Talk:Third Battle of Panipat

Counter factuals?

It talks about how it would have been had a different commander. It should be MAY at most if the speculation is worth keeping at all, no need for alternate history writing like that 136.54.112.214 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sardesai's Marathi Riyasat

How is this source been discreditted? I don't see any relevant posts on the Reliable source notice board @Noorullah21 Normstahlie (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv Normstahlie (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll send some things to back this up in a bit. Noorullah (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Sarkar was very critical of Sardesai's use of Maratha Bakhars, or historical ballads..." [1]

"However, unlike some of his contemporaries, such as a Maratha Historian G.S. Sardesai (1865-1959), Sarkar was vehemently against a partisan reading of the sources." [2]

"It does not require any detailed analysis to prove that Sardesai was not correct, and that he suffered from an Anti-Mughal bias." [3] (pg. 222)

Sardesai is also criticized here: [4] Noorullah (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Sardesai is not a reliable source. Noorullah (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Quoting the article:-"The chapter ends by documenting the persistence of this tension, even between the intellectual positions held by Sarkar and Sardesai, who were otherwise united in their battles against the Puna school. The chapter thus demonstrates the early beginning of histories relating to identity-movements in colonial India and their impact on public debates about historians’ methods. On the latter questions, Sarkar had to make concessions even to his comrade-in-arms, Sardesai."[5]

The concessions made here by sarkar makes me question the relevance of the argument made to discourse Sardesai's reliablity, it can also be inferred that they did not reach any conclusive end on either sides. Normstahlie (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ballads often act as primary sources in Indian history, descriptions of historical figures (Like Nizamuddin Auliya by Amir Khusraw) hinting at their personality and accomplishments. masnavis written by Amir Khusraw's one of them being Miftah ul-Futuh written in praise of Jalal-ud-Din Khalji's victories, and another one of them being Khaza'in ul-Futuh recording Alauddin Khalji's construction works, wars and administrative services are regarded as historical sources despite being a form of poetry.

There is no doubt these ballads are often exaggerated which is the reason for Sarkar's criticism, but something to be noted here is that Sarkar himself worked with Sardesai on multiple occasions and they were close friends he was also the one who recommended Sardesai to be an editor at Peshwa Daftar where he reviewed thousands of documents and wrote his book which is in question here the "Marathi Riyasat". Normstahlie (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"Sardesai is not a reliable source"

You cannot judge that when no author mentioned in your sources discredit him out right or call him unreliable.. Normstahlie (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a compelling case is made here, I've made an argument earlier specifically unpacking the articles here. Sarkar does not call Sardesai unreliable or discredits him, being critical does not equal discrediting his works or nulling his legacy, such an inference is poorly understood. In addition to that, Sardesai has also written letters critical towards Sarkar's work does not mean he deems them unreliable. Normstahlie (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

From the context alone, it can be inferred that Sarkar is providing constructive criticism to Sardesai and not calling him a nationalist in any sense, he points out the recurring cycle of Nationalist Historiography which could be an outcome of Sardesai's works, Sarkar also himself admits that there is an unavoidable bias in historical narrative it is also too ambiguous to say that Sardesai committed any such blunders unless we have evidence to his bias which violates WP:NPOV, with enough contextual evidence. Normstahlie (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The author Siba Pada Sen recognizes Sardesai's works,

Quoting from the same author:- "In the light of what has hitherto been said we may examine the writings of a few modern Indian historians. Sardesai, Sarkar, Sen and Panikkar are representative historians by any standard; and it may be profitable to concentrate on their works. There can hardly be any doubt as to their contribution to Indian"

This is contradictory of what you are trying to potray. Normstahlie (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Also [6], this source seems biased in itself.

Refer p188, The author calls V.D Sarkar a terrorist the tone of the paragraph is also full of emotionalism and a left leaning anti nationalist bias, which is a bias nonetheless. Normstahlie (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Sardesai is a source that needs WP:RS secondary sources to sufficiently back it up. The historians such as Siba Pada Sen point out Sardesai's clear bias such as against the Mughals which would make him inappropriate to disclose on Mughal topics (especially such as this page). Sardesai is unreliable because of the issues raised around him and his sources (including his biases).

Saying that there's an unavoidable bias in historical narrative does not excuse Sardesai, when scholarship is meant to be NPOV especially. These ballads are not valid sources either,

I'm not sure what your argument is with Amir Khusrau, but that is completely irrelevant to what is at hand here.

The quote here as an example is not mentioned by any another WP:RS or scholarly source. [7]

"Though Abdali won the battle, he also had heavy casualties on his side and sought peace with the Marathas. There were rumours in his army that the Peshwa was organising another 60-80,000 troops to take a revenge from the Afghans. So, Abdali sent a letter to Nanasaheb Peshwa (who was moving towards Delhi, albeit at a very slow pace to join Bhau against Abdali) appealing to the Peshwa that he was not the one who attacked Bhau and was just defending himself." -- This is completely unsupported by any other sources, which shows that what's being pointed out here is completely WP:UNDUE and nonsense. Noorullah (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how Sardesai's bias against Mughals is relevant to this article when it's clear that the battle is fought against the Durranis, and Mughals had little to no influence in how the battle turned out they are quite literally non participants.

"Saying that there's an unavoidable bias in historical narrative does not excuse Sardesai, when scholarship is meant to be NPOV especially."

Historical Narrative is bound to have bias, that is written by Sarkar himself. Please do not use his articles if you are not going to adhere to his writings in order to create a reference.

"These ballads are not valid sources either,

I'm not sure what your argument is with Amir Khusrau, but that is completely irrelevant to what is at hand here."

Please read my prior arguments, I've pointed out how Ballads by Amir Khusraw are regarded as primary sources for modern historiography, the same way Marathi Bakhars are also considered valuable but are often subject to accusations for exaggeration of facts. They are considered valuable for their input nonetheless, Sardesai may have added them to show the Marathi view of history to maintain a neutral stand. This source which highlights the alleged use of Bakhars by Sardesai is not WP:RS in itself, it has a clear bias (refer p188). It deems V.D Savarkar an outright terrorist potentially out of an anti-nationalist bias, which is still a bias nonetheless.

No author calls him unreliable. Minor Biases are seen throughout the works of numerous famous historians. The supposed "anti-mughal" bias is not elaborated upon by the author, we don't even appropriately know the context in which this bias has been highlighted by Siba Pada Sen so we cannot reach a conclusion here, but the same author also regards the works of Sardesai as something that should be concentrated upon indicatively recommending his work and keeping him in the same position as Sarkar and other famous historians which would make sardesai even more reliable[8]ref p.221.

Here are some sources other than Sardesai which mention this letter:

[9], [10].

I will repeat this again: None of the mentioned sources call him unreliable, or discredit him. He was a prominent historian who had worked with other famous historians like Jadunath Sarkar and Tryambak Shankar Shejwalkar, I am sure they did not find him "unreliable" hence why they worked with him. Most sources mentioned to argue his reliability, do not even deem him unreliable author Siba Pada Sen literally praises him for his work. I've already discussed how the george igger's source is biased earlier. Normstahlie (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see how highlighting the state of the Durrani army post war is WP:UNDUE, and it is surely not nonsense. Normstahlie (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This battle is directly in the time period/Mughal timeframe of decline and is significant. You keep trying to tip-toe around NPOV, also I don't see anything on Amir Khusrau using ballads, which again is completely irrelevant to try and cross-reference here. Also again; "During his stay, Gandhi debated Savarkar and other nationalists in London on the futility of fighting the colonial state through acts of terrorism and guerilla warfare." per his page.

The Anti Mughal bias is elaborated.. it very clearly says that it does not need any detailed analysis whatsoever to even identify such in his works, meaning it is blatantly obvious, "we cannot reach a conclusion here", yes we can, it's by reading what the author said. The author mentions that their works "may be profitable" due to their contributions.

Farid Adel is not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS. (not a historian, nor scholarship on the matter).

The state of the Durrani army post war is WP:UNDUE, because no other source configures the same conclusion Sardesai intends to imply. Hari Ram Gupta clearly shows the battle was an utterly crushing Afghan victory [with no reprecussion afterward]. [11] (page 184-186) Noorullah (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

According to the article itself, the Mughals were non participants in the war and during the referenced timeframe Mughal monarchs only held symbolic power . There were two major belligerents involved in the war ; Marathas and Durranis it seems unnecessary to push a contrarian narrative. Normstahlie (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Amir Khusrau wrote mathnawi's like Miftah ul-Futuh and Khaza'in ul-Futuh recording history in the delhi's court in the form of poetry similar to Marathi Bakhars both are considered a valuable contributions to history but often criticized. You cannot call one a valid source and dismiss the other one.

"it very clearly says that it does not need any detailed analysis whatsoever to even identify such in his works,"

The slide has been cut-off before further explanation by the author, the author clearly speculates the "anti-mughal" bias at the end of page 221.Normstahlie (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I've never called Amir Khusrau a valid source..? I'm not sure how relevant he is, YOU'RE the one who brought him up, I made no remarks to him whatsoever, I've only called Sardesai unreliable.

This battle is significant in Mughal history, and again, an anti-Mughal bias is clearly highlighted. We went over how Sardesai clearly misinterprets whether intentionally or not about the state of the Durrani army. Eitherway, this seems like this is going in circles, so I think dispute resolution [or other editors] should weigh their opinion.

I think his quote about the Durrani army is complete nonsense, as well as what what he claims Ahmad Shah said. Noorullah (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the prior arguments made by me, regarding anti-mughal bias and the author's speculation of it, also the reason why I said there is no appropriate way to approach a conclusion when the full page is not available on preview. I really don't know where we went over how Sardesai misinterprets anything when we were primarily talking about reliability of the source and not the source itself?

Sardesai had been deemed reliable by renowned authors such as Sir Jadunath Sarkar and Tryambak Shankar Shejwalkar, and is regarded as a representative historian by Siba Pada Sen. Normstahlie (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"However Sardesai's anti-mughal bias should-"

The author clearly says that it would be profitable to concentrate on the works of Sardesai, calling the mentioned historians representatives by any standards, so the author is in no way "discrediting" the source and it's quite obvious by simply going through the page.

Farid Adel and his book "The Champion of True faith" referenced previously does seem to be a published monograph, [12] and is included within Google Scholar.

The state of Durrani army post war wouldn't be WP:UNDUE when it has been talked about in a WP:RS source. H.R Gupta is not a appropriate historian to refer when talking about Maratha History as their scholarship was mainly focused on The Sikh rule of India per their article [13].

Gandhi is not in authority to call V.D Savarkar a terrorist, his acts were in revolutionary efforts for freedom. British government at that point in time deemed him to be a terrorist, which could suggest a WP:RAJ influence in the source. Normstahlie (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, no, you keep repeating yourself when he has been discredited by the same historians including a very obvious stated anti-Mughal bias. I've already talked about why he said it would be profitable... Not only are these quotes completely unsourced except from Sardesai himself, (which other non WP:RS sources such as Farid Adel only cite).

It is WP:UNDUE, No other source except Sardesai mentions it, please read what WP:UNDUE means, its corroborating a claim only made by that one source. Hari Ram Gupta is a reliable source on the Punjab, he is not a historian focused on the History of the Sikhs, you clearly misinterpreted this from the line... "The main focus of Gupta's work was the Sikh history of 18th century. He planned to give a comprehensive account of multiple aspects of Sikhs via his multi-volume History of the Sikhs."

"Gandhi is not in authority to call V.D Savarkar a terrorist, his acts were in revolutionary efforts for freedom. British government at that point in time deemed him to be a terrorist, which could suggest a WP:RAJ influence in the source." ... Or it shows that [in his article as well] he has been corroborated by WP:RS sources for being involved with terrorism? Noorullah (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hari Ram Gupta also has a very clear book on the Marathas and Panipat, ironically named.. "Marathas and Panipat" [14] Noorullah (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point it's clear that we are going around circles, the "anti-mughal" bias source is seemed to be used at convenience. The author clearly declares the reliability of Sardesai, also I am going to repeat myself again the anti-mughal bias is not applicable in this scenario when the battle does not involve Mughals as direct participants even if so they did not hold any real power to manipulate the outcome.

Sardesai and Shejwalkar , both mention of this exchange. Again, the condition of Afghani army post battle isn't undue. WP:UNDUE prohibits including minority views other than in a see also section, this does not apply here since the letter is recorded in a WP:RS source. The reliability of the scholar in question is further corroborated by Tryambak Shankar Shejwalkar, Sir J.N Sarkar and Siba Pada Sen.

Dr Hari Ram Gupta's scholarship, per article is solely focused on Sikh history. He also uses Dr G.S Sardesai as reference in his book "Marathas and Panipat"[15], this only further solidifies Sardesai's reliability.

"... Or it shows that [in his article as well] he has been corroborated by WP:RS sources for being involved with terrorism?"

The claim made by Gandhi is not relevant in any case, V.D Savarkar as I've previously mentioned is not regarded as a "terrorist" by any means he's considered to be a nationalist and a freedom fighter. He was deemed a terrorist by the colonial government which in essence implies WP:RAJ influence.

I would recommend calling for dispute resolution as suggested by yourself earlier. Normstahlie (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes again this will keep going in circles so dispute resolution (or the intercession of other editors is best).

Also, what I meant of the Afghan army condition post battle is WP:UNDUE, and WP:FALSEBALANCE, there are no other sources that remotely say anything close to what Sardesai claims of what became of the Afghan army after the battle. (Which is why it is a minority view, no other WP:HISTRS publications state the same thing, alongside the quote). Noorullah (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd prefer a neutral party's intervention.

WP:FALSEBALANCE is irrelevant to the conversation. Dr G.S Sardesai's accounts are considered mainstream scholarship and reliable whereas WP:FALSEBALANCE emphasizes on avoiding the addition of "extraordinary" claims which aren't usually backed with mainstream scholarship.

Dr G.S Sardesai's books are written with intricate details and deemed as finest works in Maratha history by his fellow peers. Normstahlie (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE is relevant, there aren't other WP:RS sources that corroborate what Sardesai attempts to say, such as about the state of the Durrani army -- nor the quote in question. Noorullah (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The quote and the state of the durrani army are quoted within Sardesai's Marathi Riyasat which is considered a mainstream source in itself. Normstahlie (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. But WP:RAJ is a complicated topic. To my knowledge, Raj era sources are generally considered to be unreliable and/or outdated. And this includes topics outside of caste. I know User:SamuelRiv had a different opinion on this matter, but I’ll cite a content expert and administrators answer to this question which was asked by another user a few months ago.

(by User:RegentsPark)

“Question: Does WP:RAJ apply to everything pertaining to Indian topics, if it was written before 1947?”

“Answer: This is kind of a complicated question. WP:RAJ applies mainly to the many British administrators who wrote "histories" and "caste biographies" based on their own personal experiences rather than using standard methods of historiography. Unfortunately, many Indian writes, both Raj era as well as post-Raj ones, writing on various caste and religion topics end up using Raj era sources and base their work on those sources. In short, I would suggest discounting most Raj era texts regardless of who wrote them and be careful about using obscure or popular texts post-Raj. Sticking to modern academic writers is probably the safest. Context, to quote TB below, matters”

Keep in mind authors like Narendra Sinha are considered outdated generally despite mostly writing about history in particular and not just caste. Sarkar is also at times considered outdated despite being a military historiographer however his work is still used amongst mainstream scholars. So context matters, but I would consider Sarkar to be an outlier where he may be outdated but his work remains highly valued. But for the vast majority of sources from that era, they are generally considered unreliable, per Regentspark. Although context matters, I don’t see why Sardesai’s work would be any different. It’s still a raj era source and thus can justifiably be removed. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

As you said WP:RAJ in itself is extremely complicated, but the defined parameters to deem a source WP:RAJ do not apply to any of the mentioned authors. Hence you cannot simply deem them WP:RAJ and remove them considering they are written by extremely well regarded historians (that is by mordern historiographers). *Note: The mentioned authors wrote in and around RAJ era. Normstahlie (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how WP:RAJ does not apply to this source? Per the quote from RegentPark, most if not all text from the RAJ era are indeed deemed to be unreliable/outdated. This was written and published during the RAJ era, thus it’s a WP:RAJ source and can be removed. (Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC))

Being Published during Raj Era does not automatically make it "WP:RAJ" there could potentially be an influence in the source, which is not seen throughout the writings of either Sarkar or Sardesai. There is an heavy emphasis of caste based history which again isn't relevant in their writings. Normstahlie (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Wherever this goes, I'd like to remind @Someguywhosbored that Sardesai himself and his quote + interpretation on the Durrani army are purely stated by him only. No other WP:RS source corroborates what Sardesai implies, which is WP:UNDUE. -- It's arguably even WP:EXTRAORDINARY. It is a minority view point [both in view of the fake quote, and the implications of the Durrani army]. As per WP:EXTRAORDINARY "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Same for @Normstahlie:, but you believed that since Sardesai was a "mainstream source" - that this is excusable, which it isn't per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Noorullah (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point I think the source itself is being mischaracterized and downplayed alot (essentially an ad hominem). I really have no idea how WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies in this situation again since the mentioned quote is not contradicted by other WP:RS on maratha history, and if it is WP:EXTRAORDINARY it cannot be WP:UNDUE. I will also say this Sardesai's claims are corroborated by Shejwalkar, both of which are considered reliable scholars on maratha history. Eitherways, as I said dispute resolution seems like an appropriate choice, we can also have @SamuelRiv also weigh his opinion. Normstahlie (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies because there is no other source (high quality WP:HISTRS) corroborating what Sardesai is saying. If no other source is corroborating what he is saying, it is WP:UNDUE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. You say his claims are corroborated by Shejwalkar, can you cite this with the quote and how Sardesai talks about the Durrani army?

Also another editor (Someguywhosbored) has now weighed in his opinion, so as this discussion expands, dispute resolution is no longer needed as more editors are involving themselves. Noorullah (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

“Being Published during Raj Era does not automatically make it "WP:RAJ" there could potentially be an influence in the source, which is not seen throughout the writings of either Sarkar or Sardesai. There is an heavy emphasis of caste based history which again isn't relevant in their writings.”

im pretty sure RegentsPark comment has already clarified all of this. Majority of sources published within the raj era are considered RAJ. And this includes sources that focus on topics outside of caste(see historians I mentioned in my previous comment). As a general rule, if it’s a raj era source, it’s usually considered unreliable.

“In short, I would suggest discounting most Raj era texts regardless of who wrote them and be careful about using obscure or popular texts post-Raj. Sticking to modern academic writers is probably the safest. Context, to quote TB below, matters”

Per RegentPark, you should be looking for a more recent source and stick to modern academic writers. If this is the only source that makes this claim, then yeah it would be WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems there's a clear consensus/opinion here from three editors. (me, regent, and someguywhoisbored)

@Normstahlie The source is from the WP:RAJ era, and it is already discouraged from being used. What doesn't help is that there isn't any other WP:RS/WP:HISTRS that corroborates the quote or the state of the Durrani army, which as aforementioned, makes it WP:EXTRAORDINARY.

I think this issue is settled. Noorullah (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, Regent is not even involved in the matter yet. You are dismissing the source solely on the basis of your and someguywhosbored's opinion, which is being disputed by me and samuelriv's opinion. Also I would like @Someguywhosbored to link the debate so I can read the context by my own.

Here is Shejwalkar's Panipat [16]

refer page 99

"He tried to conciliate Peshwa by sending condolence messages couched in an apologetic tone, and also by opening negotiations for a political settlement"

refer page 100

Shejwalkar call's the battle to be financially disastrous for the afghans. Normstahlie (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Regents park made his stance clear...

"To my knowledge, Raj era sources are generally considered to be unreliable and/or outdated"

The source is being dismissed because its WP:RAJ era, and its WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Shejwalkar is another RAJ era source, so again that is not reliable. Furthermore this does not corrborate what Sardesai is saying. He does not corroborate the quote, or the state of the Durrani army. So not only is this addition from another source irrelevant because its RAJ era, it does not even apply to the same discussion of what Sardesai tried to imply.

Samuel has also not given his opinion.

I'm sorry but this discussion should just end here, anything beyond this is purely WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Three different editors (Me, Someguy, and Regent) have all made their case and disagreed with you, that's the end of it. Consensus has been made and we collectively came to the same conclusion. -- That Sardesai is WP:RAJ era, and in this case, also applies to WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Noorullah (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I would wait for @RegentsPark. We do not have any modern authoritative text for the battle of Panipat. Dismissing the source solely on it being from RAJ era without any evidence of it being relevant to WP:RAJ, I would like for regent to atleast clarify his pov since it seem he had made a generalizing statement which has room for speculations, especially when Sardesai and Shejwalkar are considered to have some of the finest scholarships on Marathi history.

The Shejwalkar source does clearly seem to imply what Sardesai did, he literally calls the battle a pyrrhic victory for the afghans being financially disastrous to them and mentions of a letter being exchanged between Nanasaheb and Ahmad Shah couched in an apologetic tone.

Also you seem to conveniently switch consensus when it was unanimously agreed upon that WP:RAJ does not apply to this source. It is clearly said that WP:RAJ disqualifies caste histories which isn't even relevant to either of the sources quoted by me, it seems like you are creating strawman arguments. Normstahlie (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure we can wait on him if he’s willing to share his opinion. It would be good to get some clarification in case I’m wrong.

Didn’t realize that I forgot to post the discussion which is why you might be misunderstanding this. [17]

“It is clearly said that WP:RAJ disqualifies caste histories which isn't even relevant to either of the sources quoted by me, it seems like you are creating strawman arguments”

Pretty sure the question was asking whether all text during the raj era is considered WP:RAJ. This includes historians who were mainly military historiographers like Sarkar(although sometimes he’s an exception to the rule).

“ WP:RAJ applies mainly to the many British administrators who wrote "histories" and "caste biographies" based on their own personal experiences rather than using standard methods of historiography. “

He clearly included both “histories” and “caste biographies”. Which means both are typically considered outdated. It’s not just about caste, which is what I was trying to clarify.

I agree with noorullah for the most part. I think you should look for more modern sources as I’ve previously mentioned. Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

We can wait for the clarification, something important to note here is that most good scholarships on the mentioned topic were written during the RAJ era. Modern sources on the topic refer to scholarships written during RAJ era, i.e J.N Sarkar or T.S Shejwalkar among many others which are contemporary scholarships.

Discrediting RAJ sources should be done adhering to WP:RAJ which emphasizes on the removal of authors who wrote histories and caste histories on personal experiences but acknowledges that solid scholarship exists. Dr J.N Sarkar and modern Historiographers i.e Siba Pada Sen both recommend Dr G.S Sardesai, I still don't understand how either of the sources mentioned are WP:RAJ.

For clarification this is the definition of WP:RAJ per article.

"The quality of sources on the Indian caste system varies widely, and while there is some solid contemporary scholarship on the system and individual communities, the more accessible sources often date back to the Raj Era, or are pseudo-histories written and published by members of the various caste communites. And even some recent sources rely heavily on the Raj-era surveys and inherit the problems."

Neither of this in my opinion applies to either of the sources in question. Normstahlie (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• (Responding only because I've been pinged/referred to multiple times here). I don't really have much more to say than the quote above (the context matters one) except that I would be very wary of including content that is cited to a single source from a long time ago (pre or post Raj). It is always better to cite modern historians because our interpretation and understanding of historical events is not static. For these reasons, I would advise against using Jadunath Sarkar as a source and suggest that using Sardesai as the only source for a piece of content is a terrible idea. RegentsPark (comment) 23:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, but this letter was referred by T.S Trayambak as well (previously mentioned) cited from the Peshwa Daftar. I would only also like to ask why we can't add these for a valuable input considering WP:RAJ per definition does not apply to them.

  I don't think WP:AGEMATTERS applies here in all force as well. I don't see alot of modern scholarships on panipat contradicting either Sardesai or Tryamabak. Sardesai did actually reference this letter in his books both written pre and post RAJ era. Normstahlie (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:First Battle of Panipat which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Marathas were not subordinate to Mughal

Marathas were not subordinate to Mughals during the Afghan Maratha War , it was actually the opposite.

Sure , they viewed Mughals as Nominal Overlords but it was well nominal

The East India Company also viewed Mughals as nominal overlords but doesnt mean they were subordinate JingJongPascal (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)