Ahmad Shah Durrani's place in Pakistan's history

[Truth Finder]

4. most benefited by that war was British .. who just saw maratha power gone in one war.. what a huge gain wihout fighting..

1)Wrong. Historian Serdesai stated that the lives and property lost in panipat was nothing more than severe droughts that used to take place in Maratha region after a few years occasionally.

2) Indian forces (Marathas, Sikhs etc) lost to the British because they represented outdated organization skills & techniques and their reluctance to adopt/ produce new inventions or strategies. In a battle of Old Order vs New Order, it always the New Order that wins.

 

[ravi kiran]

1. Durrani had both numeric as well as qualitative superiority over Marathas. The combined Muslim army was much larger than that of Marathas. Though the infantry of Marathas was organized along European lines and their army had some of the best French-made guns of the time, their artillery was static and lacked mobility against the fast-moving Afghan forces. The heavy mounted artillery of Afghans proved much better in the battlefield than the light artillery of Marathas.

2. The main reason for the failure of the Marathas was that they went to war without good allies. They were expecting support from their allies- Rajputs, Jats and Sikhs, but none of them supported Marathas in the battle. ( This is the major reason). The Marathas had interfered in the internal affairs of the Rajput states (present-day Rajasthan) and levied heavy taxes and huge fines on them. They had also made large territorial and monetary claims upon Awadh. Their raids in the Jat territory had resulted in the loss of trust of Jat chiefs like Suraj Mal. They had, therefore, to fight their enemies alone. Marathas treated Sikhs, who assisted them in their north-west conquest as a non-entity in Punjab affairs. According to an assessment, the Sikhs were ever ready to co-operate with the Marathas, but it goes to the discredit of the Marathas that they did not make a proper confederacy with Sikhs.

3. Moreover, the senior Maratha chiefs constantly bickered with one another. Each had ambitions of carving out their independent states and had no interest in fighting against a common enemy.
Some of them didn't support the idea of a round battle and wanted to fight using guerilla tactics instead of charging the enemy head-on. (Which was actually right, Marathas were proficient in Guerilla tactics and as they didn't have matching no. of army they should have stick to the Guerilla tactics).

4. The Marathas were fighting alone at a place which was 1000 miles away from their capital Pune.

5. The Maratha army was also burdened with over 300,000 pilgrims who wished to worship at Hindu places of worship like Mathura, Prayag, Kashi, etc. The pilgrims wanted to accompany the army, as they would be secure with them.
Apart from just fighting the battle, the Maratha troops had the responsibility to protect the non-combatants from Afghans. That was the reason why Marathas suffered heavy losses even after the battle. They could not retreat quickly as they were to protect the non-combatants who were accompanying them.

6. Peshwa's decision to appoint Sadashivrao Bhau as the Supreme Commander instead of Malharrao Holkar or Raghunathrao proved to be an unfortunate one, as Sadashivrao was totally ignorant of the political and military situation in North India.

7. If Holkar had remained in the battlefield, the Maratha defeat would have been delayed but not averted. Ahmad Shah’s superiority in pitched battle could have been negated if the Marathas had conducted their traditional ganimi kava, or guerrilla warfare, as advised by Malharrao Holkar, in Punjab and in north India. Abdali was in no position to maintain his field army in India indefinitely. Marathas had used guerrilla warfare in North India. The Turki horses could not have handled the plundering and cutting of supply lines by the Marathas.

8. Najib, Shuja and the Rohillas knew North India very well and that most of North India had allied with Abdali. Abdali used shaturnals, camels with mobile artillery pieces at his disposal. He was also diplomatic, striking agreements with Hindu leaders, especially the Jats and Rajputs, and former rivals like the Nawab of Awadh, appealing to him in the name of religion. He also had better intelligence on the movements of his enemy, which played a crucial role in his encirclement of the enemy army.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

1)Wrong. Historian Serdesai stated that the lives and property lost in panipat was nothing more than severe droughts that used to take place in Maratha region after a few years occasionally.

2) Indian forces (Marathas, Sikhs etc) lost to the British because they represented outdated organization skills & techniques and their reluctance to adopt/ produce new inventions or strategies. In a battle of Old Order vs New Order, it always the New Order that wins.

--
1. drought was pan india pehenomnea. worst dorugh faced in bengal not in maharastra .. panipat lost full armed and taleneted warrorit and statesmans

2. English were better right .. but they were short of money and scale which marathas has that time ..
even you ahve ak 47 you cna kill 500 sword with single 47.. panipat gave them easy way of of diplomacy which helped them to break in maratha power after panipat

 

[Truth Finder]

1. drought was pan india pehenomnea. worst dorugh faced in bengal not in maharastra .. panipat lost full armed and taleneted warrorit and statesmans

1)I just said what eminent historian Sardesai stated in his famous book "New History of the Marathas".

2)Charles Metcalfe, one of the ablest of the British Officials in India and later acting Governor-General, wrote in 1806:

“India contains no more than two great powers, British and Mahratta, and every other state acknowledges the influence of one or the other. Every inch that we recede will be occupied by them.”

3)
Assessing the impact of the loss of Madhavrao (died 1772), British historian James Grant Duff wrote:

"And the plains of Panipat were not more fatal to the Maratha Empire than the early end of this excellent prince…"

English were better right .. but they were short of money and scale which marathas has that time ..
even you ahve ak 47 you cna kill 500 sword with single 47.. panipat gave them easy way of of diplomacy which helped them to break in maratha power after panipat

Nehru quoted famously that the British won most of the battles in India before the first bullet was fired, thanks to their high level of diplomacy, intelligence system and qualitatively very superior army. They represented a New Order.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

1)I just said what eminent historian Sardesai sated in his famous book "New History of the Marathas".

2)Charles Metcalfe, one of the ablest of the British Officials in India and later acting Governor-General, wrote in 1806:

“India contains no more than two great powers, British and Mahratta, and every other state acknowledges the influence of one or the other. Every inch that we recede will be occupied by them.”

3)
Assessing the impact of the loss of Madhavrao (died 1772), British historian James Grant Duff wrote:

"And the plains of Panipat were not more fatal to the Maratha Empire than the early end of this excellent prince…"



Nehru quoted famously that the British won most of the battles in India before the first bullet was fired, thanks to their high level of diplomacy, intelligence system and qualitatively very superior army. They represented a New Order.

---
Dear ..
british were good in diplomacy.. accepted ..
but cant term as new order....
french had better army than them...due to napleoan got down in waterloo.. they coudl not gave good figyt to british..
we were weak that why brirish won.. not tthey were so good

 

[Sine Nomine]

Nehru quoted famously that the British won most of the battles in India before the first bullet was fired, thanks to their high level of diplomacy, intelligence system and qualitatively very superior army. They represented a New Order.

@pursuit of happiness british were not superior to us in anything only they were enough cunning to use gold wisely and find traitors like porneia,mir sadiq and jaffer, one traitor is death of all Army.......

 

[ghoul]

Two things. Had Ahmed Shah not attacked Marhattas, I doubt they'd have tried to take over and colonize Punjab, for there were quite a few bigshots between Deccan and Punjab; namely the rajput hill states of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan + Bharatpur. I'm sure Marhattas wouldn't have an easy time subduing and beating the Rajputs of Rajasthan for they were also battle hardened. Rajputs of jodhpur state successfully resisted Aurangzeb's onslaught and also became battle heartened. The state of Mewar was never subdued by the Mughals. I'm sure they weren't as easy to defeat. Nonetheless, if Marhattas had managed to beat these states and say, made it to Punjab, I'm sure they'd have gotten resisted and probably defeated by the Sikh missals. Sikh Missals defeated Ahmed Shah in war, so I can safely say they'd have defeated Marhattas too. The Sukarchakia Sikh missal also kidnapped Abdali's mama and only returned him after getting ransom. Sikhs were a force to reckon with as later years would tell, and once they had gotten battle heartened, they made Afghan forces run in almost every single battle, in Punjab at least.

I'm not sure about Abdali's character, but the general Afghan character was very nasty, and predatory. They were well hated from Kashmir to Punjab. Abdali was more of a raider than a statesman. His men use to extort grain from Punjab, shawls and heavy taxes from Kashmir. In Kashmir, the Afghan governors were also involved in oppression of local people. They were particularly cruel towards the local hindus, and would sometimes kidnap brides on their weddings, braveheart style. They also indulged in rapes and all. According to all the reports, the Kashmiris, Hindhu and Muslim alike preferred the Sikhs to Afghans as rulers. Oppression of hindus was against the south asian cultural norms back then, and I'm sure the local muslims wouldn't have supported it.

 

[Truth Finder]

In Kashmir, the Afghan governors were also involved in oppression of local women.

That was the reason when Sikhs and later Dogras took over the Kashmir, they systematically exterminated the Afghans from Kashmir. Gulab Singh Dogra was known for this. Sikh and Dogra rule were extremely stern not to the local Kashmiris, but to the Pathan/Afghans.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

@pursuit of happiness british were not superior to us in anything only they were enough cunning to use gold wisely and find traitors like porneia,mir sadiq and jaffer, one traitor is death of all Army.......

--
i said same..
post no 65
birtish united by action and plan and goal of pax britnaica..
idea of which lacking in indian subcontnet .. so everyine fighting or defending his own small land

 

[Sine Nomine]

--
i said same..
post no 65
birtish united by action and plan and goal of pax britnaica..
idea of which lacking in indian subcontnet .. so everyine fighting or defending his own small land

i bet if even to day India and Pakistan fall the situation would be same...

 

[Samandri]

@Samandri , @pursuit of happiness , @save_ghenda , @قناص , @KingMamba ,



2) BTW, it was not “such a big thing”. Panipat was “avenged” in a decade

How exactly they avenged Panipat in a decade?, the avenging would be invading Afghanistan and defeating Afghans in their territory, which they didnt or couldnt. In 1772 they invaded a small region of Rohilkhand after Najib Khan Rohilla had died, thats not avenging the Panipat . Still the credit of destroying Rohillas and Rohilkhand goes to East India Company in 1774.

Sikhs were another matter, they did teach Afghans a lesson. Nowadays we have anti-muslim centric Indian nationalism, but in those times military achievements of Sikhs were not considered achievements of Marathas and other hindus in extension.

1. Durrani had both numeric as well as qualitative superiority over Marathas. The combined Muslim army was much larger than that of Marathas. .

The Marhatta force consisted of 300,000 men, including 55,000 Marhatta Cavalry, and had three hundred pieces of cannon The “Gul-i-Rahmat” and the “Tarikh-i-Najibabad” by Akbar Shah Khan give the number of the Marhatta forces at three lacs. In local tales common among the people of Panipat the number is raised to nine lacs, which seems an exaggeration.

Ahmad Shah had 40,000 Afghans and Persians, 13,000 Rohilla cavalry and 38,000 Rohilla infantry, with 70 pieces of cannon borrowed from Rohilla allies.

Muhammad Jafar Shamlu, an eye witness to the battle of panipat, was a camp follower of Shah pasand khan, a famous military officer of Ahmad Shah Abdali. According to him, Marathas had 3.5 lakhs combatants while Afghans numbered one lakh and fourteen thousands.

 

[ghoul]

The Marhatta force consisted of 300,000 men, including 55,000 Marhatta Cavalry, and had three hundred pieces of cannon The “Gul-i-Rahmat” and the “Tarikh-i-Najibabad” by Akbar Shah Khan give the number of the Marhatta forces at three lacs. In local tales common among the people of Panipat the number is raised to nine lacs, which seems an exaggeration.

Ahmad Shah had 40,000 Afghans and Persians, 13,000 Rohilla cavalry and 38,000 Rohilla infantry, with 70 pieces of cannon borrowed from Rohilla allies.

Muhammad Jafar Shamlu, an eye witness to the battle of panipat, was a camp follower of Shah pasand khan, a famous military officer of Ahmad Shah Abdali. According to him, Marathas had 3.5 lakhs combatants while Afghans numbered one lakh and fourteen thousands.

Ahmad Shah had a lot of Uzbek and Qizilbash soldiers too. They were especially hunted for by the Sikhs when they captured Lahore.

 

[ravi kiran]

How exactly they avenged Panipat in a decade?, the avenging would be invading Afghanistan and defeating Afghans in their territory, which they didnt or couldnt. In 1772 they invaded a small region of Rohilkhand after Najib Khan Rohilla had died, thats not avenging the Panipat . Still the credit of destroying Rohillas and Rohilkhand goes to East India Company in 1774.

Sikhs were another matter, they did teach Afghans a lesson. Nowadays we have anti-muslim centric Indian nationalism, but in those times military achievements of Sikhs were not considered achievements of Marathas and other hindus in extension.



The Marhatta force consisted of 300,000 men, including 55,000 Marhatta Cavalry, and had three hundred pieces of cannon The “Gul-i-Rahmat” and the “Tarikh-i-Najibabad” by Akbar Shah Khan give the number of the Marhatta forces at three lacs. In local tales common among the people of Panipat the number is raised to nine lacs, which seems an exaggeration.

Ahmad Shah had 40,000 Afghans and Persians, 13,000 Rohilla cavalry and 38,000 Rohilla infantry, with 70 pieces of cannon borrowed from Rohilla allies.

Muhammad Jafar Shamlu, an eye witness to the battle of panipat, was a camp follower of Shah pasand khan, a famous military officer of Ahmad Shah Abdali. According to him, Marathas had 3.5 lakhs combatants while Afghans numbered one lakh and fourteen thousands.

No you are wrong. Maratha army was actually 80000-100000.
The Maratha army was burdened with over 300,000 pilgrims who wished to worship at Hindu places of worship like Mathura, Prayag, Kashi,etc. The pilgrims wanted to accompany the army, as they would be secure with them

 

[Samandri]

Two things. Had Ahmed Shah not attacked Marhattas, I doubt they'd have tried to take over and colonize Punjab,

They extracted revenue from Punjab and reached as far as trans-chenab area and according to them, as far as Attock. So they were fully capable of subjugating Punjab with ease.

for there were quite a few bigshots between Deccan and Punjab; namely the rajput hill states of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan + Bharatpur.

Madyha pradesh was center and power house of Holkars and Schindias , Rajasthan was totally helpless against Marathas and had to pay chaut. In fact Rajputs had sympathies with Abdali. Bharatpur was a small state and its greatest ruler Suraj mal was killed and defeated by a chieftain Najib Khan Rohilla. Also Bharatpur was ally of Marathas not enemy, in 1767 Jats of bharatput formed an alliance with Marathas along with Awadh against possible Abdali's invasion.

I'm sure Marhattas wouldn't have an easy time subduing and beating the Rajputs of Rajasthan for they were also battle hardened. Rajputs of jodhpur state successfully resisted Aurangzeb's onslaught and also became battle heartened. The state of Mewar was never subdued by the Mughals.

First of all Mewar was subdued by Akbar after Prantab and their rulers served later Mughals. Secondly Rajputs of Rajasthan were subjugated (and humiliated) by marathas with ease.

I'm sure they weren't as easy to defeat. Nonetheless, if Marhattas had managed to beat these states and say, made it to Punjab, I'm sure they'd have gotten resisted and probably defeated by the Sikh missals. Sikh Missals defeated Ahmed Shah in war, so I can safely say they'd have defeated Marhattas too. The Sukarchakia Sikh missal also kidnapped Abdali's mama and only returned him after getting ransom. Sikhs were a force to reckon with as later years would tell, and once they had gotten battle heartened, they made Afghan forces run in almost every single battle, in Punjab at least.

Sikh misls were indeed capable of harassing foreign armies on their soil, but they didnt defeat Afghans before Ranjeet Singh nor they were capable of taking on Maratha empire. If you read the history of all Sikh misls, their few successes were against small Afghan army units , they were mobile cavalry and used to run away towards hills of todays east punjab on approach of large Afghan army. I doubt Sikhs would have resisted Marathas, they would have joined latter against Afghans.

the general Afghan character was very nasty, and predatory. They were well hated from Kashmir to Punjab. Abdali was more of a raider than a statesman. His men use to extort grain from Punjab, shawls and heavy taxes from Kashmir. In Kashmir, the Afghan governors were also involved in oppression of local people. They were particularly cruel towards the local hindus, and would sometimes kidnap brides on their weddings, braveheart style. They also indulged in rapes and all. According to all the reports, the Kashmiris, Hindhu and Muslim alike preferred the Sikhs to Afghans as rulers. Oppression of hindus was against the south asian cultural norms back then, and I'm sure the local muslims wouldn't have supported it.

Kashmir shawl industry, started by Mughals, made a remarkable progress during Afghan reign. Taxes were relaxed and the governors themselves patronized every industry including Shawl. Due to this patronage, Kashmiri shawl started getting exported to Persia, Turkistan, Russia, Turkey and europe. Afghan rule enabled immense economic growth of Kashmir and increased the urban growth of the valley. The stories of Rapes and all that, are products of Hindu nationalistic propaganda aggravated by Kashmir insurgency. Hindus were on important posts and were even ministers. Jizia was imposed on them and occasional harshness against them was result of jealosy of kashmiri muslims who used to urge Afghans to exclude Hindus from offices.
Your Sikhs destroyed Kashmir's shawl industry by imposing heavy Taxes, every industry got destroyed. Sikhs were very cruel to muslim majority of Kashmir. They imposed ban on Azaan and cow slaughter and hanged people on daily basis, turning it into a death valley....Just because kashmiris didnt fight like Pashtuns against Sikhs, it doesnt mean they were happy in oppressive anti-muslim Sikh rule.

Ahmad Shah had a lot of Uzbek and Qizilbash soldiers too. They were especially hunted for by the Sikhs when they captured Lahore.

No Uzbeks, but Qizalbash which i have counted among Afghans while giving figures. Qizalbash were his special force which he used as reserve unit in Panipat battle. There were also 1000 Baloch horsemen under Mir Nasir Khan in Panipat battle. The Balochs and Brahuis of Kalat also fought in Mashad for Abdali as well as against Sikhs in Punjab.

No you are wrong. Maratha army was actually 80000-100000.
The Maratha army was burdened with over 300,000 pilgrims who wished to worship at Hindu places of worship like Mathura, Prayag, Kashi,etc. The pilgrims wanted to accompany the army, as they would be secure with them

Nonsense, they were going to war not picnic or pilgrimage. Non-combatants were in addition to 300,000 combatants thats why locals of Panipat had such exaggerations that Marthas were in million. Just look at the number of commanders , that Marathas had thrown into the panipat battle.....almost all of them. Wikipedia even claims that only 45 thousands Maratha fighters participated even though their fighting strengths numbered in Lakhs. In some small campaigns, marthas had dispatched forces numbering more than lakh.

They didnt come in rush, they came with huge preparation and were so confident of their huge numerical superiority that their officers came along with their wives and pilgrimage and due to their over-confidence they didnt feel the urge to make alliance with Sikhs or Rajputs or any one.

 

[Kambojaric]

I see your point of view, as for my speculating well this whole thread is based on a speculation. Anyway so do you think Pakistan could have been formed if it was Marathas and and not Sikhs who held its regions before Brits came along?
.

As long at the Muslim majority status of Pakistan survives during Maratha rule then I do think that Pakistan would still have emerged. I find it unlikley that the Marathas would be able to change the demographics of Punjab/Sindh where the Sikhs who were based in this region failed (KPK and Balochistan as I explained in my previous post are out of the question due to the geography of the regions plus the fact that Muslims had an overwhelming majority there).

The basis for the Pakistan demand lay in the fall of the Muslim community's socio-economic stature post 1857. Deliberate policies of the British (change from Persian to Hindi for example) resulted in the Muslim community becoming disadvantaged and gradually seeing its fortunes fall whereas Sikhs and especially Hindus were doing far better. The seeds of Pakistan's creation thus emerge from British policies.