Maharashtra politics has long revolved around towering personalities. From Y.B. Chavan and Bal Thackeray to Sharad Pawar, the state’s political landscape has often been shaped by leaders whose personal charisma became synonymous with their parties. But Indian politics is entering a different era. Electoral victories today are no longer secured merely through legacy or symbolism; they increasingly depend on organisation, professional management and the ability to build institutions that outlast individuals.
The challenges witnessed in regional parties such as the Uddhav Sena after its split and the internal churn within the Trinamool Congress underline a larger political reality: charisma alone cannot sustain an organisation indefinitely. The parties that endure are those that prepare for leadership transitions before they become crises. They invest in systems, nurture the next generation, empower organisational structures and reassure workers that the party’s future does not depend on a single individual.
For the Nationalist Congress Party, this transition has become even more significant following the passing of Ajit Pawar. His demise created not only an emotional vacuum for party workers but also raised a larger political question: can the organisation move beyond dependence on one towering leader and evolve into a stronger institution? Increasingly, the answer appears to lie in the roles being played by Sunetra Pawar, Rajya Sabha MP Parth Pawar and the younger organisational leadership represented by Jay Pawar.
From Legacy Politics to Leadership Building
Sunetra Pawar’s public engagement since stepping into a larger political role has reflected an emphasis on continuity, accessibility and organisational cohesion rather than rhetorical politics. Whether through organisational meetings, outreach programmes or direct engagement with workers, she has sought to reinforce the governance-oriented political culture associated with Ajit Pawar. Rather than attempting to create a new political identity overnight, she appears focused on preserving the values that defined his leadership while giving confidence to the party’s rank and file.
One cannot overlook the personal dimension of this transition. The passing of Ajit Pawar was not merely the loss of one of Maharashtra’s most influential political leaders; for Sunetra Pawar and her family, it was the loss of a husband, a father and the person around whom both public and private life revolved. Yet, even while navigating profound personal grief under relentless public scrutiny, she chose not to retreat from public life. Instead, she stepped forward to reassure party workers, maintain organisational continuity and keep the party united at a time when uncertainty could easily have weakened morale.
Her sons have faced a similar test. Rajya Sabha MP Parth Pawar and Jay Pawar have had to balance personal loss with public responsibility. Rather than stepping away, both have immersed themselves in strengthening the organisation their father spent decades building. Leadership is often tested not during moments of political triumph but during moments of adversity. In choosing responsibility over retreat, the family has attempted to send a message that the party’s future cannot be held hostage to tragedy.
Political legacies survive not because family members inherit them, but because they preserve the organisational habits that made those legacies successful. Maharashtra has witnessed several examples where political inheritances failed because the accompanying organisation weakened. Equally, there have been instances where disciplined cadre-building ensured continuity even during periods of leadership transition.
The challenge before the NCP is therefore not merely protecting Ajit Pawar’s legacy. It is institutionalising it. That is where Parth Pawar’s role deserves closer attention.
Every political party eventually reaches a point where traditional methods of mobilisation need to coexist with modern political management. Elections today involve sophisticated data analysis, volunteer networks, digital communication, policy research, constituency mapping and continuous engagement beyond campaign seasons. Around the world, and increasingly in India, political organisations that embrace professional management tend to adapt faster to changing voter expectations.
As a Rajya Sabha MP, Parth Pawar has increasingly been associated with efforts to bring a more professional outlook into sections of the party organisation. Such efforts inevitably create resistance. Every established political organisation develops informal centres of influence that are comfortable with familiar ways of functioning. Greater accountability, structured decision-making and younger leadership often unsettle entrenched interests.
This is neither unusual nor unique to the NCP. The Congress has repeatedly debated generational transition. Regional parties across India have grappled with balancing experienced leadership and younger organisational managers. Even parties with strong electoral machinery have periodically faced internal discomfort whenever systems replaced personalities as the primary basis of influence. Short-term friction, therefore, should not automatically be interpreted as organisational weakness. In many cases, it reflects an organisation adapting to new political realities.
Growth Over Survival: The Message for Party Workers
The timing of this transition is equally significant. Across India, political parties are increasingly confronting internal instability. Regional formations have witnessed factional disputes, leadership crises and organisational fragmentation. The broader lesson is unmistakable: parties that become preoccupied with managing internal crises often struggle to prepare for long-term growth. The more successful organisations are those that continue investing in cadre development, leadership grooming and institutional capacity even while navigating immediate political challenges.
For the NCP, signalling that the leadership is focused on expansion rather than merely survival sends an important message to party workers. Cadres draw confidence not simply from electoral victories but from believing that the organisation has a roadmap extending beyond the next election. A professional structure reassures workers that merit, planning and long-term strategy, not just day-to-day political management, will shape the party’s future.
This context also explains why dismissing Sunetra Pawar and Parth Pawar as political novices may be premature.
Politics is ultimately measured at the ballot box. The recent Baramati electoral outcome, where the NCP registered a record victory under politically challenging circumstances, demonstrated that organisational discipline, local credibility and sustained voter engagement continue to matter. While no single election should be over-interpreted, it would be equally incorrect to ignore what such a result says about the party’s ability to retain public trust in its strongest bastion despite a period of transition.
Political legitimacy is earned incrementally. Sharad Pawar himself did not become one of India’s most respected political strategists overnight. Every major political leader has experienced scepticism during periods of transition. Time, performance and consistency, not early commentary, ultimately determine political stature.
The same principle should apply as observers assess the evolving roles of Sunetra Pawar and Parth Pawar. Criticism is both inevitable and healthy in a democracy. Public figures should be questioned and their performance scrutinised. But meaningful assessment also requires patience. Leadership transitions cannot be judged solely through speculation or isolated headlines. They deserve to be evaluated against measurable outcomes: organisational expansion, electoral performance, governance, public outreach and the ability to strengthen institutions.
The NCP’s future will not depend solely on whether members of the Pawar family continue to occupy positions of influence. It will depend on whether the party succeeds in transforming itself into a modern, professionally managed political organisation capable of remaining relevant over the next two decades.
If Sunetra Pawar succeeds in carrying forward a governance-oriented political culture, if Parth Pawar succeeds in institutionalising a more professional organisational framework and continues strengthening the party’s grassroots network, this period may eventually be remembered not as a phase of uncertainty, but as the beginning of the NCP’s next chapter.
In politics, legacies endure not because they are inherited. They endure because they are carefully built, renewed and adapted to changing times.
(The author is a Sony Award-winning journalist, with nearly 30 years at the BBC, working across London, Washington DC, and South Asia.)