पानीपत १७६१ (मराठा साम्राज्य एवं पानीपत महायुद्ध इतिहास)

volume, offered criticism on the Panipat affair. His main contribution, based
on the documents published by him, is to point out the promise of the Peshwa
to go to Bhau's help by the month of Magha or February 1761. If Bhau was
biding his time till the arrival of the Peshwa, the cause of his waiting is made
clear thereby. He also points out the fact that Nanasaheb had no suspicion
of Holkar's saving of his skin by running away from the battlefield. The
Peshwa attached, after Panipat, not only the districts held as Jagir by Mal-
harrao, but also those held by Shinde and Pawar who had fallen in battle,
proving that the attachment was not on account of disobedience at Panipat
but for some other reason, possibly financial. But as Purandare wrote his in-
troduction in 1929 before the publication of the Peshwa Daftar, his criticism
has to be modified in the light of those papers.

---

I should say something now about the nature of the work to be done
and the difficulty of doing it in the proper manner. For this, I cannot begin
better than by quoting from the letters of the Duke of Wellington about the
battle of Waterloo for comparison:
"The people of England may be entitled to a detailed and accurate ac-
count of the battle of Waterloo, and I have no objection to their having it,
but I do object to their being misinformed and misled. I am really dis-
gusted with and ashamed of all that I have seen written of the battle of Water-
loo. And there is not one which contains a true representation or even an
idea of the transaction and this is because the writers have referred to stories
picked up from peasants, private soldiers, individual officers, etc. instead of to
the official sources and reports. It is very difficult for me to judge of the
particular position of each body of troops under my command at any particu-
lar hour. Surely the details of the battle might be left to the original official
reports. Historians and commentators were not necessary. There is one
event noted in the world—the battle of Waterloo—and you will not find any
two people agree as to the exact hour when it commenced. I am accus-
tomed to read so many conflicting descriptions of the battle that I would soon
begin to believe I was not there myself."
Writing to Sir Walter Scott who wished to write authoritatively on
the battle of Waterloo, only two months after the event, the Duke, expressing
himself in the same tone, further said, 'The object which you propose to your-
self is very difficult of attainment, and, if really attained, is not a little in-
vidious. The history of a battle is not unlike the history of a ball. Some indi-
viduals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the bat-
tle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the ex-
act moment at which, they occurred, which makes all the difference as to their
value or importance. Then the faults or the misbehaviour of some gave oc-
casion for the distinction of others and perhaps were the cause of material
losses, and you cannot write a true history of a battle without including the
faults and misbehaviour of part, at least, of those engaged. Believe me that
every man you see in a military uniform is not a hero, and that many in-
stances of individual heroism must be passed over unrelated, it is better for
the general interests to leave those parts of the story untold than to tell the
xvii