Delhi Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa on Thursday, 12 November launched a sharp attack on Indian Overseas Congress President Sam Pitroda for questioning the relevance of revisiting the 1984 anti-Sikh killings, accusing the Gandhi family of applying a double standard to historical memory — shielding their own narrative while dismissing Sikh grievances as outdated.

What Pitroda Said

The controversy was triggered after Pitroda, speaking to reporters, questioned the utility of repeatedly revisiting events from over four decades ago. 'What is the sense in talking about something that happened 40 years ago now?' he said. 'Let the people in court and others decide. Why do we just dig things up and throw mud?' He urged a collective forward focus, adding: 'Let's design a better, prosperous, peaceful nation for everybody. That should be the agenda. Not what happened in Ram's time, or why did Hanuman go here, why did he lift the mountain?'

His remarks came in the context of Sonia Gandhi's recently released book, which references historical events, reportedly including developments from decades past.

Sirsa's Counterattack

Sirsa rejected Pitroda's framing outright, arguing that the Congress leadership uses Pitroda as a proxy to voice positions it is unwilling to own publicly. 'These people use others to wash away their sins and make Sam Pitroda say things they cannot say themselves,' he said.

The Delhi minister drew a pointed contrast: if Sonia Gandhi can write about events from 50 years ago in her book and expect them to be taken seriously, Pitroda has no standing to dismiss the 1984 anti-Sikh killings — which occurred roughly 40 years ago — as too distant to matter. 'If Sonia Gandhi writes about events from 50 years ago in her book, those matters should also be discussed,' Sirsa said.

The Double-Standard Charge

Sirsa's most pointed accusation was structural rather than merely rhetorical. He alleged that the Congress operates on an 'undeclared concept' that whatever the Gandhi family says is correct by default — meaning a 50-year-old issue they raise is legitimate, but a 40-year-old Sikh grievance is not. 'This is highly shameful,' he said, describing it as a form of selective historical justice that the Sikh community has faced repeatedly.

Notably, Sirsa also objected to Pitroda's invocation of Lord Hanuman and Lord Ram in the same breath as the riots, calling it an inappropriate conflation that trivialised both religious sentiment and historical violence.

Background and Political Context

The 1984 anti-Sikh killings, which erupted following the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, remain one of the most contested chapters in modern Indian political history. Courts have continued to hear cases related to the violence. Survivors and community organisations have long argued that justice remains incomplete, making Pitroda's 'move on' framing especially raw.

This is not the first time Pitroda has drawn criticism for remarks perceived as minimising the killings — a pattern that has repeatedly put the Congress on the defensive. With Sonia Gandhi's book now in circulation and drawing fresh attention to Congress-era history, the exchange signals that the 1984 question will remain a live political fault line heading into future electoral cycles.