On February 2, 2026, the Lok Sabha saw a major confrontation when Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi began raising points in the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s address by quoting from what he said was the memoir of former Army Chief General M. M. Naravane. The moment he began reading excerpts, senior ministers, including Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Home Minister Amit Shah, strongly objected and argued that the book had not yet been officially published and should not be cited in the House.

Rahul Gandhi started his speech by quoting parts of the memoir and this immediately triggered objections from the treasury bench. Both Shah and Singh protested on procedural grounds, saying that because the book had not yet been released to the public, it could not be brought into parliamentary proceedings.

The Congress leader insisted that the document he was referring to was “authentic” and that he was within his rights to quote from it because the content was relevant to issues he was raising in the debate. In fact, Gandhi was reading an article by the Caravan Magazine on Naravane’s memoir, “Four Stars of Destiny”, which reportedly claimed that Chinese tanks entered Indian territory during the 2017 Doklam incursion

Rahul Gandhi said that he had not originally intended to raise the issue, but he chose to do so after BJP MP Tejasvi Surya questioned the patriotism of the Congress party earlier in the debate. He said, “No debate on who is patriotic and who is not. Our patriotism is not buried.”

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh responded sharply to Rahul Gandhi’s references. He stressed that the memoir had not been published yet and therefore could not be quoted in the Lok Sabha. Rajanth Singh said that because the book had not yet been officially published, members could not use it as a source in the parliamentary debate.

Home Minister Amit Shah also objected to Rahul Gandhi’s remarks. Shah began his response by saying he had listened carefully to the speech of the BJP member and that the member “at no point … questioned the nationalism or character of the Opposition” in his remarks. He added that the Opposition was claiming they were not allowed to speak, while, according to him, “they themselves are violating Rule 389” of parliamentary procedure. “How do we want to run the House?” Shah asked, highlighting his concern over the procedures being followed.

The Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, then intervened in the dispute. He cited parliamentary rules that prohibit quoting from books or newspaper clippings on matters not directly related to the business of the House. The Speaker reminded members that the subject listed for discussion did not include matters outside the Motion of Thanks and that members should uphold the dignity of the House and the country while participating in debates. He said it was expected that members “uphold the dignity of the House and the country” and avoid raising issues that might harm the nation’s prestige.

Rahul Gandhi responded to the Speaker by questioning this interpretation of the rules. He asked, “Speaker sir, please tell me which rule says I cannot speak on India-China relations.” He argued that issues like relations with Pakistan or China were relevant to the discussion and should be permitted in the debate on the President’s address. “So are you saying that the Presidential Address has nothing to do with international relations? That we cannot speak about Pakistan, China, or any other country?” he asked.

The debate became increasingly heated, with opposition members, including Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, accusing the government of not allowing Rahul Gandhi to complete his speech. They said that he should be allowed to present his views fully without interruption.

As the arguments between the two sides intensified, there were loud exchanges across the House. The Speaker, in an effort to restore order, eventually adjourned the Lok Sabha for a later time. The adjournment came amid ongoing disputes over whether Rahul Gandhi’s references to the unpublished memoir could be included under parliamentary rules and procedures.

This confrontation highlighted the tensions over parliamentary decorum, the use of unpublished sources in debates, and larger political disagreements between the ruling party and the opposition.