The Catastrophic Afternoon: Vishwas Rao's Death & The Leadership Doctrine

Marathi History Book Reading Session Summary

The Decisive Moment

The Sniper Attack: From Abdali's fortune (luck/circumstance):

"One of the bullets struck Vishwas Rao in the head, and the other struck Bhau in his shoulder/arm area where the arm starts from the body."

The Results:

• Vishwas Rao: Killed instantly (shot in the head)
• Bhau: Wounded in shoulder/arm (injured but survived initially)

The Historical Assumption: After being wounded, Bhau dismounted from his elephant and rode a horse instead, personally entering the fray. (Some debate about exact sequence, but consensus: Bhau got directly involved in close combat after this point.)

The Military Crisis: Visible Leadership Doctrine

The Historical Reality (Irwin's Analysis):

"In those days, whatever was the plight of the commander-in-chief would decide how the battle will go. Whether you lose or win depends on whether the leader is dead, alive, injured, or passionately fighting."

The Practice:

• If leader dead or not visible: army flees battlefield
• If leader visible and fighting: army continues
• Leader visibility = decisive factor in outcome

The Consequence: When Vishwas Rao (most important military second-in-command) was VISIBLY killed, psychological impact was catastrophic.

Soldiers see:

• Vishwas Rao dead
• Bhau wounded
• Command structure falling apart
• Time to flee?

The Visual Symbol: The Empty Elephant Seat

Why Elephants Mattered:

• Royal/elite commanders rode on elevated elephant seats (Howdah)
• Soldiers could see commander from distance
• Visibility = confidence the leader is alive and commanding
• Empty seat = leader dead or fled

The Maratha Problem: When Bhau dismounted from elephant to ride horse:

"Upon seeing the elephant seat empty, the army fleeing was very usually acceptable or commonly understood thing."

Translation: Empty elephant seat = soldiers understand commander is dead/gone = time to flee.

Historical Precedent (1757): General Jengabaj Khan had commented on this exact problem:

"Abdali said: This practice of sitting on the top of the elephant seat is not good anymore because the elephant will go wherever it wants. You can't control it. And besides, the Howdah (Mena) is made for sick people to carry, not for royals who are leading the fight."

Abdali was calling the tradition outdated:

• Elephant uncontrollable
• Not suitable for active combat leader
• Creates vulnerability

Abdali's Tactical Innovation: Leadership from Position of Strength

Abdali's Model (Different Approach): Instead of being on prominent elephant seat where vulnerable:

• Positioned far back (not abandoned, just strategic)
• On a small hillock for elevated view
• With binoculars to see battlefield
• With messengers going back and forth for real-time intel
• Out of immediate danger but fully informed

Why This Was Genius:

1. Visibility Alternative: Messengers keep him informed = leadership is active
2. Safety: Far enough back to not be easy target
3. Strategic Vision: Elevated position = can see whole battlefield
4. Communication Network: Messengers = command authority flows continuously
5. Survivability: If he dies, leadership continuity through deputies

The Technology Advantage: Having binoculars in 1761 was innovation for the time. Allowed Abdali to:

• See distant movements
• Make informed decisions
• Adjust tactics in real-time
• Command with authority based on actual knowledge

The Leadership Visibility Problem for Marathas

Bhau's Dilemma:

• Vishwas Rao killed = major psychological hit
• Bhau wounded = further morale damage
• Empty elephant seat = soldiers seeing signs of defeat
• Traditional doctrine: leader must be visible to keep army fighting

Bhau's Choice: Dismounted from elephant, got on horse, entered combat personally.

Why:

• Show he's still alive
• Show he's still fighting
• Restore army morale through personal example
• Be visible as leader

The Risk:

• Puts wounded commander directly in combat
• Increases chance of being killed
• No strategic distance/overview

The Dilemma: If Bhau stays on elephant:

• Safe, can command
• But soldiers see empty seat, think he's abandoned/dead
• Army flees

If Bhau dismounts to fight:

• Soldiers see him fighting
• Morale restored
• But wounded commander in direct danger
• Lost strategic command position

The Cultural Comparison

Shivaji's Innovation (Earlier Leader): Shivaji never used elephants for fighting. He avoided the tradition entirely:

• Stayed mobile
• Didn't become a target
• Led through tactics, not visibility

Abdali's Innovation: Abandoned the elephant tradition. Used:

• Strategic positioning
• Binoculars (technology)
• Messengers (communication)
• Elevated position (visibility of situation, not visibility of self)

Bhau's Traditional Approach: Still bound by the tradition. Had to:

• Show himself
• Get visible to army
• Enter combat personally
• Accept the danger

The Afternoon Reality

What Just Happened: Morning: Maratha dominance, Afghan collapse, cavalry reaching Abdali's tent. Afternoon transition: Abdali deployed reserves, Afghan counter-attack organizing. Now: Vishwas Rao killed, Bhau wounded, leadership doctrine collapsing.

The Turning Point: This is it. When commander-in-chief is wounded and second-in-command is dead, the momentum shifts.

Not because of tactical failure, but because of:

• Psychological impact
• Visibility doctrine
• Loss of command authority
• Soldier morale collapse

Key Insights

Abdali's Seasoned Judgment:

• Recognized traditional tactics (elephant visibility) were outdated
• Implemented modern approach (strategic positioning + technology + communication)
• Showed willingness to innovate
• Proved to be better leadership model

Bhau's Predicament: Bound by tradition:

• Can't abandon visibility doctrine
• Must show himself to keep soldiers fighting
• Forced to take personal risk
• Wounded but must keep fighting

The Invisible Cost: Vishwas Rao's death wasn't just loss of a commander. It broke the psychological contract: "Our leaders are invincible." When soldiers see leader killed, different army emerges.

The 18th Century Reality: Battle outcomes decided as much by who is visible/alive as by tactics/numbers. Loss of visible leadership = loss of army's will to fight.

Timeline (Critical Afternoon Progression)

Where We Left Off: Vishwas Rao dead. Bhau wounded. Elephant seat empty. Maratha soldiers seeing signs of command collapse. Bhau forcing himself into personal combat to restore confidence. But momentum already shifted. Afghan reserves counterattacking. Afternoon crisis full force.

The morning belonged to Bhau and his cavalry. They reached Abdali's tent. They broke the Afghan center. They killed thousands. But at some point in the early afternoon, a sniper's bullet found Vishwas Rao's head. Another found Bhau's shoulder. That's when everything changed. Not because of tactics. Because in 18th century warfare, the army follows the visible leader. When the leader is dead or absent, soldiers stop fighting. Bhau understood this. So he got on his horse and rode into the fray, wounded and bleeding. He had to be seen. He had to show the army he was still fighting. But by then, the moment had passed. Abdali had his chance. And he took it.