Thereappears to be no end to the controversy surrounding Sonia Gandhi’s memoir, Belonging: A Journey of Love. The BJP has questioned its timing and what it describes as selective references to issues such as the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, particularly in view of the forthcoming Uttar Pradesh and Punjab Assembly elections. Meanwhile, the Congress party came up with a fresh claim on Wednesday that even RSS and BJP workers were involved in the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi. The claim was made by Sandeep Dikshit, son of former Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit. He attempted to portray the horrific incidents as an outburst of public anger cutting across political affiliations. He even suggested that some Congressmen might also have been involved, while maintaining that the Congress party had always condemned the violence.

This is a rather bizarre argument. Until now, no such allegation had been made against the RSS or anyone from the BJP in connection with the Delhi riots.

As a reporter who covered the violence for all three days, I witnessed how Sikhs were lynched by mobs on the streets and their houses targeted. I had several terrifying encounters when my two-wheeler was stopped at different places. Shops were broken into, looted and ransacked in Munirka Market and Ramakrishna Puram and many other areas. Even shops belonging to non-Sikhs were set on fire. The worst part was that the police appeared to look the other way. Though the memoir claims that the Army had been asked to take control, its deployment was delayed for technical reasons; the police, when questioned by the media during those horrific days, claimed they had no information that the Army had been called in. They kept insisting that they were doing their best.

I can say with certainty that this was organised violence. Anti-social elements had a field day for almost three days, while innocent people paid a horrific price.

I also personally experienced the violence. We struggled to bring our relatives home safely from New Delhi Railway Station on November 1, 1984. No taxi was willing to undertake the journey. The one driver who dared faced several obstacles, with lathi-wielding goons stopping the vehicle at least half a dozen times, abusing the occupants before allowing it to proceed.

I was also among those who kept a round-the-clock vigil to protect two Sikh families living in our residential complex. Residents formed self-defence volunteer teams, took turns keeping watch and chased away mobs attempting to enter our lane.

It is unfortunate that Sandeep Dikshit has sought to trivialise the massacre by presenting it as an indiscriminate outburst of public anger. Several Congress leaders of that period, including H.K.L. Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler, Kamal Nath and Dharam Dass Shastri, were named in allegations and inquiry proceedings. Balwan Khokhar, a former Congress councillor, and Mahendra Yadav, a former Congress MLA, were also prosecuted.

The legal record is significant. Sajjan Kumar was convicted in two separate murder cases relating to the riots. Jagdish Tytler also faced criminal proceedings. H.K.L. Bhagat faced criminal proceedings but was not convicted. Kamal Nath and Dharam Dass Shastri were named in allegations and inquiry proceedings. Balwan Khokhar and Mahendra Yadav were convicted in connection with the killing of five Sikhs in the Delhi Cantonment area.

Against this backdrop, Sandeep Dikshit has attempted to shift the discussion to the 2002 Gujarat riots, which Sonia Gandhi also discusses in her memoir. She writes that 59 pilgrims died when four coaches of the Sabarmati Express were set on fire at Godhra, but adds that "the cause of the fire remains disputed". She describes the subsequent violence as spreading across Gujarat, with Muslims overwhelmingly bearing the brunt. The death of anyone is unacceptable irrespective of religion, caste or creed. Equally unacceptable is the selective sympathy. She did not say anything about the 59 people who were burnt to death by mobs who set the train on fire.

What is particularly contentious is her assertion that the cause of the fire remains disputed. The fire in coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002, was investigated by forensic experts, police investigators, an SIT and judicial commissions. Although there were initially conflicting findings, the criminal proceedings ultimately accepted the prosecution's case that the coach had been deliberately set on fire as part of a conspiracy. The courts upheld this finding, and 31 people were convicted.

Several analysts and senior journalists believe that the memoir's references to these issues, and its timing, need to be viewed against the backdrop of the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections. The BJP alleges that the book conceals more than it reveals and reflects the Congress party's politics of appeasement.

Another contentious issue is Sonia Gandhi's account of the Emergency. She places primary responsibility for its imposition on Sanjay Gandhi. This raises an important question: were major policy decisions taken within the four walls of the Gandhi family's residence? The Cabinet was informed only after the Emergency proclamation had been issued.

According to N Ram, former Editor of The Hindu, Sonia Gandhi told him in an interview that Sanjay Gandhi may have been the primary driver of authoritarian measures, though advisers such as Siddhartha Shankar Ray and several others had also pushed for the Emergency. She reportedly said that Rajiv Gandhi, then a pilot, held a different view, but his mother did not listen to him. She also attributed the sterilisation drive to Sanjay Gandhi, describing him as an extra-constitutional authority. Another controversial issue is the Shah Bano case. Sonia Gandhi says she told Rajiv Gandhi that an injustice was being done to Shah Bano. But I, who covered the controversy as a young reporter, know that the Congress government the Supreme Court verdict granting her maintenance rights.

Following protests from conservative Muslim religious leaders and organisations, the Rajiv Gandhi government enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, changing the legal framework established by the Supreme Court judgment. Arif Mohammed Khan, then Minister of State in the Union government, strongly supported the verdict and was deeply unhappy with the government's reversal. The night before he resigned, he told me to wait for something sensational the following day. He outlined the broad thrust of his parliamentary speech and indicated that he intended to resign.

He said organisations such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and sections of the Muslim clergy had opposed the judgment, arguing that it interfered with Muslim personal law. The Congress leadership feared that alienating electoral support from the Muslim community. According to Khan, senior Congress leaders, including PV Narasimha Rao and Arjun Singh, played important roles in influencing Rajiv Gandhi to reverse his position and introduce legislation that diluted the practical effect of the Supreme Court verdict. The memoir also avoids any substantial discussion of the Bofors controversy, one of the biggest political scandals of the Rajiv Gandhi era that contributed to the Congress government's defeat in the 1989 general election. The Indian Express and The Hindu published several investigative reports concerning alleged kickbacks, including references to Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi and AE Services. Yet the memoir offers little explanation of this politically explosive episode.

Similarly, the question of why Sonia Gandhi took 15 years after her marriage to Rajiv Gandhi to acquire Indian citizenship in 1983 is not addressed in any substantial manner. Nor does the memoir explain the humiliating treatment meted out to Sitaram Kesri, who succeeded her as Congress president. Why was he reportedly locked inside a room when the party leadership changed? As a reporter covering the Congress beat, I witnessed the developments and saw how deeply humiliated Kesri felt.

Sonia Gandhi's memoir may provide the Congress think tank with material to attack the BJP and RSS on issues such as Godhra and the Babri Masjid demolition. But it also raises questions about what the author has chosen to include, what she has left out and how she has presented some of the most contentious episodes in India's political history.

More importantly, the memoir could divert public attention from governance and anti-incumbency issues that the Opposition might otherwise have used to challenge the government effectively. A memoir is a personal account, but when its author has occupied the centre of Indian politics for decades, selective recollections and conspicuous omissions inevitably invite scrutiny. History cannot be rewritten simply by deciding which chapters deserve to be remembered and which can conveniently be left out.

(The author is a former Chief Editor at The Hans India)