The encounter took place at the Vidhan Bhavan complex in Mumbai on Wednesday after Pawar attended a high-powered committee meeting on the Maharashtra-Karnataka border dispute. He later visited Shinde’s chamber, where he was welcomed with a shawl and bouquet.
Pawar’s party described the interaction as a courtesy call arising from their presence at the same venue. However, the decision to hold a meeting with NCP legislators inside Shinde’s office intensified speculation about Pawar’s political intentions and the stability of the MVA.
Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut said his party was “disturbed and hurt” by the development. He argued that meeting under Shinde’s roof damaged Pawar’s standing and amounted to the “glorification of traitors”, a reference to the 2022 rebellion that brought down the Uddhav Thackeray-led coalition government.
Raut questioned why Pawar had chosen Shinde’s chamber when other meeting spaces were available within the legislature complex and nearby party offices. He said MVA partners should observe political boundaries when dealing with leaders held responsible for splitting alliance parties.
The NCP responded sharply, accusing Raut of applying double standards. Party spokesperson Amol Matele said Pawar’s meetings with Uddhav Thackeray and Raut were described as statesmanship, while a discussion with Shinde was being portrayed as political surrender.
Matele said Shinde occupied a constitutional position and that senior leaders were expected to communicate across party lines on matters affecting Maharashtra. He argued that dialogue was integral to politics and that meeting an opponent did not amount to endorsing the opponent’s actions.
The party also said Pawar’s political judgment should not be questioned by allies, pointing to his role in assembling the MVA government in 2019. Its unusually combative response suggested that the dispute had moved beyond private discomfort and developed into an open contest over authority within the alliance.
Congress sought to contain the controversy, treating the meeting as insufficient evidence of any change in political alignment. Its restrained response reflected concern that a public confrontation among the three partners could further weaken an opposition already facing defections, organisational pressures and uncertainty over future electoral arrangements.
The dispute has revived longstanding suspicion within the MVA over Pawar’s willingness to maintain working relationships with leaders across the political divide. His ability to communicate with ruling coalition figures has often been regarded as political pragmatism, but allies periodically view such contact as a signal of possible realignment.
Shinde’s public handling of the meeting added to the attention. His office presented it as a cordial interaction following the border committee session, while photographs of the felicitation circulated widely. Shinde later dismissed criticism from Raut, portraying the Sena leader’s remarks as habitual political commentary.
The timing is particularly sensitive for Uddhav Thackeray’s party. Several of its leaders have crossed over to Shinde’s camp since the 2022 split, and every visible interaction between an MVA leader and the deputy chief minister is assessed against fears of further erosion.
The border committee meeting itself was chaired by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and reviewed Maharashtra’s legal and administrative strategy in the decades-old dispute with Karnataka. Pawar attended the panel’s deliberations at Vidhan Bhavan after an absence of more than three decades from such a meeting.
The government decided to strengthen its legal team for the pending Supreme Court case, pursue an early listing and appoint representation for Marathi-speaking residents appearing before the Karnataka High Court. It also proposed talks involving coordinating ministers from both states and Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
Officials discussed complaints involving Marathi signboards and difficulties faced by residents in contested border areas. Monthly coordination meetings in Kolhapur and consultations with members of Parliament on linguistic minority recommendations were also proposed.
