पानीपत १७६१ (मराठा साम्राज्य एवं पानीपत महायुद्ध इतिहास)

Holkar for their major share in the defeat, he also pointed out Bhau's
personal defects and shortcomings as a commander in chief. Rao Bahadur
Sardesai, writing in 1922, summarises the various opinions without offering
any new suggestion of his own. An analysis of his writing will bring forth the
self contradictory statements due to his defective method of copying all and
synthesising none. Mr D V Apte tackling the problem after him, first pointed
out the obvious factual defects in Rajwade's arguments. The confusion of
directions in Kashiraj's account of Panipat, Rajwade's misapprehension in
taking Baghpat as situated on the right bank of the Jamuna, vitiating
his whole strategical argument and similar other flaws were ably discussed by
him. But even Apte failed to analyse the whole material and point out Raj-
wade's manipulation of the same. Prof S N Sen's chapter on Panipat in his
Military System of the Marathas (1928), is the best short account in English,
which omits nothing of the essentials. With the publication of the Peshwa
Daftar, however, during 1930-33, a new chapter opened in the Panipat criti-
cism. As soon as the second volume styled Panipat Prakarana was published in
1930 S V Athalye an old collaborator with Rajwade and a deep student of
Maratha history, published a review of the same in the Kesari weekly (4th
April 1931). He pointed out the incorrect dating of the documents published,
and focussed the light of the letters on the events leading to the Panipat cam-
paign. He absolved Holkar and Antaji Manakeshwar from the blame and
made Bhau and the Peshwa mainly responsible for the disaster. Another
young enthusiastic recruit for Maratha history, the late Mr R V Nadkarni, be-
gan a series of articles on the Panipat affair in Vividhajnana Vistara and first
pointed out on the strength of the new material certain obvious defects in
Sardesai's Panipat Prakarana. His original contribution to the discussion con-
sists of the constitutional aspect of the Maratha activities in the north in gen-
eral and with the Delhi Court in particular. The charge against Govindpant
he thought now as more than proved, with an emphasis. But he was unac-
quainted with the whole Maratha system and not an expert in research mat-
ters. He has taken Agra as situated on the northern bank of the Jamuna and
confused Saranjam with Kamavis. Govindpant was a Kamavisdar or Mam-
latdar of various revenue taluks; but he had never received any specific
Saranjam or Jagir conferred for maintaining an army as a military captain.
Not understanding the difference between the two, Nadkarni's downright con-
demnation of Govindpant, is based on a false premise. Besides, he wrote only
on the basis of SPD 2 and before the publication of Nos 21 and 27, supplying
further information about the Panipat campaign. Sir Jadunath Sarkar, com-
pletely re-writing the whole episode in 1934, has still missed certain docu-
ments then available to him, and in general has taken a very unsympathetic
view of the Maratha affairs. His factual errors, incorrect criticism and non-
comprehension of the whole affair in proper perspective have been pointed out
and criticised in detail by us. Incidentally, the performance of this renowned
historian proves our contention that history must be written by one of the
nationals.
Mr K V Purandare, editor of the documents collected from the Sardar-
Purandare family which was throughout the whole period on very intimate
terms with the Peshwa family, has also, in his editorial preface to the first
xvi