Internal Maratha Conflict: Bhau vs. Holkar Strategic Clash (Pre-Panipat)

Marathi History Book Reading Session Summary

The Source Problem: Bakhar Reliability

Author Bias Alert:

• Multiple Bakhar (historical chronicles) authors wrote about internal Maratha conflicts
• Same stories appear repeatedly but some are imaginative or unreliable
• Fact from fiction needs careful separation
• These tensions were real but details may be exaggerated

The Strategic Divide: Two Opposing Visions

Holkar's Strategy: Guerrilla Approach

Holkar's Core Advice:

• Don't engage in frontal confrontation with Abdali's army
• Use "ganimikawa" (surgical strikes) tactics instead
• Harass and weaken enemy without direct battle
• Use mobility to make his life difficult
• Secure civilians and supplies at Gwalior fort, then move freely
• Let Abdali exhaust himself and return home

The Rationale:

• Marathas had used this successfully 1756-1758 (without Abdali present)
• Shinde and Holkar had established northern dominance during Abdali's absence
• Same formula could work again if they had patience
• No need to fight Abdali directly; just wait him out

Bhau's Strategy: European Warfare Approach

Bhau's Vision:

• Use long-range artillery fire as the dominant force
• European-style tactics with disciplined coordination
• Frontal warfare with overwhelming firepower
• Won Kunjapura in record time using this method
• Proved artillery's effectiveness firsthand

His Confidence:

• Had seen European warfare training firsthand
• Ibrahim Khan Gardi trained Maratha artillery forces
• Witnessed artillery devastate the Kunjapura fort
• Convinced this was the path to victory

The Organizational Problem: Discipline vs. Valor

The Critical Issue:

• European tactics ONLY work with strict military discipline
• Maratha army was built on individual valor and heroics
• Everyone wanted to show maximum bravery and personal valor
• No culture of coordination or unified command structure
• Each soldier wanted personal glory over collective success

The Result:

• Maratha forces later mastered combined cavalry-artillery tactics (but not at Panipat)
• In 1760, they had the tools but not the training
• System incompatibility: Revolutionary tactics + traditional warrior culture = friction

The Personal Tensions: More Than Just Strategy

Bhavantrao Mehendare: Bhau's Advisor

His Role:

• Bhau's closest confidant and major advisor
• Experienced military commander
• Came from Shinde family/clan background
• Had inherited prejudice against Holkar

His Warning:

• Told Bhau: "Don't listen to Holkar's advice"
• Distrusted Holkar's motivations

Bhau's Internal Bias

The Dismissal of Holkar:

• Called him "shepherd boy" (reference to humble origins)
• Thought Holkar was old-fashioned, raised in Bajirao I's era
• Didn't respect him despite military achievements
• Not purely caste-based (Brahmin supremacy) but influenced by it

The Real Problem:

• Bhau's advisor Mehendare came from Shinde camp
• Shinde and Holkar had always been rivals
• That rivalry poisoned Bhau's view of Holkar
• Inherited factional prejudice blocked objective evaluation

The Succession Question

Old Guard vs. New:

• Taji (Shinde leader) was dead—highly respected, loyal to Peshwa
• Jankoji (nephew, young successor) lacked battle experience and respect
• Holkar was 55-60 years old, at peak of power and influence
• Bhau was only 29 (considerable youth and impetuousness)

The Dynamic:

• Young, ambitious Bhau vs. experienced older commanders
• Bhau wanted freedom from previous generation's thinking
• But Bhau hadn't faced Abdali's actual military power
• Holkar had—and knew the danger firsthand

The Confrontation After Kunjapura

Mehendare's Accusation

The Direct Attack:

• After Kunjapura victory, Holkar urged return to Delhi
• Mehendare burst out: "Why are you speaking on behalf of the Durani (Abdali)?"
• Essentially: "Why are you parroting the enemy's talking points?"
• Accused Holkar of cowardice and fear

The Suspicion:

• Holkar had fled from Abdali's forces in earlier engagements
• They suspected his caution came from fear, not strategy
• Implied he was protecting himself rather than serving Peshwa interests

Holkar's Response

The Hurt:

• Became deeply disappointed and disillusioned
• This was a serious accusation in warrior culture
• Questioning someone's courage could lead to violence/duels
• Showed fundamental lack of trust

Holkar's Counter-Attack:

• "You Brahmins didn't come to earth by shattering the sky"
• "You haven't descended from heaven"
• "Stop telling me this bullshit"
• "You've never faced Abdali's forces—I have"
• "If you meet him on the battlefield, you'll understand what you're facing"

The Trust Problem: Structural Issues

Why Holkar Couldn't Be Trusted (In Peshwa's Mind)

The Reality:

• Holkar had become semi-independent, almost a vassal king
• Operated in the north autonomously
• Had his own interests and didn't fully align with Peshwa
• Carryover suspicion from Bajirao I's era

The Comparison:

• Taji (deceased Shinde leader) had been called "Ishwarath Sepai" (Soldier of God)
• Fiercely loyal to Narasimha Peshwa
• Holkar was a different story—more independent operator
• If Taji were alive, even same strategies might have been trusted

The Autonomy Problem

Holkar's Position:

• Always in the north
• Had substantial land and territorial control
• Made decisions independently
• Peshwa couldn't fully control him even if wanted to

The Age Differential:

• Holkar: 55-60 years old, experienced, powerful
• Bhau: 29 years old, less battle-tested, more idealistic
• Youth wanted to assert dominance over experience
• Experience wanted respect for hard-won knowledge

The Historical Hindsight: What Should Have Happened

Holkar's Strategy Evaluated:

• Wait for Abdali to exhaust himself and leave
• Re-establish northern supremacy without direct confrontation
• This had worked 1756-1758 when Abdali wasn't there
• Would likely have worked again with patience

What Actually Happened:

• Bhau's pride and youth overruled Holkar's experience
• Direct battle at Panipat (January 1761)
• Massive Maratha losses—entire generation of warriors killed
• 15-20 year recovery period for Maratha power
• British filled the vacuum created by Maratha collapse
• If Panipat hadn't happened, British rule might never have come

The Strategic Error:

• Bhau was right that European artillery was revolutionary
• Bhau was right that it could be decisive
• But he was wrong about when and where to use it
• And wrong about accepting unnecessary battle for honor/pride

The Chanakya Principle

What Shivaji Would Have Done:

• Shivaji was extremely strategic
• Would have put pride aside to avoid unnecessary open warfare
• Understood that some victories come from avoiding battles, not fighting them
• Never made such catastrophic mistakes in his lifetime

Bhau's Failure:

• Even basic Chanakya principles say: avoid unnecessary warfare
• But he sent word he would fight Abdali
• Couldn't let that word go unmet without appearing coward
• His pride locked him into the battle

Why Abdali Came Back (The Najib Khan Factor)

The Unexpected Return:

• Marathas thought Abdali's threat had waned after 1758
• Actually, Abdali was content to stay in Afghanistan
• But Najib Khan kept pressuring him to return
• Used religious language: "Islam is in danger in India"

Why Najib Khan Insisted:

• His own survival depended on Abdali's presence
• Without external Afghan support, Marathas would eliminate him
• Had to keep his external patron engaged
• Essentially engineered Abdali's return for self-preservation

Alternative Scenario:

• Without Najib Khan's pressure, Abdali might never have returned
• Marathas would have dominated north unopposed
• No Panipat, no British opportunity

Key Themes

1. Pride as Military Strategy - Bhau's honor requirements forced unwanted battle
2. Institutional Distrust - Young new leader couldn't trust older experienced commanders
3. Factional Carryover - Old Shinde-Holkar rivalry poisoned objective decision-making
4. Tool Without Training - Had revolutionary artillery but lacked disciplined army to use it
5. Experience Dismissed - Holkar's firsthand knowledge ignored due to age/rank tensions
6. Hindsight Tragedy - One different decision changes 200+ years of history

Timeline of Tensions

The Players and Their Positions

Where This Leads: By October 1760, the cracks in Maratha command are visible. Bhau is convinced that European-style artillery warfare is the answer. Holkar is convinced that patience and mobility are key. Mehendare and Bhau's team don't trust Holkar's motives. Holkar is feeling dismissed and disrespected. The younger generation (Bhau) is overruling the older generation (Holkar) based on ideology and pride rather than strategic analysis. Meanwhile, Abdali is on his way south. The Marathas are marching into history's most consequential battle while their command structure is fractured.

Strategy meeting, but the commanders don't trust each other. One has pride, one has experience. One believes in technology, one believes in time. One is young enough to change the world, one is old enough to have seen empires fall. They disagree about everything except that Abdali is coming. And when he arrives, they'll have to fight together despite the fractures. That's the real tragedy—not the defeat itself, but the division that made defeat possible.