पानीपत १७६१ (मराठा साम्राज्य एवं पानीपत महायुद्ध इतिहास)

THE JUDGMENT 125
none can say that they were inferior to any in India of those days With all
their internal quarrels, no other state in India could muster so many troops for
war under a unitary command. No other nation was less bigoted or more
tolerant in religious and social matters, as is proved by their behaviour towards
their Muslim neighbours or their rule over Muslim subjects. There is no in-
stance of their having fabricated a document like Clive, none where they tried
to gain a point by assassination or intimidation. They did not hire mercenaries
for slaughtering their opponent in an unguarded moment. They would not
murder persons by calling them for an interview. They would not kill foreign
emissaries at their Court. No other war-like nation is known to be milder in
their peace-time actions. There are no instances where the Marathas entered
into the slaughter of civilians after a victory, or during conquest to have
created terror. It is nowhere noted that they slaughtered disarmed prisoners,
like the Durranis after Panipat, or uselessly cut off the head of a fallen soldier
as in the case of Dattaji Shinde at Buradi. They did not apply torture to ex-
tract hidden wealth like the Afghans at Delhi in 1757. In fact, one feels many
a time that their comparative mildness their humane behaviour, their civil man-
ners, their unwillingness to gain their ends by back-door machinations or solve
their problems, internal or external, by swift unscrupulous actions such as mur-
dering an opponent, or doing away with their unwanted brethren like the
Mughals, has had the effect of their not succeeding in history. Be that
as it may, none can charge them as being morally condemnable in comparison
with many other military nations in the world. When a responsible historian of
India like Sir Jadunath SARKAR charges the Marathas with being "lesser breeds
beyond the law,"³ one does not know how to characterize such a statement and
what standard of conduct and morality he wants to apply. He seems to belong
to that category of historians-cum moralists "who justify Providence by the
event and hold nothing so deserving as success. To them there can be no vic-
tory in a bad cause, prescription and duration legitimate, and whatever exists
is right and reasonable, and God manifests His will by that which He tolerates.
Men must confirm to the divine decree by living to shape the future after the
ratified image of the past."⁴ These writers should learn to know that there
are many Marathas—perhaps the majority—who think it better to have lost
the Empire than to have followed a line of conduct after the manner of a
Clive or Najib or Abdali.
GENERAL THOUGHTS ON WAR
Mankind since it began to think and take a retrospective view of human
affairs, has been sharply divided on the moral basis of war, and it will prob-
ably remain so divided for all time. Indian civilisation, at least after the
Aryan imposition, has not only sanctioned war but has consecrated a particular
class for that work and given it the second rank in society. This is in sharp
contrast with the neighbouring Chinese civilisation which had relegated the
soldier to the last place in society and only tolerated him as an unavoidable
³ Fall II.291
⁴ Lord Acton, Lectures on Modern History (1907) (Inaugural Lecture) p 25 ,