पानीपत १७६१ (मराठा साम्राज्य एवं पानीपत महायुद्ध इतिहास)

Holkar for their major share in the defeat, he also pointed out Bhau's personal defects and shortcomings as a commander in chief. Rao Bahadur Sardesai, writing in 1922, summarises the various opinions without offering any new suggestion of his own. An analysis of his writing will bring forth the self contradictory statements due to his defective method of copying all and synthesising none. Mr D V Apte tackling the problem after him, first pointed out the obvious factual defects in Rajwade's arguments. The confusion of directions in Kashiraj's account of Panipat, Rajwade's misapprehension in taking Baghpat as situated on the right bank of the Jamuna, vitiating his whole strategical argument and similar other flaws were ably discussed by him. But even Apte failed to analyse the whole material and point out Raj- wade's manipulation of the same. Prof S N Sen's chapter on Panipat in his Military System of the Marathas (1928), is the best short account in English, which omits nothing of the essentials. With the publication of the Peshwa Daftar, however, during 1930-33, a new chapter opened in the Panipat criti- cism. As soon as the second volume styled Panipat Prakarana was published in 1930 S V Athalye an old collaborator with Rajwade and a deep student of Maratha history, published a review of the same in the Kesari weekly (4th April 1931). He pointed out the incorrect dating of the documents published, and focussed the light of the letters on the events leading to the Panipat cam- paign. He absolved Holkar and Antaji Manakeshwar from the blame and made Bhau and the Peshwa mainly responsible for the disaster. Another young enthusiastic recruit for Maratha history, the late Mr R V Nadkarni, be- gan a series of articles on the Panipat affair in Vividhajnana Vistara and first pointed out on the strength of the new material certain obvious defects in Sardesai's Panipat Prakarana. His original contribution to the discussion con- sists of the constitutional aspect of the Maratha activities in the north in gen- eral and with the Delhi Court in particular. The charge against Govindpant he thought now as more than proved, with an emphasis. But he was unac- quainted with the whole Maratha system and not an expert in research mat- ters. He has taken Agra as situated on the northern bank of the Jamuna and confused Saranjam with Kamavis. Govindpant was a Kamavisdar or Mam- latdar of various revenue taluks; but he had never received any specific Saranjam or Jagir conferred for maintaining an army as a military captain. Not understanding the difference between the two, Nadkarni's downright con- demnation of Govindpant, is based on a false premise. Besides, he wrote only on the basis of SPD 2 and before the publication of Nos 21 and 27, supplying further information about the Panipat campaign. Sir Jadunath Sarkar, com- pletely re-writing the whole episode in 1934, has still missed certain docu- ments then available to him, and in general has taken a very unsympathetic view of the Maratha affairs. His factual errors, incorrect criticism and non- comprehension of the whole affair in proper perspective have been pointed out and criticised in detail by us. Incidentally, the performance of this renowned historian proves our contention that history must be written by one of the nationals. Mr K V Purandare, editor of the documents collected from the Sardar- Purandare family which was throughout the whole period on very intimate terms with the Peshwa family, has also, in his editorial preface to the first xvi