Bahu's Arrogance & Leadership Divisions Before Panipat

Marathi History Book Reading Session Summary

The Fatal Confidence Problem

Bahu's Conviction:

• Absolutely certain in his artillery and long-range cannons
• Dismissive of northern commanders' advice to use traditional tactics
• Looked down on Shinde and Holkar clans for suggesting cavalry harassment (gunny mikawa)
• Wanted frontal, artillery-heavy battle instead

Why He Was Confident:

• Had used artillery successfully against the Nizam earlier
• Brought Ibrahim Khan Gardi specifically for cannon expertise
• Believed artillery = guaranteed victory

The Fatal Flaw:

• His experience was limited to southern Indian warfare (Deccan)
• Didn't understand northern plains warfare
• His overconfidence would prove to be the battle's undoing
• Abdali was a veteran with decades of war experience; Bahu was relatively inexperienced

The Northern Commanders Withdraw

Suraj Mal Jat:

• Zamindari class (landowner/administrator)
• Proposed using traditional surgical strike tactics (cavalry-based harassment)
• Insulted by Bahu's dismissal of his advice
• Eventually refused to fight despite initially coming with 10,000 soldiers

Holkar:

• Called "Mendha Paar" (sheep herder caste - source of tension)
• Also advocated for traditional surgical strike methods
• Joined battle but abandoned it early
• Had relationship with Najib Khan Rohila (Afghans' side)
• Najib gave him safe passage to escape when battle turned disastrous
• Never wanted this head-on battle in the first place

Why This Mattered:

• Lost two crucial commanders who knew northern warfare tactics
• Bahu's ego alienated the very men who could have saved him
• Northern plains ≠ Deccan mountains (no retreat option)

Why Bahu Rejected Holkar's Advice

Guru Ramchandra Baba Factor:

• Bahu's teacher/guru was Ramchandra Pant Baba
• Baba had worked for the Shinde army in previous career
• Shinde and Holkar clans had long-standing rivalry
• Baba was anti-Holkar, taking Shinde's side
• Bahu inherited this prejudice from his guru

The Consequence:

• Let personal grievances override tactical wisdom
• Ramchandra Baba had poisoned him against Holkar
• Ignored sound military advice because of clan politics

Dattaji Shinde vs. Holkar: Different Philosophies

Dattaji Shinde:

• Loyal to the death for the Peshwa
• Willing to take fatal risks for duty
• True soldier/warrior mentality

Holkar:

• Life philosophy: "Sheer salamat, pagdi pachas"
• Translation: "If your head is intact, you can have 50 headdresses"
• Meaning: Save yourself first; everything else can be regained
• Not a warrior mentality but a survival/merchant mentality
• Wouldn't sacrifice his life even for Peshwa

The Difference:

• Shinde = warrior class commitment
• Holkar = administrator/survivor mentality
• Both had merit, but clash in existential war

The Najib Khan Factor

Holkar's Debt:

• Saved Najib Khan's life in 1757
• Najib was forever grateful (debtor to Holkar)
• Called Holkar his "godfather"

Strategic Implication:

• When war turned against Marathas, Najib gave Holkar safe passage
• Holkar survived when others didn't
• His "sheer salamat" philosophy proved useful
• But his early exit hurt the Maratha cause

The Irony:

• Holkar's mercy toward enemies (like Najib) came back to help him escape
• But his absence meant fewer leaders when battle was critical

The Red Fort Revenge

The Background:

• Dattaji Shinde was killed by Afghans (Kutub Shah was blamed)
• Kutub Shah: Afghan general who taught in the fort
• Precious Maratha war elephant was taken as war booty

The Vengeance:

• When Marathas finally took the Red Fort
• Found Kutub Shah hiding inside
• Took him prisoner and beheaded him publicly
• Recovered the precious elephant
• Lesson taught to other Afghan defenders

Historical Justice:

• Marathas got partial revenge for Dattaji's death
• But couldn't get Dattaji back

Timeline

Critical Analysis

Why the Withdrawals Mattered:

• Bahu lost ~10,000 (Suraj Mal) + experienced Holkar
• Forces reduced at crucial moment
• Lost access to traditional tactics that might have worked
• Artillery alone wasn't enough on open plains

The Leadership Problem:

• Ego > Strategy
• Prejudice (inherited from guru) > Tactical wisdom
• Class resentment (treating landowners as inferior) > Pragmatism
• Arrogance about limited experience > Respect for veterans

The Human Element:

• Holkar's philosophy of survival actually made him more tactical (avoid frontal war)
• But his philosophy also meant he left when things got difficult
• Pragmatism vs. heroism tension that would define Maratha weakness

Key Phrase

"Sheer salamat, pagdi pachas" = "If your head is intact, you can have 50 headdresses" = Survive first, everything else follows

This encapsulates Holkar's approach: Live to fight another day. Not dishonorable, but when everyone fights to the last man, this becomes a liability.

Where We Left Off: Before Panipat's final battle, Bahu had already lost his two best allies through his own arrogance and inherited prejudices. He faced Abdali with fewer commanders, no traditional warfare strategies, and an unwavering commitment to an artillery strategy that would fail on the northern plains.

Bahu's mistake was not in choosing artillery—it was in thinking artillery was enough. The Marathas had always won through a combination of tactics: hit-and-run, terrain knowledge, surgical strikes. Now he wanted to copy European warfare on plains where the Europeans hadn't even arrived yet. And he did it while actively driving away the men who could have told him why this would fail. Ego destroyed what ability might have built.