New Delhi: As most of the contentious scenes playing out in Parliament are focusing on the phone call recounted by former army chief General M.M. Naravane – where the political directions conveyed to the army at a time of extreme stress on the India-China border were merely “jo uchit samjho, woh karo (do whatever you deem appropriate)” are drawing criticisms and questions over possible abdication by the Modi government over its responsibility – there are other serious questions raised in The Caravan’s recounting of the so-far censored autobiography of the former Army chief, Four Star of Destiny.1. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army or PLA tents were pitched in the second week of May after a Brigade commanders meeting in Galwan, where India lost 20 soldiers in 2020. The Northern command of the Indian Army and 14 Corps didn’t consider it an issue but they were ordered on June 15, 2020 to go and pitch their tents there. General Naravane in his censored memoirs was unhappy at the turn of events and “wasn’t entirely convinced”. The question remains, who passed those orders from Delhi?2. General Naravane also speaks of the political leadership’s unwillingness to allow the army to open fire on the PLA in August 2020, just 11 weeks after 20 soldiers had died in Galwan – because of protocol. At the army’s insistence, the permission to open fire was given, but with severe restrictions. The Modi government has been boasting of giving a “free hand” to the armed forces to act on Indian borders. So what is the truth in this case?3. When Corps Commanders meetings began between India and China, the external affairs ministry did not agree to the army’s request for recording the minutes of the meeting. That would have allowed the Indian side to hold the Chinese to their word and had grave repercussions. Where was the political leadership, is the question posed by this recounting of events by General Naravane.4. Most significantly, the reference point of the disengagement was where the Line of Actual Control or LAC lies, between India and China, over which there is no agreement between the two sides. Naravane writes that he and the director general of military operations, DGMO devised an interesting solution, of both sides deciding on each of their reference points, and retreating in equal measure from those spots. This approach avoided fixing a single contested line. But in creation of the buffer zones, the Indian side allowed the Chinese claims to get priority, by agreeing to move equal distances from the points the PLA had ingressed up to in May 2020. The buffer zones are seen to be mostly on the Indian side. This has become a benchmark for future negotiations.The India-China border clash, which began most visibly on June 15, 2020, when 20 Indian soldiers lost their lives, saw an all-party meeting where the prime minister controversially said “na koi ghusa thaa na koi ghusa hai”. There have been no press conferences or briefings on details, as has been the case in most conflicts India has had to face over the years. Parliamentary questions and debates over the goings on have also been clamped down upon in the name of national security. The 1962 parliamentary debates, during the course of the India-China war, where then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru himself took questions can be accessed here.India’s Lok Sabha has not been allowed to function, with the ruling dispensation, including three ministers and the Speaker, not allowing a discussion on the role of the political leadership during the India-China border tiff or the agreement on the border. Eight opposition members have also been suspended from the House. Rule 349 of the Lok Sabha has been cited and the House not allowed to function for two days.Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi on February 3 wrote to speaker Om Birla and said that in an “unprecedented” situation, the leader of opposition was prevented from speaking on the President’s address “for the first time in parliament’s history”, calling it a “blot on democracy.” Gandhi in his letter said that at the behest of the government the speaker had been forced to prevent him from speaking, while a “deliberate attempt” was being made to prevent him from speaking on matters of national security.