Lok Sabha Erupts: Rahul Gandhi and Rajnath Singh Clash Over Ex-Army Chief's 'Suppressed' Book
Share- Nishadil
- February 03, 2026
- 0 Comments
- 3 minutes read
- 7 Views
Agnipath Controversy Reignites as Parliament Witnesses Fiery Spat on 'Unpublished' Memoir
A dramatic exchange unfolded in the Lok Sabha as Rahul Gandhi accused the government of suppressing a former Army Chief's book, linking it to the Agnipath scheme, drawing a sharp rebuttal from Defence Minister Rajnath Singh.
The hallowed halls of the Lok Sabha, usually a stage for robust policy debates, recently witnessed a rather dramatic and fiery exchange between Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. What sparked this particular political fireworks display? An 'unpublished' book by none other than former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane, and, of course, the ever-contentious Agnipath recruitment scheme. It was, shall we say, quite the spectacle, injecting a dose of high drama into the ongoing parliamentary session.
Gandhi, always one to pull punches, launched into a stinging accusation, alleging that the government had actively suppressed General Naravane’s memoir because it contained, as he put it, 'the truth' about the Agnipath scheme. He didn't stop there, suggesting this truth might be rather inconvenient for the Prime Minister himself. He even went so far as to claim that a particular paragraph, touching upon 'senior bureaucrats' suppressing the book at the Prime Minister's Office's behest, had been mysteriously removed or prevented from seeing the light of day. A pretty serious charge, wouldn't you agree?
But Defence Minister Rajnath Singh wasn't about to let that pass unchallenged. He rose, responding with a force equal to Gandhi's accusation, flatly denying any suppression whatsoever. His key argument? The book hasn't even hit the stands yet! 'How can you suppress something that hasn't even been published?' he questioned, effectively turning the tables. Singh didn't mince words, accusing Gandhi of basing his serious allegations on nothing more than 'imagination,' 'rumors,' and perhaps a little too much reliance on 'WhatsApp forwards' – a pointed jibe, indeed. He stressed that a book that's still in the publishing pipeline can't possibly be 'suppressed' in the way Gandhi was suggesting. It's a fundamental point, really.
Amidst this heated back-and-forth, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla stepped in, gently, yet firmly, reminding Gandhi to stick to the Motion of Thanks to the President's address. He also urged him to refrain from citing 'unverified reports' in his parliamentary discourse. A necessary intervention to keep things on track, I suppose, especially when emotions run high.
The Agnipath scheme itself, introduced as a transformative change for military recruitment, has been a lightning rod for debate since its inception. It has attracted both staunch support and significant criticism, primarily because it fundamentally alters the recruitment process, shifting towards shorter tenures for many soldiers. So, any perceived 'truth' about it, especially from a former Army Chief whose insights would be highly valued, would naturally stir the pot and create quite a ripple. It makes you wonder, doesn't it, what insights General Naravane's full, unedited manuscript might actually hold, if it ever does see the light of day?
Ultimately, this parliamentary episode underscored the deep political divisions and the ongoing contention surrounding key government policies. While the immediate parliamentary spat cooled down, the underlying questions about the book, the Agnipath scheme, and indeed, 'the truth,' remain very much alive, waiting for their next chapter to unfold. And so, the political drama continues, always with a new twist around the corner.
Disclaimer: This article was generated in part using artificial intelligence and may contain errors or omissions. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. We makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Readers are advised to verify the information independently before relying on