Saved by HarperCollins: ‘Belonging’ - The memoir Penguin abandoned

When a graphic account of a communal massacre becomes a map problem, and a former Congress president’s memoir becomes a fact-checking emergency, it is time to stop asking what is being blocked. We must start asking who has made the blocking normal.

Within weeks of each other in 2026, Penguin Random House India retreated from two major books. First, it backed away from Joe Sacco’s ‘The Once and Future Riot; a globally acclaimed graphic reportage on the 2013 Muzaffarnagar communal violence. Second, it withdrew from publishing Sonia Gandhi’s highly anticipated memoir, ‘Belonging: A Journey of Love.’

In both cases, Penguin India offered impeccably worded explanations stripped of any political context. In both cases, the truth lay in the publisher’s silences.

On September 4, 2026, that silence was broken by a rival. HarperCollins India formally announced it had secured the rights to publish Gandhi’s memoir, maintaining the original November 10 release date. This rescue is a victory for readers. But it also exposes the hollow excuses of the original retreat, laying bare a deep crisis of self-censorship in Indian publishing.

Two retreats, one pattern:

In August, Penguin India claimed Sacco’s book had map inaccuracies and unresolved “content questions.” But Sacco had already published the work internationally in 2025. His North American publisher had thoroughly fact-checked it. No other country found it problematic. Speaking to a national English daily, Sacco revealed what Penguin India actually wanted. The publisher demanded he alter quotes from people he had interviewed, including a public figure, “so as to mute their rhetoric.” The publisher also required extensive verification forms and consent documents that went far beyond standard global publishing practice.

When Sacco refused these onerous demands, the book never appeared on Indian shelves. Sacco noted that distributing his account of violence — which left over 60 dead and 40,000 displaced — might have been “embarrassing” for the publisher. The commercial calculus was transparent. The Sonia Gandhi episode was even more direct. ‘Belonging’ was announced for a worldwide November 10 release by Alfred A Knopf, an American imprint of Penguin Random House. Yet, on August 28, Penguin India issued a sanitised statement saying it would not be the Indian publisher.

Independent media reports quickly revealed what the statement concealed. Leading newspapers identified the precise passages Penguin India’s legal team had sought to remove: Gandhi’s personal impressions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, including his reference to her as a ‘Jersey cow’ at a 2004 rally; her observations on India-China relations; and her references to the RSS.

Gandhi refused to alter her manuscript. She maintained it was her story and she would not allow distortions of her life. The publisher walked away. Crucially, the passages that terrified Penguin India will appear fully intact in the international edition. Senior Congress leader Ashok Gehlot told the media: It is because of government intervention. They want to finish off the freedom of expression of an individual.

The rhetoric of retreat:

Both of Penguin India’s retreats employed the language of editorial responsibility. A technical map error. Routine fact-checking. Unanswered citations. This rhetorical laundering is more insidious than straightforward censorship. It strips suppression of its moral cost. When an act of silencing is dressed up as a “normal publishing process,” there is nothing to debate and no one to hold accountable.

This is not Penguin India’s first capitulation. In 2014, the publisher withdrew and pulped copies of Wendy Doniger’s ‘The Hindus: An Alternative History’ following a lawsuit by the Hindu nationalist group Shiksha Bachao Andolan. But back then, Penguin India had at least contested the case in court for four years before settling. The public debate that followed acknowledged the reality: it was an act of suppression.

Twelve years later, there is no such acknowledgement. The retreat is immediate. The defeat is framed as standard editorial practice. The moral vocabulary has vanished.

The infrastructure of private censorship:

These episodes reflect a wider disease documented by publishing scholars. A new layer of scrutiny — known as a “legal read” — has become standard practice in Indian publishing. Terms like “Hindutva,” “crony capitalism,” and “Sanghi” are quietly flagged for deletion. Foreign scholarly citations are rejected.

No government decree is necessary. No formal ban is issued. Individual lawyers flag vocabulary. Individual editors adjust chapters. Individual executives describe the result as a routine audit. Together, they form a censorship infrastructure built entirely from private decisions made in private offices.

The commercial logic is undeniable. The same publisher that declined an account of the Muzaffarnagar riots and stepped back from Sonia Gandhi’s memoir simultaneously publishes works aligned with government narratives. The state no longer needs to ban books. It has trained the market to ban them first.

A bipartisan history:

This pattern of suppression is not exclusive to the current political moment. India banned Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’ in 1988 — even before Iran did — through a Congress government customs notification. Taslima Nasrin’s ‘Lajja’ was banned in West Bengal in 1993. The Emergency of 1975-77 involved direct press censorship on an unmatched scale. In August 2025, authorities in Jammu and Kashmir proscribed 25 books by scholars and journalists.

The banning reflex is bipartisan. What has changed today is its internalisation. Private actors have concluded that pre-emptive compliance is commercially safer than principled resistance.

The countersignal:

Amid this gloom, there are vital counter-signals. After Penguin India’s retreat from the Sacco book, at least six Indian publishers reached out to offer him a deal. And now, HarperCollins has stepped in to publish Gandhi’s memoir, keeping the original text intact. These are reassuring moments. They prove, as Sacco observed, that people who believe in democracy still exist.

But bravery should not be a prerequisite for publishing facts. The Muzaffarnagar riots happened. Sonia Gandhi met Narendra Modi and formed impressions. These are historical realities. Neither requires a publisher’s permission to exist.

HarperCollins proving that ‘Belonging’ can be published in India only confirms that Penguin India’s decision was a political choice, not a legal necessity.

When publishers silence inconvenient voices without a formal government decree, censorship becomes invisible. Private suppression replaces public bans. The effect is identical, but the accountability is zero. That is where India finds itself today.

Recognising it plainly, without euphemism, is the first step toward fighting it.

(The writer is with the Cholleti BlackRobe Chambers, Hyderabad, and writes on economy, politics and law)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Cholleti

[email protected]