Controversy Over The Autobiography Of Nalini Jameela(Malayalam)

I'm not able to understand why should there be a controversy at all in relation to transcribing this particular autobiography.When same publisher has brought out two versions of the same story, with the protagonist's signature over both, perhaps quite many of us (and perhaps, without much justification too) think that there must be some explanation for retelling/not retelling the story..
While the first account of Nalini's life story with I.Gopinath as narrator (appointed by the protagonist herself ) sold several impressions in quick succession and it succeeded at least partially in bringing to focus many a problematic of sex work in this Malayalee literary world dominated by left/ 'feminist' cultural commissars, one could well have expected other version or versions to come in quite naturally.One would hope that this is best done without personal bias toward the first narrator, criticisms apart. Now it would transpire as though criticism based on 'political correctness' is all right against X, and is not acceptable when it comes to the case of Y,or Z !
Further, as if the criticism of the first text were not convincing enough, personal accusations referring to the alleged mal- appropriation of share of royalty has also been brought in here.
One can see that cliques are automatically generated as though out of some default mechanism apparently schemed by smart players in the publishing field, where individual's will to be part of any, matters too less.
This is bad enough, irrespective of Gopinath's ability to prove (as he has offered) the allegations of Dileep to be a pack of lies.