पानीपत १७६१ (मराठा साम्राज्य एवं पानीपत महायुद्ध इतिहास)

carried away by the presentation, viewing things in a wrong perspective, un-
conscious of the errors committed or the incorrectness of the conclusions de-
duced. Sir Jadunath does not seem to believe in sticking to one ethical
standard when treating the various parties in a struggle. It is true that nothing
succeeds like success and the Marathas have failed in history. But historians,
when passing judgment should not forget the standard of conduct followed
by the various parties in history. Ahmad Shah Abdali's strict discipline
should not make us forget the methods of achieving it, nor should his victories
efface the Afghan atrocities leading to that end. The Marathas could not
establish their rule on a sound basis, and the foreign British succeeded where
the indigenous Marathas failed. But this should not make us blind to the
fact of Clive's forgery and cheating or the Bengal famine of 1770, carrying
away more than a third of the Bengal population, a direct result of that rule.
(It is curious to note in this connection that the Cambridge History of India,
Vol. V, does not even mention this famine, a significant omission indeed!)
The Marathas had the ambition of ruling over India, no doubt, but they were
not prepared to forsake their standard of conduct to gain this end.

Instead of merely criticising others' works in detail ultimately leading
to nothing, I thought it better to write out the whole piece myself in my own
manner. The difference of opinion will be found, I hope, justified in the
performance. In the world of Indian scholarship at present, the vogue of
copying, imitating and adapting is current. This results in circulating the
error in a wider area which later on comes to be called a universally accepted
fact. Many scholars throughout the length and breadth of India are now-a-
days trying to utilise the Marathi material and weaving it into the thread of
their histories. An aggressive occupation of the historical field is going on be-
fore our eyes. But the danger underlying these efforts is scarcely understood
by the scholarly knights errant engaged in these adventures. It is high time
some one should put a stop to their activities, for while it is easy to disseminate
an error, it is not so easy to recall it back or to stop its ravages. As an humble
effort in the cause of weeding out errors, I place this book before the public.

Though this monograph is complete in itself, it is not intended to sup-
plant other works in the same field. This book is to be treated as an adjunct
to the general histories of the period, without knowing which this work may
not be properly understood or appreciated. As I have written my work with
an eye on Sir Jadunath's volume, it has unconsciously assumed the form of
a reply to his writing. In fact, where I have not differed from him I have
almost followed him, especially in the portion mainly dependent on Persian
chronicles studied from the MSS. by him only. I believe there can be no
higher tribute to a man's original work than that of following him.

Most of the ordinary readers will miss the graphic part of history they
have up till now read in the accounts of Panipat. I thought of omitting them
from my narrative because I have no belief in their truth or even probability.
The idea of copying such details from the chronicles simply because no other
light can be shed on these events or episodes, I think as faulty. By their repe-
tition, a disservice is done to the cause of history. National sentiment is sure
to be perturbed by this line of action, no doubt, but it is better to take that

vi