Fall of the Mughal Empire v2.c27.s29: III. Historical sources on Pānipat
Fall of the Mughal Empire v2.c27.s29
- Language
- English
III. Historical sources on Pānipat
v2.c27.s29.1
The primary source for the history of the Bhāu's campaign in Hindustan (March 1760—January 1761) from the Maratha side is the long series of letters from the Bhāu to Govind Ballāl and others and several of Govind Ballāl's letters which V. K. Rājwādé recovered and printed in his *Sādhanen*, vol. i, as well as a few stray letters of that period in his vols. iii. and vi, and a small sheaf of the historical letters still extant in the Peshwās' record office and included in G. S. Sardesai's *Selections from the Peshwas' Daftar*, vols. ii, xxi, and xxvii, and two or three letters printed by V. V. Kharé in his *Lekh Sangraha*, vol. i. Only two of these touch the last battle, and that too very briefly. The *Bhāu Sāhibānchi Bakhar*, the *Pānipat Bakhar* and *Holkarānchi Kaifiyat*, in the same language, have to be rejected as later gossipy fabrications, no better than opium-eaters' tales. But what puzzles the critical historian in the *Bhāu Sāhibānchi Bakhar* is that, hopelessly mixed up with its mass of demonstrably false statements, there are some.
v2.c27.s29.2
true traditions (as proved by authentic records) and some statements which have every appearance of being true though unsupported elsewhere. Therefore, the simple remedy of rejecting this work in its entirety would impoverish our scanty store of information on the battle, and yet it is not safe to accept any of its statements so long as it cannot be corroborated by other and more reliable sources.
v2.c27.s29.3
I have rejected much of Nānā Fadnis's autobiography, written probably 30 years after the battle and with much of his early memory effaced by the lapse of time and engrossing State affairs, because when this narrative is confronted with his letters written from the Bhāu's camp (which I have accepted as most trustworthy), it is proved incorrect in some particulars.
v2.c27.s29.4
In the Persian language no despatch, newsletter or other State-paper has survived. The earliest and best record is the Delhi Chronicle, which gives the most accurate dates and several original facts, though in its usual brief language. The Persian narrative of the battle and the events which led to it, written in 1780 by Kāshirāj Shiv Rāo Pandit, a Deccani Brāhman long in the service of Shujā-ud-daulah, is the fullest and most trustworthy source on the battle itself, about which naturally no Marathi despatch is available. The fact of this author being a Maratha by race and creed and his presence in Abdāli's camp in the train of Shujā throughout the campaign made him naturally see both sides more intimately and get information about both the camps more fully and accurately than was possible for any other person. His employment as a mediator between the two sides gives a peculiar importance to his narrative. He stood by Shujā's side throughout the battle and once carried a message to the hard-pressed Durrāni wazir at the centre.
v2.c27.s29.5
Kāshirāj frankly admits that he "wrote 19 years after the event and from memory," but a critical and comparative study of his narrative proves his veracity. A few inaccuracies due to lapse of memory or hurried writing can be easily corrected, often from his own words elsewhere. These are: (i) Malhar Holkar's position was in the extreme right of the Maratha line of battle, and not penultimate as his loose language suggests. (ii) Najib did not leave his position facing Jankoji Sindhia, in order to deliver a flank attack on the Bhāu's centre,—at least not till all was over except the shouting. (iii) Similarly, throughout the contested stage of the battle Shah Pasand Khan merely neutralized the Maratha division (Malhar's) opposite to him, instead of engaging in any close combat with it or with the Bhau's centre, before Malhar's flight. (iv) The Durrānis plundered the Maratha camp not in the night following the battle but next morning. (v) The rival armies stood facing north and south (and not eastwards and westwards, as in Browne's translation.) Sharq-rua in the text means 'counting from the eastern end of the line of battle.' Shākir Khan says that the Ruhela contingent in the Durrāni army barred the road to Delhi, which we know ran southwards and not eastwards from Pānipat city. (See also SPD. xxvii. 259.)
v2.c27.s29.6
Sayyid Ghulām Ali, the author of Imād-us-sādat, extensively borrows from Kāshirāj (often verbatim).
v2.c27.s29.7
Another eye-witness of the battle was Md. J'afar Shāmlu, then the chief manager of Shah Pasand Khan. But he wrote 35 years after the battle, without any notes, and solely trusting to his memory. Though he boasts, "It is most probable that none knows more about this battle than the author (i.e., Shāmlu)... Whatever any other man narrates contrary to my statements...is falsehood pure and simple, and deserves no credence,"—yet his narrative is often wrong and his numbers grossly inflated, a reduction to one-tenth being necessary in most cases before we can reach the truth! He gives no details of the battle at all comparable to Kashiraj's. [Br. Mus. Persian Or. 1895.]
v2.c27.s29.8
Sayyid Nur-ud-din Hasan's Life of Najib-ud-daulah [Br. Mus. MS. 24,410] written about 1773, most probably for Sir Charles W. Malet, is extremely valuable in some parts, but has to be used with caution where he depended on others for information. He was not present in the battle, as being a servant of Imād-ul-mulk he had to remain in hiding at Bharatpur with his master throughout this campaign. But he was the most learned and thoughtful of the Muslim writers on this subject and took care to ascertain the facts from the actors in the affair and to reproduce them faithfully in his book. [Fully trans. by me in Islamic Culture, Haidarabad, 1933.]
v2.c27.s29.9
The author of Siyar-ul-mutākhkharin lived at Patna, at a vast distance from Delhi at this time, and his account of the battle (copied by Tarikh-i-Muzaffari with only two small additions) is based on hearsay. Shākir Khan was living in Pānipat in unemployment and poverty during the siege, but his Tazkira [Br. Mus. Add. 6585, I have used a Patna MS.] is too brief to be of any use.
v2.c27.s29.10
Gross misrepresentation of the facts of the battle was afterwards made by Shujā-ud-daulah's flatterers to glorify their patron, in Gulistāni's Mujmil-ut-tawārikh (ed. by Oskar Mann, Leiden, 1896), Mustajab Khan's Gulistan-i-Rahmat and Imam-ud-din Husaini's Tārikh-i-Husain Shāhi (wr. 1798.) The last-named work, amidst much confusion of dates and events and incorrect statement, supplies many useful correct details, and sometimes agrees remarkably with Nur-ud-din in points not given by any other author.
v2.c27.s29.11
Miskin, unfortunately for us, was not present at the battle or anywhere near. Nor was Suraj Mal. Hence, Miskin’s *Memoirs* [Br. Mus. Pers. 8807] and Father Xavier Wendel’s French history of the Jat kingdom (India Office, Orme MSS., O. V. 216) touch the battle too briefly.
v2.c27.s29.12
*Purandaré Daftar*, i., is a valuable primary source for the events after the battle of Panipat, esp. the Peshwa’s last days (Nos. 393-426), but gives nothing important about the battle: 386 (Ahir risings in Bhau’s rear), 389 (why Bhau rejected Shuja’s peace proposal), 391 (early Maratha brag at Panipat=Raj. i. 265), 392 (Barve’s Oudh raid), 397 and 425 (casualties and fugitives), 417 (Nana Fadnis’s letter on the battle with list of names,—very useful.)