Former Army chief General Manoj Mukund Naravane has rejected suggestions that the government left him isolated during the 2020 border crisis with China, saying the direction to act as he deemed fit reflected confidence in the military chain of command rather than any absence of political guidance.The clarification came after controversy over excerpts from his unpublished memoir, Four Stars of Destiny, which described a tense night on 31 August 2020 when Chinese PLA tanks and troops were reported to be moving near Rechin La in eastern Ladakh. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, after speaking to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, conveyed to Naravane that the situation was “purely a military decision” and that he should do what he considered appropriate.
“It should not be misinterpreted in that manner,” Naravane said when asked whether the message meant he had been left without clear instruction. He said the remark showed the government’s “total faith” in the armed forces, the Army hierarchy and the service chiefs, adding that decisions during such crises were taken after weighing operational, diplomatic and strategic factors.
Naravane, who served as Chief of the Army Staff from December 2019 to April 2022, said the armed forces were given a free hand to respond to ground conditions. He also cautioned against drawing the military into political exchanges, stressing that the services remained apolitical and should not be used as instruments in partisan debate.
The row began after Opposition figures cited portions of Naravane’s unpublished book to argue that the political leadership had not taken responsibility during a critical phase of the standoff. The book, scheduled earlier for publication by Penguin Random House, remains under review for clearance. Naravane has maintained that the memoir reflects his personal account and is not based on classified documents.
The episode relates to one of the most fraught phases of the India-China military confrontation in eastern Ladakh. The standoff began in April-May 2020 after PLA movements and infrastructure activity triggered confrontations at several points along the Line of Actual Control. The crisis escalated sharply on 15 June 2020, when 20 Army personnel, including Colonel B. Santosh Babu, were killed in hand-to-hand fighting at Galwan Valley. China later acknowledged four fatalities on its side, though assessments outside official statements have questioned whether the number was higher.
By late August 2020, the confrontation had shifted to the southern bank of Pangong Tso and the Kailash Range. Army units occupied tactically significant heights, giving them leverage over PLA positions in the area. Naravane’s account says the 31 August call came as Chinese tanks moved within a few hundred metres of forward positions near Rechin La, raising the risk of escalation between two nuclear-armed neighbours.
His account says he instructed commanders not to fire first, as doing so could have allowed China to portray India as the aggressor. Instead, he ordered a troop of tanks to move forward and depress their guns so that PLA armour would face a direct deterrent. The Chinese movement then halted, according to the account attributed to him.
The military crisis unfolded while the country was still dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic, disrupted supply chains and economic strain. Naravane’s reflections describe the pressure of judging whether a tactical confrontation could spiral into a wider conflict, including the possibility of a collusive threat involving Pakistan.
Multiple rounds of military and diplomatic talks followed the 2020 clashes. Disengagement took place in phases at Galwan, Pangong Tso, Gogra and Hot Springs, while Depsang and Demchok remained contentious for years. An agreement reached in October 2024 restored patrolling arrangements at the last friction points, allowing both sides to pull back troops from close-contact positions. De-escalation, however, remains more complex because both militaries continue to maintain strengthened infrastructure and higher force levels along the frontier.
Naravane’s comments carry significance because they seek to separate operational decision-making from political controversy. His position is that political authority authorised the military to act within its professional judgement, while the armed forces remained accountable for managing battlefield risks.