Sonia Gandhi won't make me PM: Pranab told daughter Sharmistha after 2004 drama
New Delhi(PTI): "No, she will not make me the PM," was Pranab Mukherjee's cryptic response in a reference to Sonia Gandhi when he was asked by his daughter Sharmistha Mukherjee about his chances of becoming the prime minister in 2004.
Sharmistha recalls her father's reply after Sonia Gandhi's decision to withdraw from the prime ministerial race in her upcoming book "In Pranab, My Father: A Daughter Remembers".
In the book, the former Congress spokesperson who quit politics in 2021 provides a glimpse into the illustrious life of her father, where she also says that he did not have any rancour against Sonia Gandhi for not making him the prime minister, and definitely not against the man chosen - Manmohan Singh.
Through her father's diary entries, personal stories narrated to her and her own research, Sharmistha uncovers new, hitherto unknown facets of his political life - his unfulfilled ambition of becoming India's prime minister arising out of his inability to emerge as the 'number one person' to earn Sonia Gandhi's trust, the personality cult around the Nehru-Gandhi family and Rahul Gandhi's lack of charisma and political understanding among other things, according to the book's publishers Rupa Publications.
Mukherjee served as India's finance minister and subsequently became minister for External Affairs, Defence, Finance and Commerce. He was India's 13th president (2012 to 2017). He died on August 31, 2020 at the age of 84.
As the president of the single largest party Congress to win the Lok Sabha elections in 2004, Sonia Gandhi was tipped to be the prime minister and had the full support of the coalition partners.
But she renounced her claim to be the prime minister - a decision that took the nation, including her own party colleagues and coalition partners, by surprise.
In the chapter titled "The PM India Never Had", Sharmistha also writes: "Following Sonia's decision to withdraw from the prime ministerial race, there was intense speculation within the media and political spheres.
"The names of Dr Manmohan Singh and Pranab were being discussed as the top contenders for the position. I did not have the chance to meet Baba for a couple of days as he was terribly busy, but I spoke to him over the phone. I asked him excitedly if he was going to become the PM. His response was blunt, 'No, she will not make me the PM. It'll be Manmohan Singh.' He added, 'But she should announce it fast. This uncertainty is not good for the country'."
The author goes on to add that if her father harboured any disappointment about not being named the prime minister, it did not reflect in his diaries. He told a journalist that he did not have any expectation from Sonia Gandhi to make him the prime minister.
"If there's no expectation, there's no disappointment as well," the book, which will be launched on Mukherjee's birth anniversary on December 11, says.
"It is generally believed that Pranab had a chance to become the PM earlier in 1984 as well, after Indira Gandhi's assassination, and not just in 2004," it adds.
Sharmistha says that people often asked her whether her father actually harboured the ambition to become the prime minister and she posed this question to him during the UPA-I era.
"His response was emphatic. He said, 'Of course, I would like to be the prime minister. Any politician worth his salt has this ambition. But just because I want it does not necessarily mean I am going to get it," she writes.
She then drew her own conclusions: "Pranab Mukherjee definitely had the desire to be the PM, but he also came to terms with the fact that he was not going to become one."
Sharmistha says Mukherjee's diary entries from those days contain very sketchy details, perhaps indicating a lack of time owing to a busy and hectic schedule filled with meetings and consultations with various stakeholders.
On 17 May 2004, he wrote, "Sonia Gandhi decides to withdraw from Prime Ministerial candidature. BJP's vicious campaign. Myself, Manmohan, Arjun, Ahmed Patel and Ghulam Nabi were called. We are stunned." On 18 May, he wrote, "Sonia Gandhi sticks to her decision. Countrywide agitation. Allies are also shocked. CPP meeting emotionally surcharged. Appeal to her to reconsider. Work up to 1 am."
"On 19 May, almost with a sigh of relief, he wrote, 'Issues resolved. Manmohan Singh becomes PM designate. Manmohan and Soniaji met President and the President was pleased to give mandate to form the government to Manmohan Singh'," the book says.
Sharmistha mentions that though at that time, her father didn't write anything more, on December 31, while recounting major events of the year, he wrote, "Most surprising was the amazing sacrifice of Sonia Gandhi by refusing to accept the Prime Ministership of the country despite pressure from within the party and outside. Her decision saved the country from a bitter confrontation between BJP and Congress."
She also writes that her father felt Sonia Gandhi was "intelligent, hardworking and keen to learn. Once he told me that unlike many political leaders, her biggest strength was that she knew and recognized her weaknesses and was willing to work hard to overcome them. She knew that she lacked political experience but worked hard to understand the complexities of Indian politics and society".
One of the early references in his diaries about Rahul Gandhi was on January
29, 2009, in the context of a CWC meeting that had discussions on strategies for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections that year as one of the agendas, the book says.
After that, there are few references in his diaries of Rahul Gandhi visiting him at his residence.
"Pranab described him as 'very courteous' and 'full of questions', which he took as
a sign of Rahul's desire to learn. But he felt that Rahul was 'yet to mature politically'. Rahul continued to meet Pranab at Rashtrapati Bhavan, though not very frequently. Pranab advised him to join the Cabinet and gain some first-hand experience in governance. Rahul obviously did not heed the advice, as we all know," the book says.
"During one of these visits on 25 March 2013, Pranab noted, 'He has interest in diverse range of subjects but moves very quickly from one subject to another. I don't know how much he listened and absorbed'," it adds.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
