The BJP on Tuesday slammed Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi over her account of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, accusing her of attempting to shield the Gandhi family from responsibility for one of the darkest chapters in India’s history. Dismissing the narrative in her book as being “contrary to official records”, senior BJP leader and advocate HS Phoolka alleged that Sonia’s version of the events surrounding the deployment of the Army in Delhi contradicted the findings of official inquiry commissions and statements made by then Army Chief Gen AS Vaidya.Reacting to Sonia’s account of the Army’s deployment following the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, Phoolka, while talking to the media, said she had sought to shift the responsibility for the delay in deploying troops on to General Vaidya.Notably, Sonia, in her memoir “Belonging: A Journey of Love”, had written that then Army Chief General Vaidya received orders on the night of Indira’s assassination, but the family subsequently heard that he had decided against immediately mobilising nearby Army units because they were manned by Sikh soldiers. Instead, Army units were ordered to move from Dehradun. According to Sonia, the troops began entering Delhi on the night of November 1 and were positioned in affected areas by noon on November 2.According to Phoolka, Sonia’s book claims that Rajiv Gandhi had instructed the Army Chief to call in the Army on the night of October 31, but that General Vaidya independently decided against using troops stationed near Delhi. Instead, he allegedly requisitioned troops from distant locations, including Dehradun, resulting in a delay in their arrival and deployment.Phoolka disputed this account, saying, “It is entirely contrary to the facts. Firstly, the claim that General Vaidya decided not to deploy Sikh soldiers and that there were no other troops available near Delhi is completely at odds with the facts”.Citing the findings of the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission and the Nanavati Commission, he claimed that approximately 6,000 Army personnel were present in Delhi on October 31 and the morning of November 1, 1984, but were not deployed to control the violence.He referred to the Misra Commission’s observation that had even 5,000 soldiers been deployed to march through the streets of Delhi on the morning of November 1, at least 2,000 Sikh lives could have been saved.Questioning Sonia’s portrayal of General Vaidya’s role, Phoolka cited the former Army Chief’s account that he had taken the initiative to make the Army available in Delhi, independently of any instructions from Rajiv. General Vaidya, he said, had consulted the GOC in Delhi, who confirmed that 6,000 troops were available in the Capital.“General Vaidya had also summoned troops from Meerut, and the Army had reached Delhi on the night of October 31 itself,” Phoolka said.Phoolka also emphasised that the responsibility for requisitioning and deploying the Army rested with the civil administration, not the Army Chief acting unilaterally. While acknowledging that the Misra Commission recorded that Rajiv had alerted General Vaidya, he questioned why the troops already stationed in Delhi were not deployed on November 1, when the violence against Sikhs was at its peak.Raising questions about the political and administrative accountability of the then Prime Minister, Phoolka asked what action Rajiv had taken against those responsible for the killings and officials who failed to seek the Army’s assistance despite its availability in the Capital. He said if Rajiv was not to be held responsible for the failure to prevent the massacre, the public deserved to know what steps he had taken to ensure accountability.Phoolka also invoked Rajiv’s controversial remark, “When a big tree falls, the earth shakes”, made in his first public speech after Indira Gandhi’s assassination. “Through this statement, he attempted to justify the entire massacre. Sonia, in her book, is attempting to give a clean chit to Rajiv and her own family, whereas her claim is completely contrary to the official records and is false,” Phoolka said.