New Delhi: Over the past decade, India’s military veterans have all but withdrawn from formal media engagement, resorting instead to off-the-record briefings and unattributed assessments – and often insisting on remaining anonymous – as political sensitivities have made speaking publicly on defence and security matters increasingly perilous.This shift has coincided with an assertive official line – and a largely compliant media portrayal – presenting the military as free from any significant, or even remote, shortcomings, internal stresses or organisational weaknesses. In turn, this utopian framing leaves little room for nuanced or critical professional assessment, as even measured military scrutiny is often treated as tantamount to undermining institutional credibility.Together, these dynamics have sharply narrowed the space for independent public comment by retired armed forces officers in recent years. Heightened official scrutiny and the politicisation of public discourse have further reshaped the environment, making candid on-record statements potentially fraught with personal risk – even when offering largely unbiased professional assessments under their own names.According to a broad cross-section of former service personnel, publicly attributed professional assessments carry significant personal risks, including legal notices, trolling on social media, and anxieties over losing post-retirement benefits. Single adverse remarks, however measured, can be taken out of context or reframed as criticism of policy or military leadership, prompting extreme caution and leaving most public commentary overwhelmingly laudatory of the services.“Most veterans who have served under difficult conditions whilst in service, are increasingly finding today’s media environment unconducive to reasoned debate on national security issues as narrative often outweighs verified facts,” said retired Brigadier Rahul Bhonsle of the Security Risks Consultancy Group in New Delhi, a rare retiree who chose to be named.Also read: LoP Rahul Gandhi Highlights Ex-Army Chief’s Unpublished Memoirs, Puts Govt on Back FootHe noted that other than fear of formal repercussions, social media itself was deeply distressing, with trolling and personal attacks discouraging veteran participation in informed debate on military issues. Accordingly, many officers preferred silence to being targeted by ill-informed online vigilantes, he stated, viewing restraint as more dignified than distasteful public confrontation. The one-star infantry officer ironically added that this silence ended up serving the government’s aim of limiting dissenting professional voices in military matters.Hence, within an intensely nationalistic media ecosystem, remarks that might once have been considered factual observations were now routinely stripped of context and politicised, further raising the personal and professional costs of candour for concerned officers. The result was a chilling effect, where self-censorship became a survival strategy and one where even senior analysts carefully weighed the personal consequences of speaking truth to power.Such weaponised targeting further narrowed official tolerance for even measured or technical critique of obvious military shortcomings, including unbiased assessments of operational preparedness, material procurement delays, or doctrinal flaws. Much of this commentary ran the risk of being recast by the government and a large portion of the media as “uncalled for frontal attacks” on military leadership.“Over time, this cumulative pressure has severely eroded the quality of public discourse on defence, reducing complex operational or strategic debates to performative displays of loyalty and fealty rather than informed and necessary questioning of the system,” said a three-star Indian Army (IA) veteran. It has created an environment where even the most experienced and respected officers hesitate to offer frank, professional assessments, knowing that their comments were liable to be distorted, politicised, and used to target not only their own integrity, but to undermine their formidable reputations, he added, requesting anonymity.Such an approach contrasted sharply with earlier decades, when former service chiefs and senior commanders spoke freely under their own names, contributing openly to public debate and shaping military policy discourse with their authoritative voices. Public disagreement with government policy or military decisions was then regarded as part of a healthy strategic dialogue, rather than as institutional disloyalty or political, anti-national dissent.A relatively recent and widely discussed example of how candid professional military evaluation can be suppressed, involved the memoirs of former IA Chief of Staff General M. M. Naravane. Titled Four Stars of Destiny and initially scheduled for release in early 2024, the book has yet to appear, as it remains under review by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).Set to be published by Penguin Random House, Naravane’s manuscript reportedly contained frank and reasoned observations on sensitive defence issues, most notably the BJP government’s Agnipath (Path of Fire) scheme for temporarily recruiting personnel below officer rank (PBOR) into the armed forces.Also read: Memoir in Limbo, Ex-Army Chief General Naravane Makes ‘Foray Into Fiction’ With ThrillerExcerpts released by the Press Trust of India in late 2023 revealed that General Naravane said all three service chiefs were taken by surprise by the Agnipath scheme, contradicting claims of broad military backing. Originally conceived as a pilot project for 5,000 army personnel, the Agnipath scheme, according to the former IA chief, was “thrust upon the three services” by the PMO and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval.“We in the army were taken by surprise by this turn of events, but for the navy and air force, it came like a bolt from the blue,” General Naravne had stated, and he goes on to claim that it was left to him to explain this outcome to his Indian Navy and Indian Air Force counterparts. The IA chief is also believed to have objected to Agniveers being paid the ‘paltry sum’ of Rs 20,000 per month, which he likened to the earnings of a daily wage labourer, and based on Naravane’s directions, each Agniveer’s monthly emoluments were thereafter hiked to Rs 30,000.The memoir is also believed to offer detailed, first-hand accounts of the May 2020 China-India military standoff in eastern Ladakh and the subsequent Galwan Valley clashes – episodes that remain politically and strategically sensitive. Critics of General Naravne had argued that such disclosures could reveal internal military deliberations and divergent views on policy, leading to the manuscript being delayed indefinitely, with no confirmed release date as of now.Instead, General Naravane’s military thriller – The Cantonment Conspiracy – was released in March 2025. In this, two young army officers – one male and the other female – investigate a series of murders and an assault within a Western UP garrison, delving into life within a Regimental Centre.The incident, however, of the former IA chief’s memoir being blocked amply illustrated why even the most senior and respected veterans exercised caution when engaging in public commentary, and why their fears were not entirely unfounded, was further heightened by an earlier, May 2021 government notification.This official directive had banned all retired security and intelligence officials from commenting critically in the press on issues relating to prevailing policy, without prior official clearance. These retired officials were also prohibited from communicating with the media or publishing any letter, book, or other document on subjects within the “domain” of the organisations they had served, without prior state approval.And, to ensure compliance, the government amended Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972, by which pension pay-outs would henceforth be rendered subject to ‘future good conduct’. Or, loosely translated, this fiat by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, connoted that officers violating its highly nebulous guidelines on national security matters stood to jeopardise their pensions.To further obfuscate matters, these instructions, which also invoked the Official Secrets Act, were vague and imprecise, thereby providing the authorities the leeway and leverage to punish and browbeat retired security personnel for impartially purveying their erstwhile domain knowledge. Almost immediately after this notification, reasoned censure of the government’s national security policies and possible solutions to multitudinous critical complications thereof, more or less, came to an end.And, while this directive was aimed at retired security and intelligence agency officials, it had the unintended consequence of adversely impacting military veterans, particularly regarding their pension-related concerns. Almost immediately, these apprehensions percolated through the broader body of ex-servicemen, who became increasingly chary about expressing any viewpoints on military and security matters, other than those unashamedly laudatory of the government. The climate of caution was reinforced by a pervasive sense that even measured and reasoned criticism could invite official scrutiny or subtle institutional pressure long after retirement.Compounding this hesitation was the reality that legal and criminal exposure can, in certain circumstances, extend well beyond officials’ retirement. Superannuated officers can still be investigated and prosecuted, and inquiries begun during their service tenures can continue after retirement.Under existing legal statutes, including provisions now reflected in the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), cases connected to retired officials can move forward once the required government sanction is granted. Alongside, in cases of serious wrongdoing or conviction, pensions and retirement benefits are also liable to be reduced or withheld, reinforcing the perception that public dissent carries long-term consequences.But, despite the pervasive climate of caution and circumspection, a handful of retired military officers do continue to voice critical assessments of defence policy, operational preparedness, and organisational shortcomings. These individuals – often highly respected service chiefs with impressive records – offer measured, evidence-based critiques through newspaper op-eds, interviews, or carefully framed analyses, walking a fine line between professional candour and personal risk.Their interventions, however, are few and far between, and their visibility is carefully calibrated. Ironically, their selective criticism often serves to reinforce the government’s credibility, as it creates the appearance of openness and debate within the armed forces, while the vast majority of veterans remain silent. By allowing a limited number of such appraisals to surface, the state and media can point to them as examples of dissent, thereby masking the broader trend of self-censorship among ex-servicemen.The rare voices that speak out are thus both valuable for informed discourse and constrained in their ability to reshape public narratives substantively.