Those innocent souls who were asking why outrage without reading the book, read this incisive review of the book.

Unsurprisingly, the book is everything we thought it was. https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/08/25/the-delhi-riots-book-tells-an-overtold-not-untold-story

"Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story would have never made the cut in an editorial process where facts and reason are taken seriously. Bloomsbury might have embarrassed itself by clearing the book, but it preserved its dignity by timely throwing the trash out the window."

"First, they argued that an anti-Muslim Act had been passed," they say, but then add: "However, the fact is that the word ‘Muslim’ has not even once been used in the amended Act."

That's awkward reasoning because the absence of that word was the primary grouse of the protesters.

"The actual event, the communal conflagration, is only limited to 10-15 pages in the book’s sixth chapter. The first 77 pages are dedicated to a defence of the CAA."

"The first piece appears in its foreword — the second page of the book, in fact — where former police officer P C Dogra attributes to Jawaharlal Nehru a quote that he was “by culture a Muslim and Hindu only by accident of birth”. Nehru never made this remark."

"On page 100, the authors claim that “Pakistan Zindabad” slogans were raised at Shaheen Bagh. The book doesn’t provide a reference for this claim – probably because there isn’t any."

"On page 37, they claim that slogans such as “Hinduon Se Azadi” were raised during the protests. This never happened."

"Activist Harsh Mander’s speech at Jamia is misquoted on page 60 to demonstrate his contempt for the Supreme Court. This was originally an Amit Malviya ploy that was later busted by fact checkers."

"The book justifies the lathicharge on Jamia students in their library because, as it falsely claims on page 45, “it was proved that rioters had taken shelter in the university library which had led police to take action”."

"This volley of falsity and fabrication against anti-CAA protesters, particularly Muslims, is complemented by crucial omissions of the BJP’s inflammatory rhetoric."

"There is no mention of the “Goli Maaro” provocations by BJP minister Anurag Thakur or the hatemongering statements by MP Parvesh Verma. We do not read about home minister Amit Shah’s nine election rallies in Northeast Delhi, where anti-Muslim dogwhistling was part of the menu."

"Or about that time Uttar Pradesh chief minister Ajay Bisht showed up in Karawal Nagar and told a bustling audience that “their ancestors broke this country apart”, meaning Muslims."

"Muslims – ”radical Muslims”, “Islamic radicals”, “jihadi elements” – constitute a “murderous mob” in the book, but Hindus are “mobilised primarily due to anxieties generated by the total blockage of Jaffrabad Metro Station by the Muslim women on 23 February”."

"And then there is this dog whistle on page 94: “It needs to be remembered that Ankit Sharma was not an individual but a representative of an institution – an institution which a section of the society loathes”"

"The book does not state the most formidable fact of these riots: that of the 53 people who were killed, 40 were Muslim. It doesn’t state so because it belies its concocted hogwash of Jihadi-Naxal urban warfare that came close to being dignified under Bloomsbury India’s banner."

"Yet, journalists, who wouldn’t have published this trash had it been filed by their reporters, decried Bloomsbury’s decision to not publish it as an assault on free speech. One even compared it to the Satanic Verses episode."

"The only thing common between Salman Rushdie’s novel and this pamphlet is that they are both fiction – though the latter claims otherwise."