New Delhi: Ashutosh Gowarikar’s recently released period drama Panipat has run into a controversy for what critics have called the wrong portrayal of Jat ruler Maharaja Surajmal and Afghan king Ahmad Shah Abdali.
The Jats have alleged that Surajmal has been depicted as being greedy, while Afghans claimed the movie misrepresented Abdali, the founder of the Durrani empire and modern Afghanistan, as a brutal ruler.
The film is the tale of the Third Battle of Panipat fought in 1761 between the Marathas and Abdali. It stars actors Arjun Kapoor, Kriti Sanon and Sanjay Dutt.
Panipat film may have been in the news for all the wrong reasons, but the city — in modern-day Haryana — had played a decisive role in shaping India’s history, not once but thrice.
First battle
It was the first battle of Panipat that established the rule of the Mughals in the Indian subcontinent. Fought in 1526, the Battle of Panipat involved the Mongolian incursion of Hindustan carried out by Zahir-ud-din Babur against the last empire of the Delhi Sultanate — the Lodhi dynasty.
Satish Chandra, in his book Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals Part-II writes, “The battle of Panipat (20 April 1526) was not a sudden development, but was the culmination of the struggle between the two (Ibrahim Lodi and Babur) which had started earlier.”
It was also the first battle where gunpowder firearms and field artillery were used, and it was this artillery, as well as his unique tactics, that helped Babur defeat Lodhi with an army that was grossly outnumbered.
Also read: Panipat was a bloody military debacle for Marathas. Will patriotism-high India see the film?
Second battle
After Babur’s death, the expansionist drive of the Mughals halted. Nevertheless, with the coronation of Akbar as the new emperor, the dream of expanding the frontiers of the Mughal empire resurfaced.
The second battle of Panipat marked Akbar’s victory over his Hindu contemporary — King Hemu, also known as Hemu Vikramaditya and Hemchandra Vikramaditya.
He was previously a general and chief minister of Adil Shah Suri of the Suri dynasty. Hemu gradually moved up the ranks and it is believed that he won as many as 22 wars against the Afghan rebellions of Adil Shah Suri.
Akbar, who was only 13 years old that time, didn’t take part in the battle, and the Mughal army was led by his military commander Bairam Khan.
The third battle
By the mid-18th century, the Marathas had occupied a considerable part of central and northern India by driving out Afghan prince Timor Shah Durrani. However, Delhi continued to remain under the Mughals. Apprehensive of their defeat, the Mughals appealed to Abdali for help.
A fight began between the army of Abdali and Marathas in which Marathas were decimated, with brave warriors Sadashiv Rao and Vishwasrao losing their lives.
The battle and its outcome exposed the disunity and infighting among the Marathas and their allies, making it easier for the European powers to enter Hindustan.
Also read: Panipat review: Almost another lavishly mounted caricature of Muslim invaders as brutes
Panipat and the revision of history
As the controversy surrounding Panipat continues with both the Afghans and Jats fighting to be represented ‘correctly and truthfully’, it is important to raise the question — how much accuracy is there to a truth about a historical event that happened centuries ago?
History is never black and white, perspectives lie in the grey and it is with these perspectives as their backbone that Afghans and Jats have been protesting.
Modern India, with all its boundaries, is not the India that the Marathas, Abdalis or Mughals fought over in the three battles of Panipat.
“The Marathas were in north India to protect their own interests, not to ‘save India’ as it’s now claimed. They were building their own empire and wanted to check the progress of their Afghan rival who also wanted to expand his empire to include north India,” historian Manimughda Sharma tells ThePrint.
The Afghan-Maratha war has been given a religious angle posthumously.
Gowariker’s movie even calls it ‘the great betrayal’ as many Hindu kings supported the Afghans. “There were thousands of Gardi infantry under their leader Ibrahim Khan Gardi who fought for the Marathas while Hindus fought in the Afghan coalition army,” says Sharma, who is also a journalist and an author.
Battles not fought for Panipat
What stands out in all the three battles of Panipat is the fact that the dispute or the reason for war was never the city of Panipat. Panipat was always an entrance to Delhi. Historically, anyone from the North-West, who wanted to capture Delhi, had to come through the Khyber pass and then Punjab.
Sharma elaborated that for anyone looking to establish control over Delhi — Karnal, Thanesar, Kurukshetra and Panipat were the ideal places to stop the enemy from reaching your gates.
“So, you see, several important battles were fought here. Mahmud of Ghazni fought at Thanesar. Shihabuddin Ghori fought Delhi king Prithviraj Chauhan at Tarain near Thanesar twice. The first time Prithviraj and Ghori fought in 1191, Delhi armies didn’t go in pursuit of the Ghurid army beyond Bathinda in Punjab,” Sharma explains.
In order to prevent the aggressors from further expanding their powers in the region, empires in Delhi would invariably end up fighting them at Panipat.
By being the gateway to Delhi and by consequence the key to the peninsular regions, Panipat bore the brunt of battles that were never fought for it in the first place. It just served as an ideal location, with its vast fields, for violence to unfold.
With inputs from Qadeel Qazi.
Also read: Not just Panipat, Kabul unhappy with ‘undesirable’ portrayal of Afghans in other films too
III Battle of Panipat was epoch making Battle and has to be seen with a proper perspective of that time. And that perspective can be gained by knowing the actual events that took place. These events were reported by Maratha writers of Datar’s and Akhbarat’s sent to Pune Office. Kashiraj Pandit, in service of Shuja-ud-dola Nawab of Awadh was also present has given a truthful account of this Battle.
This Battle can be seen from Military Historian or period historian or modern day historians point of view. Each is relevant.
The period of Battle was period of anarchy. Each protoganist wanted legitimacy of Mughal Emperor(Emperor in name). Each was pursuing his own interest, each was betraying the other and in this Great Hamam of blood bath come out covered in blood. And each suffered terribly. Najibuddola became the Recent but he too suffered huge losses of men and material. Marathas lost reputation, a generation of their youth and their families and Abdali lost his son and others with a realisation that even in pitched Battle in planes India is no pushover. No one notices that Abdali was the last invader out of India which was raising its own armed battalions with firearms and were tough adversities. Mahadaji Shinde with his French (De Boigne) trained sepoys later mastered this art and Mahadaji became Vazir-e Mutalak.
Now of Ashutosh Gowarikar’ film. All in all it is an honest effort. Abdali letter to Peshwa and effort to reconcile the differences are historical fact. In those troubled times it was a gamble to take anyone’s side as in case of Shuja-ud-dola or Surajmal. No one can blame which side you took so no blame to any one. In making a film certain exaggeration have to be made yet Arjun Kapoor, Sanjay Datt and Kriti Sonon came good. You can not put the clock back. Though Third Battle of Panipat was a disaster for Marathas yet it also had seeds of great rise of India in the form of Mahadaji Sindhia who with his able General De Boigne who in his Camp (Campoo to local) gave rise to nascent of it’s Army and the unity that was so much required. British adopted much of this model and hence Mahadaji Sindhia in many ways is the maker of Modern India.
Pankaj Gupta
III Battle of Panipat was epoch making Battle and has to be seen with a proper perspective of that time. And that perspective can be gained by knowing the actual events that took place. These events were reported by Maratha writers of Datar’s and Akhbarat’s sent to Pune Office. Kashiraj Pandit, in service of Shuja-ud-dola Nawab of Awadh was also present has given a truthful account of this Battle.
This Battle can be seen from Military Historian or period historian or modern day historians point of view. Each is relevant.
The period of Battle was period of anarchy. Each protoganist wanted legitimacy of Mughal Emperor(Emperor in name). Each was pursuing his own interest, each was betraying the other and in this Great Hamam of blood bath come out covered in blood. And each suffered terribly. Najibuddola became the Recent but he too suffered huge losses of men and material. Marathas lost reputation, a generation of their youth and their families and Abdali lost his son and others with a realisation that even in pitched Battle in planes India is no pushover. No one notices that Abdali was the last invader out of India which was raising its own armed battalions with firearms and were tough adversities. Mahadaji Shinde with his French (De Boigne) trained sepoys later mastered this art and Mahadaji became Vazir-e Mutalak.
Now of Ashutosh Gowarikar’ film. All in all it is an honest effort. Abdali letter to Peshwa and effort to reconcile the differences are historical fact. In those troubled times it was a gamble to take anyone’s side as in case of Shuja-ud-dola or Surajmal. No one can blame which side you took so no blame to any one. In making a film certain exaggeration have to be made yet Arjun Kapoor, Sanjay Datt and Kriti Sonon came good. You can not put the clock back. Though Third Battle of Panipat was a disaster for Marathas yet it also had seeds of great rise of India in the form of Mahadaji Sindhia who with his able General De Boigne who in his Camp (Campoo to local) gave rise to nascent of it’s Army and the unity that was so much required. British adopted much of this model and hence Mahadaji Sindhia in many ways is the maker of Modern India.
Pankaj Gupta
The third battle of Panipat was an example of bad planning and execution. This is not reflected in the movie, instead there has been glorification of the protagonists with modern day Indian perspective.
Maratha expedition had a large number of pilgrims who tagged along to visit holy sites such as Mathura and Kashi. Marathas had better artillery but had poor support and logistics in North. One reference indicates that Marathas were perceived as marauding armies and Northern kings were not happy paying taxes. Further, Marathas were traditionally better at guerrilla warfare which was not used in Panipat. This was also due to huge baggage of civilians at the battlefield.
What appears is somehow Marathas under appreciated the political landscape and faced the enemy in a war neither planned nor executed on their terms. However, it has been acknowledged that Maratha forces fought the fiercest through the first phase of the was before starvation and fatigue kicked in.
I think you got the reason for Abdali’s invasion wrong. The mughals officially never invited Abdali. The Mughal emperor was a puppet emperor of the Marathas after the Marathas sacked Delhi and were not interested in ruling it and hence, put Shah Alam 2 on the throne. Shah Alam was weak and there was political intrigue among the Mughal noblemen.
One of Abdali’s sons was actually killed by one of these noblemen in present day Pakistan, I think, Lahore, thus, angering Abdali and then he was invited by one of the Mughal rebels to invade.
Abdali invaded for the purpose of avenging his son’s death and that is the exact reason that the Rohillas & Awadh, who are of Afghan origin supported him as in the Afghan tribal set up, avenging a family member’s death is required to maintain status and honour.
There is also another story that the Mughal nobleman, who killed Abdali’s son or nephew, ran away and sought refuge with the Marathas and Abdali demanded that Marathas hand him over but they refused citing Guest hospitalilty ethics and hence, this resulted in a war.
Abdali himself was an honourable man, fought personally in his battles and was also well educated. Protraying all Muslim rulers as brutes like Khilji just shows how narrow minded people have become and how film makers try to squeeze out money from spectators using sentimentality rather than make a good original & factual film.
There can be many interpretations of an historical event. My own interpretation of the third battle of Panipat is that it was a ‘lose-lose’ battle for all the participants as well those who stood neutral and were mute spectators, barring two unintended beneficiaries- the Sikhs and the British. The Marathas were obviously the worse affected. They suffered due to over-ambitious expansion of their empire, which was beyond their financial and military capabilities and disinclination to make friends and allies. The Panipat was a lonely battle for them. It was already a lost cause the moment they decided root themselves for an indefinite period in Panipat, which resulted in immobility and indecision. Many opportunities were lost. They could have come back without wasting precious time after winning the battle of Kunjpura. Instead they preferred to have a holy bath in Kurukshetra. In the meanwhile, Abdali crossed Yamuna and blocked they return to Delhi. Marathas could never recover from this debacle. Another missed opportunity was that they could have attacked Abdali straight away without wasting time. Abdali was yet to settle on the western bank of Yamuna and Maratha Army’s morale was high. Sadashiv didn’t have guts to take the risk and preferred to remain immobile. Thereafter, Abdali shifted his camp close to Yamuna, thus clearing way for Marathas to flee to Delhi. Sadashiv didn’t opt for the offered escape route. Alternatively, he could have gone back to Kundapura and crossed Yamuna and entered the Duab. Again, he remained immobile till the army was starved due to lack of food and he had no other option but to fight a lost battle.