14 January,1761.Third battle of Panipat. "Marathyawar 'Sankrant' kosalali". The mighty Marathi army with advanced French artillery was routed.When the insubordiante chiefs of Maratha army couldn't be less jealous of early morning exploits of Maratha Artillery,the Marathas had lost the initiative.What followed was the biggest loss to the Maratha confederecy. A loss from which Marathas would never recover. Historian often say if not for the great loss at Third Battle of Panipat,East India Company would never have had the chance to conquer India.
Akhilesh's comments: Akhilesh Barai Thats true. Every battle of Panipat has changed India's fate, and the worst of all that has been the 3rd battle.
Another key reason for the failure of the marathas was that they had no allies in the north, since they had hostile relations with the jats, the rajputs and the sikhs.
It was a strategic mistake, treading on an unknown territory all alone... Peshwa Nanasaheb died of heart attack.
If not for Panipat, marathas had their supremacy well defined all over India.
Manmath Deshpande had a different take on the issue : The truth is- that though Marathas lost heavily, they REESTABLISHED power in North within few years. Madhavrao Peshwe did it (1761-1772). Marathas ruled North India until 1794. After this battle, Abdali never invaded India again, nor did any other foreigner (Britishers were colonizers). This battle ended foreign invasions once and for all, though a whole generation of young men was killed in the battle. Marathas recovered from this. What was an irrepairable loss to the Marathi Raj was the premature death of Madhavrao Peshwe in 1772 at the age of 27.
Marathas resisted British till 1818. In 1818 Maratha rule ended. In 1779 (18 years after Panipat) Marathas inflicted a huge defeat on British. Till 1794, Marathas were dominant in North. From 1802 British influence started rising. This was much after Panipat, and after Madhavrao Peshwe revived Maratha rule. Also, British rule had many benefits- such as railways, modern education, uniform laws, good law and order etc.
But to my opinion,
Facts are not "Incorrect". Marathas did gain control of northern India after 10 years but they never fought united afterwards.
You saying "This battle ended foreign invasions once and for all" is totally incorrect. Abdali was a Pastun and he never meant to stay in India.After the battle he was embroiled in the sikh rebellions. problems in his army and many other things. Apart from that his empire had a western front to take care of too.He died in 1772. And calling British mere "colonizers" and not invaders will be a shameful attempt to prove your point. Direct invasion on India would never be so easier for them with their limited numbers.Especially against the might of marathas before the third panipat.They gained control slowly.They did this over a span of decades,gradually.They had colonies all over the world and they did with their own shrewd tactics.Further Raghunathrao would never have gone to British for help had maratha empire been what it was before Panipat.that led to first anglo-maratha war. Till 1794 marathas had their control in north,but their control was fragmented into states. They did not have support from Sikhs,Rajputs.
At the end saying "Also, British rule had many benefits- such as railways, modern , uniform laws, good law and order etc." is a damn lame excuse. Not only it is irrelevant here but are you saying "buddy,look,it's OK that marathas are being defeated,look these british have railways, modern education, uniform laws, good law and order,we'll have fun ".
On one hand you orthodox people boast about "India was a great country in terms of education and laws" and on the other hand you say British introduced "modern education" and laws.What they introduced was technology.And believe me now that I am actually in an education system different from the one British had introduced,I assure you and re-assure you,they fucked our education system real bad.But again this thing is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I am not better at History than you,certainly you have better knowledge.It is after all what a person perceive from facts, ,but what's with the obsessive compulsion of proving only your perception is right?
