Talk:Indian martial arts/Archive 10

message: :Indian martial arts declined as Western colonialism disrupted the livelihoods of India's martial castes.
:Rajputs who sought service with rulers as their ancestors had done found their sources of patronage limited by British restrictions; unable to find employment in their traditional line of work, some joined the Pindari.
:Kalarippayattu underwent a period of decline after the introduction of firearms and especially after the full establishment of British colonial rule in the 19th century. During the period of the British raj, Kalarippayattu was also outlawed by the British colonial government. 
:More European modes of organizing police, armies and governmental institutions, and the increasing use of firearms, gradually eroded the need for traditional martial training associated with caste-specific duties.
If the other editors have no problem with it then we might as well open up the page and put the lines there. Of course, if there are any more points of contention, then the talks should go on till they're addressed as well.
Freedom skies 21:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Write up suggestion

message: I propose that we rename this section "Indian martial arts under colonialism" so we can squeeze in mentions of Bhollu, Imam Bux and other colonial period fighters who don't fit into a narrative of decline.
Also, I replaced the external link with a citation template and played around a bit with wording, sequence, and added a sentence about the resurgence of kalarippayattu in the 1920s.
I think we may have to wrestle a bit more with mallayuddha—no pun intended—but I'm working on what I think will be an acceptable compromise version. I'm crazy busy this weekend so don't expect it too soon.JFD 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed code

message: Venkatachalam first divides Indian wrestling into two categories: a sportive version, malla krida, and a more lethal one, mallayuddha.
Then he describes four types of wrestling: bhimaseni, hanumanthee, jambuvanthee and jarasandhee.
Freedom skies has characterized these four as branches of mallayuddha.
However, it seems to me that these four are not so much styles of mallayuddha as they are sets of techniques or even approaches to Indian wrestling.
A parallel can be drawn to "qínná," the Chinese martial arts term for joint-locking.Qínná is not a style per se, but a type of technique found in many styles.
The relationship of bhimaseni, hanumanthee, jambuvanthee and jarasandhee to Indian wrestling may be analogous.
Regarding the difference between mallayuddha and malla krida, Draeger and Smith present them as interchangeable names for Indian wrestling in much the same way that Joseph Alter presents Bharatiya kushti, pahalwani and mallayuddha as interchangeable terms.66.65.179.63 03:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JFD has questions about mallayuddha

message: However, it seems to me that these four are not so much styles of mallayuddha as they are sets of techniques or even approaches to Indian wrestling.
Not quite, Gama Ghulam Muhammad practiced the Hanumanti variant of wrestling (complete with having his own personal Gada), exceptional strength and physique like that of Dara Singh fall under the Bhimseni moveset as for Jarasandhi, there is an akhara in the ancient city of Rajgir, India, which dealt exclusively with this bone breaking variant, now a tourist spot.
A parallel can be drawn to Shoot wrestling, which existed in four forms i.e. RINGS, Shooto, Pancrase and shootfighting in the begining. Later branched into many styles and now even members of the Chute Boxe, who train in Muai Thai/BJJ call themselves as shooters, a term used for shoot wrestlers in the early days. The fact that the terminology of this art is used interchangably with other arts does not mean it never existed in the first place, you'd be surprised to come across shootfighting tourneys in the London which have BJJ/wrestling practitioners competing and in case you are a purist you're likely to go "Where are Bart Vale's Shootfighter's ??? Where are the reps from the Ken Shamrock's Lion's Den ??? Isn't this a freaking shootfighting contest ???"
Secondly, Little is known about the very early history of wrestling in India beyond the fact that the sport was known variously as malla-krida, malla-yuddha and niyuddha-kride
Known Variously, the meaning of the sport varied with various terms like  malla yuddha and malla krida...... from what Alters and Venkatachalam have to say points to mallayuddha being the combat wrestling system and malla krida being the sportive version. 
I know you're trying hard to craft a compromise, and you seem to have put both thought and effort into it, but any insinuation which compromises on the ancient martial art's very existence is plain unacceptable, JFD.
Mallayuddha as a martial art is not under dispute, never was, no one even called it generic wrestling, it's based on strictly personal POV which started the whole "pseudo dispute" thing, and all of that to remove one line "Organised martial arts in India include the ancient martial art of Malla-yuddha."
Seeing that Mallayuddha has been endorsed as a martial art by first hand practitioners, translated as combat wrestling by Alters, relics of the art fond in ancient Indian cities like Rajgir and the art being described in martial art databases, I'm simply not willing to compromise on this one.
Freedom skies 10:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mallayuddha

message: Known Variously, the meaning of the sport varied with various terms like malla yuddha and malla krida...... from what Alters and Venkatachalam have to say points to mallayuddha being the combat wrestling system and malla krida being the sportive version.
I must disagree with your interpretation here.The phrase "known variously" denotes different names for the same thing, not different names for different things.
Seeing that Mallayuddha has been…translated as combat wrestling by Alters…
Alter translates mallayuddha not as "combat wrestling" but as "wrestling combat".Moreover, on the same page, Alter describes "mallayuddha" as one of several terms "used interchangeably when referring to Indian wrestling" along with Bharatiya kushti and pahalwani.
Gama Ghulam Muhammad practiced the Hanumanti variant of wrestling (complete with having his own personal Gada), exceptional strength and physique like that of Dara Singh fall under the Bhimseni moveset as for Jarasandhi, there is an akhara in the ancient city of Rajgir, India, which dealt exclusively with this bone breaking variant, now a tourist spot.
The term typically used for the art practiced by both Gama and Dara Singh is "pahalwani," not "mallayuddha".If bhimaseni, hanumanthee, jambuvanthee and jarasandhee can be found in pahalwani, then either these four divisions are not exclusive to mallayuddha or it implies "mallayuddha" and "pahalwani" are interchangeable terms for the same thing.
We need to determine what distinction, if any, can be drawn between mallayuddha and pahalwani.We know that a uniquely Indian form of wrestling had developed by the medieval period because of the highly detailed descriptions found in the Manasollasa and the Malla Purana, which described everything about Indian wrestling regimens from holds and exercises all the way to what wrestlers should eat at different times of the year.
Any assertion that mallayuddha was a distinct martial art in ancient times depends on how detailed the descriptions in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are.
I'm simply not willing to compromise on this one.
We can talk about compromise later.For now, however, I must insist that you clarify.Because a reader might well ask the same questions that I'm asking: What are the distinguishing characteristics of mallayuddha? What makes mallayuddha different from other forms of Indian wrestling?And he deserves the clearest answer we can give him.JFD 13:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JFD has more questions about mallayuddha

message: What are the distinguishing characteristics of mallayuddha?
For starters,
*It's a Hindu martial art.
*It predates Islam, and the muslim influence leading to Indian Pehlwani.
*It's divided into four variants, Bhimseni (named after the behemoth Bhima), Jarasandhi (named after the merciless Jarasandh), Jamuvati (the art of intelligent fighting) and Hanumanti (the art named after Hanuman).
*It has arenas from ancient India, predating Islam, one arena in Rajgir is dedicated to the Jarasandhi discipline.
*It's considered a martial art by online databases and first hand practitioners of Indian martial arts, translated to wrestling combat and not generic wrestling by Alters.
*It's called malyutham in Tamil, depicted in ancient temple sculptures. The art of the temple guards and the shoorveers (great braves of the military)
What makes mallayuddha different from other forms of Indian wrestling?
*The codifying in four forms
*The ancient nature
*Predating Islam
*The mention in Indian epics, to earn which it should have been especially prominent
Offhand, In India every form of wrestling is called pehlwani nowadays, thanks to the strong past Islamic influence, just like here in the US people call Professional wrestling as simply wrestling. In India even stone Cold Steve Austin is called a Pehlwan and a wrestler, not a show professional wrestling "worker".
It's the usage of common slang terms.
Interchanging Mallayuddha, a martial art which existed before Islam with Pehlwani in India is like interchanging wrestling with professional wrestling in the US.
Like I said before, slang terms, don't try to kill an ancient martial art because of 'em.
Freedom skies 14:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The answers

message: So, technically speaking, the hanumanti practiced by Gama and the bhimseni practiced by Dara Singh would be more accurately termed mallayuddha rather than pahalwani, is that correct?
It's divided into four variants
Can we date the division of mallayuddha into four variants?For example, does the text of either the Ramayana or the Mahabharata allude to such a division?If they do not, it implies that this division occurred subsequent to their composition.
Also, are these four variations also present in the sportive form malla krida or are they exclusive to mallayuddha?
The mention in Indian epics, to earn which it should have been especially prominent
Could you provide the text of these descriptions (along with citations specifying which specific translation, page number, etc), or at least give us enough information so that we can find those descriptions quickly and easily?
It predates Islam, and the muslim influence leading to Indian Pehlwani.
Could you go into greater detail—particularly technical detail—about how Muslim influence led to pahalwani?
Offhand, In India every form of wrestling is called pehlwani nowadays, thanks to the strong past Islamic influence, just like here in the US people call Professional wrestling as simply wrestling. In India even stone Cold Steve Austin is called a Pehlwan and a wrestler, not a show professional wrestling "worker".
It's the usage of common slang terms.
Interchanging Mallayuddha, a martial art which existed before Islam with Pehlwani in India is like interchanging wrestling with professional wrestling in the US.
It would be valuable if the article had a clarification along these lines.JFD 15:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More questions

message: So, technically speaking, the hanumanti practiced by Gama and the bhimseni practiced by Dara Singh would be more accurately termed mallayuddha rather than pahalwani, is that correct?
In case of early catch wresters and contemporary mixed martial arts practitioners, nothing is as black and white as that. Gama Ghulam was a Pahalwan just as Rickson gracie is a Brazillian jiu Jitsu practitioner, Rickson has background in other martial arts like freestyle wrestling and Sambo as well but his label under fighting style is simply Brazillian jiu Jitsu.
Can we date the division of mallayuddha into four variants?
A C-14 test on the arena of the Jarasandhi variant in Rajgir perhaps ??
The history of martial arts is a difficult subject to date, should we eliminate all the martial arts from the list of codified systems that we can't date then ??
Could you provide the text of these descriptions (along with citations specifying which specific translation, page number, etc), or at least give us enough information so that we can find those descriptions quickly and easily?
Mahabharata is the second longest epic in the world, and that's when it's in concise Sanskrit verses, two of which fill an entire page of english and hindi when translated. NO translation provides one with the entire epic, it's strictly abridged, some cover some aspects and others covers other aspects, a lot is given about the nature, techniques of the shoorveers, which does'nt find it's way in either the hindi or the english variants, just the basic kandas (courses of action) are mentioned, the fact that they take up what would be a very healthy dictionary of a space is another thing altogather.
It predates Islam, and the muslim influence leading to Indian Pehlwani.
Yes, particularly the influence of the persians, see Wrestling in Iran, should give a rudimentary idea. The nomanclature Kusti is taken from Koshti.
:: Mallayuddha as a martial art is not under dispute at all, never was in the first place, the play on words trying to coin it as a form of generic wrestling  and insisting on it relentlessly is kinda surprising (and weak, done out of compulsion ??), especially when done with nothing to substantiate it other than a mere play on words routine.
::Like I said, asking me to compromise on the very existence of a martial art is not viable at all, the art is mentioned in the epics, translated as wrestling combat by Alters, found it's way in the martial arts databases, endorsed by the first hand practioners and is codified into four forms. I've yet to hear someone call it generic wrestling other then Kenny, that is.
As for the finishing touch citations, Alters also says (and I quote) "a wrestler is someone who knows a range of the moves and counter- moves that constitute the specialized martial art of classical malla yuddha." 
So, the Scholar, the first hand practitioner, the guy who fills in the martial arts database are all in agreement.
Suggestions for an agreement leading to the final edition:-
*The Introduction and The influence of IMAs remains untouched. Though, I would like to add BBC, Discovery, Vajramushti (with official citations and mentions) and a few other facts. I would refrain for a very long while as I don't want to start edit wars and lengthy discussions anytime soon, your POV is more than amply mentioned there, and that constituted the main stumbling block, not the Intro or the Delcine portions.
*The decline of martial traditions is converted to "Indian martial arts under colonialism" as agreed.
*We set up a "no editing" guideline once things are set.
and then we go on our merry ways, maybe on wikibreaks, and maybe then our girlfriends would stop getting the "you seem preoccupied" vibe.
Freedom skies 02:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More answers

message: Hmmm.... i don't see anywhere where your references suggest that alter states that mallayuddha was a martial art in classical india.  Further, classical india has various definitions. I don't believe that classical india is meant to be the Vedic period.  Regardless..... I am willing to budge on the whole mullayuddha issue because i'v grown tired - and i am sure you have grown tired freedom skies- of discussing this issue... As long as we leave the influence of indian martial arts section alone... with JFD and my additions to it to be left alone with no more additions or deletions, then I am willing to leave the mullayuddha stuff alone as you have written it.  And I am ok with changing the section on the british.  Like i said earlier, never really disagreed that the british played a role in the detriment of indian martial arts - just did not believe in the statement that they were "instrumental" without a mention of other factors.  Also, we need a statement from that guy above - indrancroos that he'll leave this alone also.  i'm tired of edit wars.  Kennethtennyson 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mallayuddha

message: The following is my proposed final source code:It leaves the door open for bringing up Gama, Bhollu and Imam Bux later on.JFD 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problems with IMA under brits section, the source looks good enough to me. Like I said before, I'm tired of edit wars too, especially since I have to contend with two editors. My suggestion, like Kenneth's, is we put the "Indian martial arts under colonialism" section in, leave the Intro and the Influence sections alone and nobody touches the article for awhile (speaking for myself, I'm cured of the editing bug for well over a month, give me the left jab and right cross drills anytime). Freedom skies 01:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed final source code for "Indian martial arts under colonialism" 

message: I am going to have my say on this IMA section. Otherwise, things would have to be edited, and edited, and edited. By the way, when is this every going to stop?Indrancroos: "I'll rather be happy than right, anytime." 04:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indrancroos Final Proposal

message: you know, the current locked version of indian martial arts is close to what we currently agree on... the influence of indian martial arts is what everyone (except it appears indrancroos) seems to agree on, the introduction and history section is close to what Freedomskies wanted, the only thing that is different is the Decline of the Indian martial arts section, which we can always change via a protected edited change.  As far as I can tell Indrancroos, you are not contributing to the article - only trying to push your POV.  Kennethtennyson 02:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: you know

message: As far as I can tell Indrancroos, you are not contributing to the article - only trying to push your POV.
What do you mean? Would you all like for me to contribute to the article? Or would it be called a POV even though I provide sources... The IMA mentions of the Dravidian martial arts. Am I allowed to contribute more to that? FYI: Did you know that the term "Ancient India" is a big POV? I'm surprised you have not raised any rucuss about that. It is like saying there was an ancient Canada... You tell Freedom skies, that, he will wet his pants, and say "live with it"... Anyways, I guess the whole battle started over Bodhidarma... I will not touch that section or even talk about it. I know where JFD is coming from in regards to the subject on Bodhidarma... It is his heritage, and for someone else to talk about it, I know it probably gets to him... Just like Freedom skies trying to claim our arts as theirs and not give us any credit for it... I hope that I did not offend you, JFD... Truce?
----
Hey, I asked you to raise specific points and bring in sources and that's exactly what you did.
It is his heritage, and for someone else to talk about it, I know it probably gets to him...
Wikipedia is lousy with editors who take pride in their own heritage.Editors who respect others' heritage as much as they take pride in their own are rare.And something tells me you appreciated what I was trying to do with Varma ati, which was to recognize the distinctiveness of Tamil martial arts using a credible source rather than Alex Doss' claptrap.
You tell Freedom skies, that, he will wet his pants, and say "live with it"...
*JFD is trying very hard not to break out in laughter, lest it destroy the fragile peace of Talk:Indian martial arts.*
JFD 05:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: you know "you know"

message: (Restoring ancient India, a country which included the ancient south under Ashoka the great) 
To Freedom skies: Did it ever occur to you that the link you had for Ashoka did not include Tamil Nadu and Kerala????Indrancroos 05:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamil Nadu and Kerala were never under the rule of Ashoka 

message: To Freedom Skies:Your fabricated maps [] won't get your POV across. Anyone can modify a map with software, and anyone can upload trash on wikipedia, especially Indian Nationalists promoting Indo-Aryan facsism... By the way this map that you posted [] only shows the different parts of Tamilakkam the Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas, Nagas, and Iyakkars ruled, just like your 16 kingdoms of Bharat... By the way, did it ever occur to you that the Ashoka was alive for only 40 years when his empire ruled these different lands of the Indian sub-continent?68.108.208.158 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fabricated Maps 

message: There was never an ancient India. It is like saying there was an ancient Canada or an ancient America. America is a great nation and thee Super Power. What makes it great is its values and more so, its Constitution. In American history we do know that the Central part of America was part of France until the Louisianna purchase. The Southwest was part of Mexico, and the Northwest up to Alaska was part of Russia. We do not need to modify our American history. There was an ancient Bharat and an ancient Tamilakkam. Ahsokas ruling of the various lands north of Tamilakkam was only for 40 years... Stop trying to push your Facsist POV accross, and making fools out of yourselves. No wonder India still remains a mystery to the world, while no one takes them seriously. Stop modifying history!68.108.208.158 19:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient India

message: I aint confused at all. The Ramayan and Mahabharat have not been revised.
To Bakasupran: You are absolutely right. The Ramayan and the Mahabharat have not been revised, nor do they mention of any kingdoms which are in Tamil Nadu, or Kerala. As a matter of fact in Mahabharata it mentions of the 16 Mahajanapadas. The southern most was in the Maharashtran state and parts of Central India called Assaka. The Ramayana mentions of how Hanuman crossed over to Lanka, true in the mythological story. Homer's Iliad speaks of the Trojan war between the Athenians and the Trojans. Does that mean that Troy was part of Athens at the time? Just because Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Java and Bali Indonesia dance the Ramayana or have arts depicting the Ramayana, doesn't mean they are part of India. Just because Islam is practices all over the Middle East, does not mean they are one country either... Stop living in a fantasy... Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Tripura, Mizoram, Pondichery, Assam, and Nagaland became part of India through the British. When the British left, they gave the princely states a choice to be part of India or not. Those who chose not to be part of India, were over run by the Indian army and taken over. A so called Indian Super Power, which is acutually a World Super Market for cheap labor... Wake up and smell the coffee...Indrancroos 01:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bakasuprman vs. Peter Pan

message: "There is but one race in India. The Aryans. The whole concept of a Dravidian race was invented by the british to    help Christian missionaries. The only reason Asssamese look like Chinese is because they have more Mongoloid blood in them than Aryan."
To Bakasupran: You are sounding like a Fascist Nazi now. As far as religion is concerned, isn't it true that Northern India got invaded left and right by the Greeks, Moghuls, British and lost their true heritage while we have retained ours? Our temples are still standing throughout Southern India. How about in Northern India? Why are there so many Muslim mosques in Northern India if it is supposed to be a Hindu state? Are you saying that the Dravidians never existed? Exlain to me the African and Aboriginal features of the Dravidians.[] Also, please explain to me why the Northern Indian scripts use the Devanagiri script vs. the Dravidians using the curvey scripts.[] Can you also explain to me why their is a sharp difference between the Indo-Aryan languages of Northern India vs. the Dravidian languages of Southern India?[] Lastly, since some of you "power tripped" guys are fond of taking our history and claiming it as yours, can you explain to me why some of the Southeast Asian languages have certain Dravidian words?[] Here's a good one, can you tell me why Southeast Asian scripts resemble that of the Dravidian scripts instead of Sanskrit or other North Indian scripts?[]
Please educate me since I am so ignorant of the history and culture of the Indian sub-continent. I am sorry that I am not as good as you to back up what I say...
Indrancroos 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bakasuprman Strike's Again 

message: In this diff  you have reverted to an earlier version without an explanation. You have not replied to messages on the article talk page, and have not acknowledged the reasons given for modifications which have been accepted by other involved editors. I am giving you some time to explain yourself again - in the light of the arguments already raised - before I return the article to it's improved version. Hornplease 04:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Nationalism

message: (Mauryan India unfied the Tamil country to north India, mentioning two states out of it does'st cut it. India has been unified before the british, try living with it.)
To Freedom skies: I do not know what your problem with me is. Perhaps, because I am a Tamil posting historical facts which contradicts your false superioriorty claims. By the way, is that all you can think of to say is "Try living with it"? How pathetic. Anyways, that map you posted states that it was "Made by Uploader" []. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel and modify history. How pathetic it is for one to actually create an exageratted map and post it on a scholarly site. I think you are still confused my friend. During the time of ancient Tamilakkam, the names of the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu did not exist.  There were 13 Nadus where the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras ruled. The Cheras ruled in present day Kerala. That is where the name Kerala came from. Also, in the region, "Malayalam had not formed into a separate dialect at this period, and only one lnaugage, Tamil, was spoken from the Eastern to the Western Sea" (Pillai 10).
 Pillai, V. Kanakasabhai (1997) The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services
What on earth do you mean by "mentioning two states out of it doesn't cut it". You make it seem like this is some kind of competition. Do you think this is a game? I do not think this is a game. We have people like you trying to misrepresent our history and culture, and we have someone else on this site claiming that we do not exist. This is some serious stuff you guys are propogating against us...
I'll rather be happy that right anytime... 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation 

message: It looks to me as the GA nom is very premature. A few points should be taken into account. I'll list them here in case all the material, consensus and good will are available but not used yet. 
Article Well Written: There is much to polish here. The lead is too short, and doesn't give an overview of the article, or of its importance. The "colonialism" section consists of sentences following one another, without links or structure. Furthermore, the list is too long, and there is way too much external links. Surely they are not all needed to illustrate that amount of prose.
Factually Accurate and Verifiable: There isn't nearly enough inline citations (one for each of the two first sections). The books need an ISBN, and where possible pages. This is not mandatory, but would certainly help. What exactly is Zarilli 1998? Considered the quantity of external links, it should be possible to source all the text.
Broad in its coverage: A lot of things lack here. Origins, even mythological? What makes the indian martial arts a common subject, apart from territory? Present day? Differences between the major trends, and overview of each? Great names? Distinctions? This is the weakest link in the 6 criteria for GA.
NPOV doesn't seem too me like a major issue here, althought the discussion on this talk page lets think otherwise.
Stable: Apparently there has been some edit warring recently. This will have to be reassessed during next nomination. 
Images: The great Gama is copyrighted. It could be fair use in an article about him, but he is not even mentioned here. 
The statues are from a paper, and the name doesn't appear. 
Same goes with Ricksongraciechoke.jpg.
Furthermore, all the photos are quite old. This is not a problem per se, bu it could refresh the article to have a color photo (or even an old drawing!). 
These are not all the reasons why the article cannot acheive GA as it is, but I beleive once these are all adressed, it will stand much closer.--SidiLemine 12:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Nomination

message: No where will you find that mulla yuddha is written as a true wrestling martial art. It was taken from an e-mail to a website and one user (freedom skies) has unfortunately stretched it to claim that mulla yaddha came from the religious epics with Bhima practicing mulla yuddha. There was an edit war and then we all agreed on a compromise with mullayaddha staying in the text.  Alter in his book on Indian Wrestling writes that mullayuddha is a generic term for wrestling.  Kennethtennyson 00:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: everything is disputed by you it seems....--D-Boy 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mallayuddha is disputed