पानीपत १७६१ (मराठा साम्राज्य एवं पानीपत महायुद्ध इतिहास)

CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 133
The first event of the Shinde Ruhela fight is given next and Balvantrao Mehen-
dale's event the last¹ Kashiraj is found following the incorrect order of the
Bakhar in his narrative, giving the events of Govindpant, Parashar Dadaji,
Shinde and Balvantrao consecutively. We cannot treat this as a mere accident
in writing. Either Kashiraj had the Bakhar in his mind when writing his nar-
rative, or both the Bakhar and Kashiraj copied from a third unknown, com
mon source. This is further proved by Kashiraj's attempt at giving dates of
certain events which are proved to be utterly wrong by other direct evidence.
The Ka ffyat gives the correct dates wherever it has given these, while Kashiraj
is found to be wrong—even in his date of the great battle, reckoning by the
Muslim calendar. Sir Jadunath treats these points as 'lapses of memory or
hurried writing.' But no serious student of textual criticism can be satisfied
with this explanation. Kashiraj tries to foist authenticity on his hearsay nar-
rative by introducing dates into it, thereby impressing upon the reader the cor-
rectness thereof. We do not think he had kept a diary of the events. Had
there been no verifying proofs for the events he narrates, he would have passed
on as the writer on Panipat, eye witness as he was for the events from begin-
ning to end. Unfortunately for Kashiraj, a few Marathi papers have survived
the ravages of time, exposing him to the hilt. A man who treats the whole
episode as a sort of play of destiny, who charges Bhau with pride, who though
a Maharashtra Brahmin himself, cannot properly know Bhau's relationship
to Balvantrao Mehendale, a man who could not understand the constitutional
thread behind the Maratha politics in the north, a man who treats Surajmal's
episode without understanding the politics behind it, who introduces rumours to
heighten the romantic effect of his narrative, a man who omits important facts
which militate against the tenor of his narrative (e.g. Bhau's deposition of Shah
Jahan Sani and the proclamation of Shah Alam as Emperor), a man who
gives incorrect dates, a man who does not report Abdali's shifting of camps,
a man who is incorrect even in his narration of the actual battle in certain par-
ticulars, and finally a man who would not mention the important fact of
Abdali's appointment of the regicide Maratha protege Ghazi ud din as the
Wazir with full powers before his departure because it would mar the effect
of his whole narrative, shedding a powerful light as it does on the whole of the
Panipat episode from beginning to end,—to call such a man's narrative as the
most trustworthy authority on the Panipat campaign and to say that "no other
author can be set against him in point of authenticity," is something beyond
the range of historical research.
The main points on which the chronicles differ from Kashiraj's ac-
count are the following:
(1) Changes in the sites of Abdali's camp.
(2) Bhau's plan of battle.
(3) The directions of the rival armies on the battle field.
(1) The cause of the so-called Maratha right wing and the Durrani
left wing never coming to grips throughout the battle.