Ajai Shukla raises an important question about leadership in the Indian military. It reminds me of a revealing story from Gen. Naravane’s memoir. During a war game against China, Naravane played the Chinese commander. His plan worked so well that the Indian side was heading for defeat. So what did the exercise controllers do? They invented a massive storm that delayed the Chinese advance by 48 hours, giving Indian forces time to prepare. And somehow, the storm affected only the Chinese side! Naravane protested. But the exercise went on, and India won, as usual. The most telling part is what Naravane wrote later. In hundreds of war games he had attended, India always won. Even when the software predicted defeat, the results were overturned. This says something important about military leadership. If senior officers cannot accept bad news even in an exercise, why would junior officers feel comfortable telling them the truth? Good leadership starts with the willingness to hear what you don't want to hear. If every war game ends in victory, how can officers learn from their mistakes, challenge their assumptions, or prepare for the unexpected?