The sudden death of Ajit Pawar has injected shock, grief and political uncertainty into Maharashtra at a moment when the Nationalist Congress Party was already navigating one of the most delicate transitions in its history. What was, until days ago, a carefully choreographed attempt to reunify two warring factions is now unfolding under the shadow of tragedy. Yet politics rarely pauses. The merger talks between the Ajit Pawar-led faction and the Sharad Pawar camp had reached an advanced stage even before the accident, and the logic driving reunification has not disappeared. If anything, Ajit Pawar’s passing may accelerate decisions that were already being weighed with caution. The question now is not whether the NCP can come back together, but what shape that unity will take and how it will reconfigure power in a state where alliances remain fluid and arithmetic is everything.
The split of the NCP in 2023 was not merely an organisational rupture; it represented a generational and strategic clash over how to engage with power. Ajit Pawar’s decision to align with the ruling coalition gave his faction institutional leverage but cost the party a measure of ideological clarity and emotional cohesion. Sharad Pawar retained moral authority and a loyal cadre but saw his political space narrowed by the realities of coalition politics. The tentative thaw visible in joint civic contests in Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad suggested that both sides recognised the limits of prolonged division. A fragmented NCP risked ceding Western Maharashtra’s cooperative and agrarian heartland to rivals who had already made visible inroads. The merger talks were therefore less about nostalgia than survival: a pragmatic attempt to consolidate a vote bank, protect organisational networks, and prepare for a long electoral cycle leading into 2029.
Ajit Pawar’s death transforms the emotional context of that calculation. It removes the central figure around whom the breakaway faction was organised and creates an immediate leadership vacuum that cannot be filled by arithmetic alone. The instinct within the Sharad Pawar camp that the veteran leader should resume a guiding role is understandable; he remains the party’s most recognisable face and its chief strategist. At the same time, the proposal to elevate Sunetra Pawar reflects another political truth: Indian parties, especially regional ones, often rely on family continuity to stabilise transitions. The tension between institutional authority and familial legacy will shape the merger negotiations as much as ideology or electoral math. Any unified structure will have to balance respect for Ajit Pawar’s political base with the need to avoid appearing as a purely dynastic settlement. How this balance is struck will determine whether the reunited NCP looks like a renewed political force or a fragile compromise.
Beyond internal equations, the merger has consequences for Maharashtra’s broader political geometry. A united NCP with a substantial bloc of MPs and MLAs would instantly become a pivot in either the ruling alliance or the opposition front. It could strengthen the Mahayuti government from within or recalibrate the Maha Vikas Aghadi by altering bargaining power among partners. Western Maharashtra, long described as the state’s sugar belt and a traditional NCP stronghold, is central to this calculation. Recent civic results showed that no party can take this region for granted. Reunification is an attempt to reclaim a political ecosystem built over decades through cooperatives, local bodies and personal networks. The coming local polls will serve as an early test of whether sympathy, memory and organisational unity can translate into votes. If they do, the NCP could re-emerge as a decisive swing force in a state accustomed to fractured mandates.
Ultimately, the story unfolding is about more than one party’s merger. It is about how Indian regional politics absorbs shock and reconstitutes itself around legacy, pragmatism and the relentless pull of electoral necessity. Ajit Pawar had reportedly viewed reunification through a long lens, linking it to the party’s relevance in the next decade. That long view now becomes a collective responsibility rather than a personal project. For the NCP, the immediate challenge is to convert grief into coherence without rushing into arrangements that deepen future fault lines. For Maharashtra, the episode is a reminder that its politics remains intensely personality-driven, yet constantly subject to recalibration. Whether the merger becomes a tribute to a fallen leader’s final political instinct or another chapter in the state’s cycle of splits and alliances will depend on the maturity of those now steering the process. The opportunity exists to rebuild a party on clearer foundations; the risk is that urgency may outrun reflection.