Talk:Third Battle of Panipat

Response

The alleged flag of the Rohillas actually belongs to a principality at Rampur founded in the late 18th century and the alleged flag of Shuja-ud-Daula was actually founded in the 19th century long after the Third Battle of Panipat. Therefore it is very clear that the principality of Rampur and its flag does not represent all the Rohilla and that the alleged flag of Awadh was introduced far later during the reign of Ghazi-ud-Din Haider (1814–1827), who is known to have chosen the fish symbols.

Furthermore the Shuja-ud-Daula, the Nawab of Awadh and the Rohillas led by Najib-ud-Daula were actually subjects of the Mughal Empire.

Note: After Shah Alam II escaped the clutches of the Marathas in Delhi, he appointed Najib-ud-Daula as his Mukhtar Khas (Chief Representative). Najib-ud-Daula continued to hold this position and more until his death in the year 1778.

&

Note: Shuja-ud-Daula was actually confirmed as the Mughal Grand Vizier appointed by none other then Shah Alam II.

{This totally proves that these two leading figures during the war were subjects of the Mughal Empire and that neither the Nawab of Awadh led by Shuja-ud-Daula nor the Rohillas led by Najib-ud-Daula were separate entities}

(Note: Zain Khan Sirhindi, Murad Khan and Amir Beg; were Mughal servicemen and actually led the Mughal Army during the battle.)

Therefore the following proves that the only two "Empires" that ever existed on the so-called "Muslim side" (if i may) were the Durrani Empire and the Mughal Empire and their vassals and tributaries:

Third Battle of Panipat
Part of Maratha Empire, Durrani Empire
The Third Battle of Panipat, 14 January 1761, Hafiz Rahmat Khan, standing right of Ahmad Shah Durrani, who is shown on a brown horse.
Date 14 January 1761 Location Panipat, modern-day Haryana, India 29.39°N 76.97°E / 29.39; 76.97 Result Durrani victory, with heavy casualties on both sides and massive retreat Territorial changes Maratha driven back to the region around Puna, by Ahmad Shah Durrani and the combined armies of various Muslim rulers in the Mughal Empire.
Belligerents
Durrani Empire Mughal Empire Nawabs of Awadh Nizam of Hyderabad Sultanate of Mysore Rohillas	Maratha Empire
Commanders and leaders
Ahmad Shah Durrani Timur Shah Durrani Wazir Wali Khan Shah Pasand Khan Barkhurdar Khan Wazirullah Khan Shuja-ud-Daula Najib-ud-Daula Amir Beg Jahan Khan Zain Khan Sirhindi Murad Khan Shuja Quli Khan Hafiz Rahmat Khan Dundi Khan Banghas Khan Nasir Khan Baluch Ahmad Khan Bangash	Sadashivrao Bhau † Vishwasrao † Malharrao Holkar Mahadji Shinde Jankoji Shinde Gardi † Bhivrao Panse Bhoite Purandare Vinchurkar (Infantry & Cavalry) Sidoji Gharge
Strength
42,000 cavalry, 38,000 infantry in addition to 10,000 reserves, 4,000 personal guards and 5,000 Qizilbash, 120–130 pieces of cannon as well as large numbers of irregulars. Thus, totally an army of 100,000.	40,000 cavalry, 15,000 infantry, 15,000 Pindaris and 200 pieces of artillery,. The force was accompanied by 300,000 non-combatants (pilgrims and camp-followers). Thus, totally an army of 70,000.
Casualties and losses
Estimates between 20,000 combatants killed.	Estimates between 30,000 and 40,000 combatants killed in the battle. Another 40,000-70,000 non-combatants massacred following the battle.

Coalition

The Marathas were indeed defeated by a combined coalition led by Ahmad Shah Durrani, the Mughals, Muslim nobles and chiefs and particularly the Nawabs.

After Shah Alam II escaped the clutches of the Marathas in Delhi, he appointed Najib-ud-Daula as his Mukhtar Khas (Chief Representative). Najib-ud-Daula continued to hold this position and more until his death in the year 1778.

After Najib-ud-Daula, forced the usurper Ghazi ud-Din Khan Feroze Jung III to flee from the Mughal capitol Delhi, he gathered the Mughal Army, Muslim nobles and planned the Third Battle of Panipat by maintaining correspondence with Ahmad Shah Durrani...in the meanwhile Shah Alam II was nominated by Najib-ud-Daula to become the next Mughal Emperor. During the Third Battle of Panipat, Shuja-ud-Daula was actually the Mughal Grand Vizier appointed by none other then Shah Alam II.

According to M.J Akbar the Third Battle of Panipat was phyrric victory dedicated in favor of Shah Alam II, who undoubtably anticipated the victory of Ahmad Shah Durrani (an ally of the young Prince Ali Gauhar and his father Alamgir II)...there is no doubt that the Mughal's in their entirety stood against the Maratha leader Sadashivrao Bhau, who alongside Imad-ul-Mulk was directly responsible for the murder of Shah Alam II's father the Mughal Emperor Alamgir II...Ahmad Shah Durrani's victory forced the Maratha's who had ravaged the Mughal Empire for genreations to think otherwise.

Ahmad Shah Durrani enjoyed the blessings of Muslim theologians and Imams, who would never allow the Maratha to ever control the Mughal court.

After Ahmad Shah Durrani decisively defeated the Marathas during the Third Battle of Panipat he was warmly welcomed in Delhi and thereafter recognized Shah Alam II as the rightful heir to the throne of the Mughal Empire.

Immediately after the Third Battle of Panipat: Mirza Najaf Khan, Hyder Ali, Nizam Ali, Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah and Mian Ghulam Shah Kalhoro...began to attack the Maratha and drove them back to the regions around Puna.

Re-Shah Alam II

Immediately after the Third Battle of Panipat: Mirza Najaf Khan, Hyder Ali, Nizam Ali, Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah and Mian Ghulam Shah Kalhoro...began to attack the Maratha and drove them back to the regions around Puna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs)

Read it carefully. "Immediately after", not during. utcursch | talk 14:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Read it again these Nawabs were already in correspondence with Najib-ud-Daula in 1760 and later maintained ties with Ahmad Shah Durrani during and after 1761.

Shah Alam II as commander

The Mughal Empire was directly involved in the Third Battle of Panipat, Shah Alam II and his Nawab's and servicemen fought during the battle or made efforts to support the war effort against the Maratha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs)

Feel free to add this bit with a reliable source. Also note that "made efforts to support" is not equivalent to "was a commander". utcursch | talk 10:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the reference doesn't support your assertion that Shah Alam II was a commander, or the casualties figures. utcursch | talk 11:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sanderson Beck's books and website can't be used - as self-published material, they fail WP:SPS. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: "major figure" is not same as commander mentioned in the infobox. utcursch | talk 09:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

i have added a new reference that pretty much confirms the old reference :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.23.229 (talk • contribs)

Another fake ref. From the link

"Ghazi-ud-din had put Alamgir II to death in 1759, replacing him with a puppet, but after the battle of Panipat, Ahmad Shah nominated a son of Alamgir II as emperor, with the title of Shah Alam (1761–1803)."

This actually disproves your point. It implies that Shah Alam II actually became emperor after the Battle of Panipat. The reference doesn't mention anything about Shah Alam II participating in the battle or the casualties. utcursch | talk 06:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources, references and copyright

During my attempts at adding citations to the article i came across some texts/references that were wrong or are incredibly outdated. I ask the author of those references to provide more information such as publishers or dates, or where new copies could be available. I have a major issue with plagiarism concerning this article. On the page [1] the editor writes: Kanjpura on the banks of Jamuna River, sixty miles to the north of Delhi, was next besieged and the whole Afghan garrison was killed (Also see Syed Altaf Ali Brelvi, Life of Hafiz Rahmat Khan p-108-9). Ahmad Shah was encamped on the left bank of the Jamuna River, which was swollen by rains. The massacre of the Kanjpura garrison, within the sight of the Durrani camp, exasperated him to such an extent that he ordered crossing of the river at all costs. S M Lateef, “History of the Punjab”, p-235, quotes "Tarikh-i-Ahmadi", and writes:... In the wikipedia article the text is: In Kunjapura on the banks of the Yamuna River, sixty miles to the north of Delhi, was next stormed by the Marathas and the whole Afghan garrison was killed or enslaved (Also see Syed Altaf Ali Brelvi, Life of Hafiz Rahmat Khan p-108-9) Ahmad Shah encamped on the left bank of the Yamuna River, which was swollen by rains was powerless to aid the garrison. The massacre of the Kanjpura garrison, within the sight of the Durrani camp, exasperated him to such an extent that he ordered crossing of the river at all costs.(S M Lateef, “History of the Punjab”, p-235, quotes "Tarikh-i-Ahmadi") The first question to ask is one of copyright, as it is a public domain website and i can find no evidence of copyright permissions heled or withheld, i have not deleted the offending statements. They do need rewording though. The second question is, what is the correct name of the river.? My other main problem is the fact that these references are being quoted through a third person; he said, that he said that he said: this is correct. The information in the article needs to be properly sourced and cited. I have started adding citation templates but some of the texts aren't accessible and so need to be properly cited so that other editors can verify them. Woodym555 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The only question I'm able to answer is that the name of the river is more commonly spelled Yamuna, and as Hindi does include a J sound, I find the quoted spelling incorrect. Piouspiast 10:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Vishwas Patil's book is a novel. Maybe well researched at that but can it be quoted as a reference for an important article like this?

Yes, why not? Vishwas Patil is an established author. Agreed that the book is a novel. But, the events mentioned in this novel are nothing but facts. The book may be categorized as a novel because it may describe the thought processes, feelings, aspirations, dreams etc. of various characters from the writer’s point of view, but the writer hasn’t manipulated any event or fact. This book is completely based on facts and is backed up by concrete proofs. According to me, the sole purpose of such a book being written as a novel is that people should read it, they should develop interest towards it. Otherwise how different is it going to be from our history text books? Kesangh (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A few events in that book are not facts. Mr. Patil himself has said that he has taken some "creative liberties" to write the book. I was present in the audience when he said it. It means he has "manipulated" to some extent. And that is why it is different than history text book such as T S Shejwalkar's or S M Pagdi's book on Panipat.

Well Anil, can you please clarify as to which 'few events' you are talking about and particularly where did Mr. Patil take 'creative liberties'? Vishwas Patil's book Panipat has similar viewpoint to that of Shejwalkar's. To name a few- Panipat suggests that the battle was fought to save the Mughal Empire, that the Marathas were sacrificed for the cause of Timur's successors and Ibrahim Khan Gardi's infantry and artillery division fought courageously. Kindly sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Kesangh (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources, reliability and bias

I will try to explain my reasoning behind my reverting the large scale additions of text to this article recently. As i have stated in my edit summaries wikipedia is not a place for original research. All additions need to be sourced and verifiable if they are to remain. They also need to be written from a neutral point of view. The additions, in my opinion, did not meet these policies. The text had a heavy bias towards one side and was unsourced. If you have the sources I would be happy to help you add them in and add the appropriate referenced text. Please try and discuss this before re-adding the text to the article. Thankyou. Woodym555 15:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nanasaheb's pic

I think the image put up is of Peshwa Nanasaheb II, wrongly attributed to Balaji Bajirao II or Nanasaheb I. Can anyone check this? Salilb (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The image has been removed. Salilb (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is terrible, a sorry excuse for propaganda. Do you honestly believe that a marauding army would carry around 300,000 'pilgrim and camp followers'? What were they visiting? How were they being provisioned? What were they doing on a field of battle? You could only be so credulous.

German map

The map of the extent of the Durrani empire has a German legend. An English map is required. Anyone can change the current one or get a new one? Salilb (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

pics

I've used some pictures from British library and other sources. I will try and improve the article, it needs to be shrunk down and cleaned up reference wise. --Zak (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

POV n irelevenat material

Here and again here. Someone please tell us if its pov, imaginary... etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hometech (talk • contribs) 06:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion - As requested at WP:Third opinion I'm here to offer a third opinion. I would note that I haven't previously been involved with editing this article and have had no dealings with the two editors before.

I would recommend that you both read WP:BRD – if an article is edited and that edit is reverted, it is time to discuss it on the talk page, not continually edit the article, arguing in edit summaries. You're half way there requesting a third opinion, but you haven't discussed it amongst yourselves yet. In my opinion the quote is not NPOV as defined at WP:NPOV, as it is attributed to the leader of one of the armies, so it is clear that he will have a POV. However, it's clearly in the wrong part of the article - the quote is about the battle, not the aftermath. Sections don't need to begin with a quote, this quote could be slimmed down and incorporated into the prose, or just quoted separately during the Outcome section.

Ultimately, there are more important things for all editors here to be focused on. There are parts of the article that require sourcing and apparently some of it might be a WP:COPYVIO. Look at the Featured Article review, there are some hefty criticisms and they should be addressed as a priority.

So, two things:

• Concentrate on the quality of the article.
• Discuss controversial edits on the talk page to reach a consensus.

Good luck, Bigger digger (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

Please stop reverting over File:The Third battle of Panipat 13 January 1761.jpg in the infobox. Please discuss the reasoning behind your positions here and come to a consensus. What are the reasons for removing it? Woody (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument that this image is disrespectful to a certain community does not hold up to WP:NOTCENSORED. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Shantanu's comment below is copied from their talkpage

OK friend.

Save the picture on your computer. Magnify it. See the left margin of the picture...come to the middle.... the camp of the Maratthas. You will find an / a few afghan soldiers ravishing ladies of the Marattha camp. Hindus and especially Maratthas will find this seriously offensive.... so will any sensible person. I do not know how many people have noticed this. I noticed this a few years ago when a copy of this painting was displayed in India and immediately taken off.

Though this is a work of art... there may be a posibility of it being excessive or partisan in nature. Is the reasoning good enough? If not...please excuse my action.This is a free (civilized??) form of sharing information after all.Thanks

--Shantanu2806 (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As you say, this is a free form of sharing information and therefore it is all-inclusive and not censored. Some articles may include images that some people may find objectionable when they are relevant to the content. "Being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. It is a painting from the period and offers an artistic depiction of the battle, the best we are going to get, and therefore it should be re-instated in the article. Please see a similar discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images that discusses a similar theme. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I agree to the point that we currently do not have a better picture to capture the event. The debate on "what is objectionable" varies from culture to culture and civilization to civilization. This will always remain a point of contention. Ravishing women, decapitating people and destroying human lives en-masse was always a been used as a tactic for opression, terror and establishing power by cultures alien to India be it Hitler, Tamerlane, Chengiz Khan or Atilla and in this case Ahmed Shah Durrani. The only recorded massacre in "Indian" Pre-Islamic History was The Battle of Kalinga.... some 200 years BC.

The graphic depiction of such incidents [which are a fact] would only lead to a further irritations. Just FYI....Ahmed Shah Durrani is hated and despised in India.Pakistan has named one of their missiles (weapons) Abdali. This is just to spite India / Indians.

Now India is not what it used to be 20 years ago. We are in a position of strengh say with respect to countries which have Tamerlane, Abdali etc as icons. We are in a position of strength viz-a-viz all our 'invaders' be it Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asian countries or even Britain.

Nett nett though logical ....such pictures eventually add bad blood and generate more heat than light.

Please feel free to re-install the picture (for I will not...). I am sure you will not fully understand how the feeling is.

--Shantanu2806 (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to discuss nationalistic issues nor who has the upper hand in terms of military hardware. Wikipedia is the place for neutral, encyclopedic articles about topics that provide the facts to readers. I don't think anybody who reads this article and sees the image will take it to mean that Wikipedia intends to offend a civilisation.

In the past I have tried to maintain a neutral version of this article, but without sources to hand I cannot enforce that or rewrite the text. I will continue to try. I agree that I doubt I will ever understand the particular feelings around this matter. Thank you for your co-operation in this matter, regards, Woody (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki moderators and wiki community this article seems heavily biased. Please fix this issue ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.44.5 (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

well, there are alternative pictures depicting this battle, they can be used instead.Kesangh (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WAS MOGUL EMPIRE NEUTRAL

was mogul empire neutral in this war, though they have no generals of note but they have resources, mogul supported durrani,rohilla and nawab so they should also be made a party.

Though defeated Maratha proved that even with their 2nd string generals they are better than Durrani empire in one on one who was too scared to go against Maratha Empire alone and formed multiple alliance with rohilla ,mogul, and nawab of oudh. Above this "ahmad shah durrani" is considered the best afghan general ever ofcourse he is no match for greatest Maratha generals "chatrapati shivaji(aurangzeb used to have nightmare of this man), santaji ghorpade, baji rao, dhanaji jadhav" this also break the myth that pathans or afghans are brave, "POPULATION OF MARATHA IS WAY WAY LESS THAN AFGHANS, IT WAS ONLY MARATHA no other hindu group against whole country" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.23.126 (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please find a reliable ref. utcursch | talk 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Mughal Lohar's socks

The recent edits from 182.182.*.* seem to be from the banned user Mughal Lohar (talk · contribs). The user continues to add inaccurate content supported by fake references. For example, The begums of Bhopal by Shaharyar Khan was added by this user to support the statement that Bhopal State participated in the Battle of Panipat. However, the book says exactly the opposite: "Bhopal’s forces could not have been present at Panipat". Given such deliberately misleading editing, I'm reverting the user's contributions. utcursch | talk 05:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Typo in second paragraph

There is a typo in second paragraph. It should be Afghan not AFghan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatar Khan (talk • contribs) utcursch | talk 06:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The intro still needs copyediting, though. utcursch | talk 06:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

The After effects of panipat that have been mentioned need to be changed, why have the after effects of third battle only' discussed to such an extent that send a very negative message in the society specially among the marathi people, this needs to be changed the truth is not always very good and needs to be hided at times for the social harmony, please take off the discription part especially the once that describes how the 22000 children and women were treated after the battle, this directly affects the young minds and might lead to unlawfull events in the society after reading this. so as like various books that describe the mascarce after india pakistan partition were banned this sort of description under wikepedia should also be banned. Thanks Sachinchvn (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. utcursch | talk 11:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Marathas 1758.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Marathas 1758.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Marathas 1758.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Third Battle of Panipat Commanders and leaders list

In this war Ibrahim Khan Gardi was a Maratha Empire general. But his name is not mentioned in the list. For more information please visit this page Ibrahim_Khan_Gardi. He was only solo Muslim general who served Maratha Empire. So it's very important for history And the people who is reading this page.He was an expert in artillery, he initially served the Nizam of Hyderabad, before working for the Peshwa of the Maratha Empire. As a general of the Maratha Empire, he commanded a force of 10,000 men, infantry and artillery. He was captured and killed by the Afghans Third Battle of Panipat in 1761. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasibc4 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)