Sonia Gandhi's newly published memoir, 'Belonging: A Journey of Love', has stirred fresh debate about the Indian National Congress (INC), the Gandhi family's hold on the party, and the exercise of power during the UPA years. Released on 15 November 2026, the book is being read as a rare moment of candour from a family that has, for decades, guarded its political secrets with considerable care.

The Pranab Mukherjee Revelation

Among the memoir's most discussed passages is Sonia Gandhi's account of a 2010 conversation with former President Pranab Mukherjee. 'On one occasion, in 2010, I think after expressing his frustration, he shocked me with the suggestion that perhaps it was time for a change at the top, which I understood as a hint of his long-held desire to become Prime Minister,' she writes.

The remark that she was 'shocked' drew an immediate response from Sharmistha Mukherjee, Pranab's daughter, who questioned why a leader of his experience and stature should not aspire to the top office. She pointedly asked whether the surprise stemmed from an assumption that the Prime Ministership belongs exclusively within the Gandhi-Nehru family. The exchange has revived a question the Congress has long been reluctant to address directly: does the party genuinely offer equal opportunity to senior leaders, or does the Gandhi family retain final authority over leadership succession?

The 'Two Centres of Power' Debate

The memoir revisits the long-standing allegation that Sonia Gandhi was the de facto power during the Manmohan Singh government. Sonia insists there was a clear division of responsibilities — former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ran the government while she managed the party. She has also denied interfering in official files, administrative appointments, or executive decisions.

Critics, however, argue that her role as chairperson of the UPA, her oversight of the National Advisory Council (NAC), and the coordination mechanism between party and government made the distinction difficult to sustain in practice. The perception of a 'parallel power centre' was one of the most persistent criticisms of the UPA era and, notably, one of the BJP's most effective electoral arguments against the Congress. Sonia's account offers her perspective, but it is unlikely to close the debate.

Emergency, 1984, and the Family's Difficult Chapters

The book also engages — selectively, critics say — with some of the darkest episodes in Congress history. On the 1975 Emergency, Sonia reportedly places significant blame for its excesses on her late brother-in-law Sanjay Gandhi. On the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, she describes the events as tragic and acknowledges the failure to deliver timely justice, while seeking to defend her husband, the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, against allegations of complicity in the violence that followed Indira Gandhi's assassination.

Her treatment of these chapters has drawn sharp criticism. Several commentators have noted that the accounts, while personal, inevitably carry political weight — and that the manner in which responsibility is framed matters enormously for the historical record.

What the Memoir Leaves Out

Perhaps as revealing as what the book says is what it does not. The memoir is notably silent on the Bofors-Quattrocchi controversy, the multiple corruption scams that clouded the UPA's second term, questions about Sonia Gandhi's voter identification documents, and the government's handling of the Babri Masjid, Batla House episodes, and the 2002 Gujarat riots. Critically, while Sonia writes about Kashmiri traditions and culture, the memoir reportedly makes no mention of the displacement and suffering of Kashmiri Pandits, who were forced to flee the Valley in the early 1990s. These omissions are likely to fuel charges of a selective and self-serving account.

Timing, Politics, and the Rahul Gandhi Subtext

The memoir's timing has not gone unnoticed. It arrives at a moment when the Congress is actively constructing both a political and personal narrative around Rahul Gandhi, who has adopted an increasingly assertive public posture. Whether the book is designed to reinvigorate party cadres, burnish the Gandhi family's legacy, or add heft to Rahul's positioning is a matter of interpretation. What is certain is that it has generated the kind of public conversation about Congress's internal workings that the party rarely invites voluntarily.

Political memoirs are, by definition, partial accounts. No leader is expected to write a self-indictment. But when the subject governs a party that has shaped modern India, its history belongs to the public domain as much as to the family. 'Belonging' offers a guided glimpse — but the doors it has opened may prove harder to close than those it has kept shut.