पानीपत १७६१ (मराठा साम्राज्य एवं पानीपत महायुद्ध इतिहास)

134 PANIPAT 1761 (5) The actual site of the battle On all these points Kashiraj is proved to be wrong and loose in his account by the evidence of original letters. Because Sir Jadunath and others have placed their faith in Kashiraj, they have been completely misled in their account of the battle. Kashiraj's account should be relied upon only in so far as the Durrani side is concerned. The Maratha side cannot be understood un- less we rely upon the evidence of the Marathi chronicles and original letters. 4-5. Purandare Daftar Vols. 1 and 3 (1929 and 1934). These form a valuable primary source not only for the events after the battle of Panipat, but also for the events prior to it, because they throw a rare flood of light on the mental make-up and character of some of the chief characters in the Pani- pat episode. What Sadashivrao Bhau was really like cannot be understood without his early personal letters. The characters of Nanasaheb Peshwa, Nana Purandare, Sakharam Bapu and Raghoba Dada are properly understood in all their setting by a study of these volumes of intimate personal letters. Sir Jadunath has missed this point and so cannot properly appraise their part in the great drama of history. 6-7-8. RAJWADE V. K. Marathyanchya Itihasachin Sadhane Vols. 1, 3 and 6. They are the basic sources containing original letters direct from the scene of the battle as well as throughout the campaign and for events leading to it from the very beginning. When RAJWADE published his first volume in 1898 after accidentally getting possession of a number of original letters addressed to Govindpant Bundele, it was the only, and therefore, partial side of the cam- paign that was open to him. He should have corrected it when his own third and sixth volumes were published later on. But RAJWADE, after his own man- ner, left the scathing criticism of Govindpant in the first volume untouched throughout his life, though he lived twenty-eight years thereafter. Whatever excuse he had in his day for obstinately sticking to his own view based on one source only, we in 1946 have none. After the publication of the Peshwa Daftar in its forty-five volumes a decade ago, a flood of light has been thrown on the Maratha activities in the north in all their bearings. It is clear from evidence adduced in these volumes that Govindpant was not the only, if culprit he was, who should be made the scapegoat for the whole disaster. How historical perspective is blurred when only a part of the material is avail- able and historians try to draw a complete picture out of it, is best exempli- fied by RAJWADE's classical introduction to his first volume on the Panipat period. We shall have occasion to point out how far RAJWADE had been car- ried astray¹⁴ in his attempt. Psychological proof for it is available in that volume itself though none of his deep students uptil now have either detected it or have shown the candour to point it out openly. 9-10-11. Selections from The Peshwa Daftar Vols. 2, 21, 27. These directly deal with the north Indian activities of the Marathas for a period of almost two decades previous to the battle of Panipat, though cross-references. ¹⁴ RAJ. I. 1-5 and Note, 170. 183. 181. 181. 182. Note 325.