At some point, the capitalization costs of these loans will have to be absorbed, either through write-downs (depositors bear the cost) or recapitalization of the banks by the government, which diverts money from other, more productive uses.

India's banks are no models of financial probity, but they have not made mistakes like this. According to a study by management consulting firm Ernst & Young, about 20% of banking assets in India were non-performing as of 2004.

The real issue, of course, isn't where China and India are today but where they will be tomorrow? The answer will be determined in large measure by how well both countries utilize their resources.

China and India have pursued radically different development strategies. India is not outperforming China overall, but it is doing better in certain key areas. That success may enable it to catch up with, and perhaps even overtake, China.

Let us talk of more technicalities like Cost of money, FDI, GDP growth and what not, one factor that keeps India away from China is the commitment. We lack the vision. We lack a concentrated effort as a country to become powerful. This requires culture imbibed in us towards motherland.