पानीपत १७६१ (मराठा साम्राज्य एवं पानीपत महायुद्ध इतिहास)
Panipat 1761 with Historical Commentary
टी. एस. शेजवलकर / शास्त्रीय अनुवाद द्वारा
पृष्ठ 180, कुल 197 में से
संदर्भ में पढ़ें126 PANIPAT 1761
evil Turks who conquered India and held their sway over it for half a mil
lennium were a moving nation in arms In addition, the Islamic teachings
which they followed had charged them with waging an incessant war upon the
infidels till they were converted to Islam When the Marathas rose upon the
horizon of history they had perforce to take to the military profession for solving
the Indian riddle It was a necessity imposed on them by the Epoch and they
had no choice of refusing it How mild and inoffensive the Marathas otherwise
are has been proved after the extinction of their sovereign power, for by the
end of the 19th century they were relegated to the rank of non martial races in
India in the Indo British political phraseology It means that the Marathas
as a race take to arms only when they are insulted or forced to as the Chinese
monk Yu an Chwang remarked long ago in his itinerary Spilling of blood
never became a pastime with them as with the Afghans On the whole, the
battles fought by the Marathas were the least bloody, the casualties on both
sides being as few as possible Their so called guerilla mode of warfare was
nothing more than seeking to gain their ends by manoeuvring and strategy more
than by actual crossing of swords face to face Having acted throughout their
career in this spirit, they naturally felt intensely such a disaster as Panipat on
account of the heavy massacres following it When estimating the effects of
Panipat on the Marathas, this fact should not be lost sight of
The best of political thinkers have allowed war as a human necessity
in solving uncompromising questions Some go so far as to call it a moral neces
sity Taking the historic view, certainly the recorded history of mankind is
mostly a history of wars waged by the various races of mankind between and
amongst themselves as Sir John FORTESCUE says, but all would not agree with
him in thinking the military force of a nation as a manifestation of its moral
force At the same time it is certain that in history the military force has stood
as the test of material civilisation if not of moral The best soldier has always
manifested the highest human virtues personally, but collectively it is difficult
to characterise war as a school for virtues If sometimes the best qualities of a
nation are called forth and mobilised by war, it is also true and much more
often true that the worst side of human nature is exhibited and given a licence
as a result of war Whether a state lapses into degeneracy as a result of long
peace is also a debatable point, because for counteracting such a possibility some-
one else has to suffer The cruelty and the futility of war for final settlement
of human world problems has become more and more manifest with the
progress of modern civilisation and coming together of mankind Be that as it
may, speaking about Panipat, it is very correct to say that the inferiority of
the Marathas, in the material sense, became very manifest But on the moral
side their record is very clean They had not fought for the three primary
(and also primitive) aims of war as given by HOBBES, viz (1) material gain,
(2) fear, or (3) glory It means they fought for a fourth cause unknown to
that political philosopher, viz principle, the sanctity of the contract they had
entered into with the Delhi Emperor for the guarding of his Empire On the
other hand Ahmad Shah Abdali individually was also fighting for a cause
he thought right, viz the cause of Islam in India He triumphed by his superior
power, won glory, freed himself from the fear of the Marathas once for all,