Talk:Martial Race

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
	This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article... Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale by the India project.

Contents 1 Dubious assertions and mis citations 2 An outside opinion 3 Military, State and Society in Pakistan (reference) 4 Clyve 5 Bias? 6 The British Didn't Do So Bad 7 Modern usage 8 Why are Sikhs singled out- immediate removal 9 Adding some more insight into the British thinking of the day 10 Arains

[edit] Dubious assertions and mis citations

There have been a few miss citations in the article, in the section of "modern usage" some claims are also unverifiable. Such this one: "as India, "India's army... quickly dispelled the popular Pakistani myth that one Muslim soldier was “worth ten Hindus" only add information which is easily verifiable and relevant to the topic. --StreetScholar 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Um. They are verifiable. Globalsecurity states the four hindus thing. I suggest you read sources thoroughly. tx. Idleguy 14:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read it, it dosen't state that. Could you be more spesific where it states this? --StreetScholar 14:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is sometimes laced with editors lazier than the Idleguy! lol. how about just reading? Ok. I'll quote the line "It was boasted at the time that one Pakistani soldier was equal to four Indian soldiers and so on." from globalsecurity page. That's the last time I'm spoonfeeding here. Idleguy 14:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fire enough but you're talking this out of context. "The Bhutto faction, which included some prominent generals, put out the canard that Ayub's cowardice stemmed from his desire to protect his newly acquired wealth. It was boasted at the time that one Pakistani soldier was equal to four Indian soldiers and so on." the article goes on to say: "By Sept 22 both sides had agreed to a UN mandated cease-fire ending the war that had by that point reached a stalemate" the war ended in a stalemate. So how are you claiming Pakistan recived a drubbing? which is a POV. --StreetScholar 14:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are misreading. the drubbing only relates to 71 war not the previous ones which clearly state "However, the Indo-Pakistan Wars of 1947 and 1965 proved otherwise as Pakistan Army lost more men and machines than India in its many attempts to gain the whole of Kashmir." Unless you are rewriting history, it is well known that on the whole Pakistan Army lost more soldiers in both the wars. That was only stated. This article isnt' about wars as you think but merely an illustration to prove the point. However, it appears you might be indoctrinated in this theory yourself and I can see why you would want to push your POV violating Wikipedia policies. but merely reverting without even reading the citations or talk pages isn't the way to do it. Also see WP:3RR and your edits are on the border of vandalism. Idleguy 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am indoctrinated? when it clearly says it "ended in a stalemate" in another section is states, India couldn't see an quick end to the conflict so it asked the United Nations help. And that Pakistan had taken 2-5ths of Kashmir. The Pakistan army had taken land, you're the one that added the modern usage section. Why are you removing the information I am adding if you're right? why are you removing information I add from the sources which contradict your claims. How did it lose more soilders when the article says the following: The intensity of the conflict and the inability to forsee a quick end to the conflict without involving considerable resources on the part of India to expel the Pakistani forces led Indian leaders to approach the United Nations who ultimately introduced Observers in June 1948. A UN brokered cease-fire went into effect on Jan 1, 1949. In all, 1,500 soldiers died on each side during the war and Pakistan was able to acquire roughly two-fifths of Kashmir which it established as Azad Kashmir, meaning free Kashmir. [1] This is taking about 1947 so how did Pakistan take a drubbing? when India was running to the United Nations for help? and when Pakistan had taken lad? how is that a drubbing? this is what I want to know.

And about 1965 it says: "Pakistani Army the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 ended in a stalemate"[2] that ended in a stalemate, so again how did you manage to get "drubbing" out of that article is beyond me. You've been adding your own commentary to it. --StreetScholar 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I can't find where it says this word, by word: "However, the Indo-Pakistan Wars of 1947 and 1965 proved otherwise as Pakistan Army lost more men and machines than India in its many attempts to gain the whole of Kashmir" Proof Search result on the whole websites returns nothing --StreetScholar 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Are you really serious? Or you are here just as a pastime? I said drubbing in the 71 war and you give lengthy paras based on nothing. No one disputes that pakistan army lost badly in 1971 war. Unless you want to give a 2 page essay as a retort. the indpak war was a summary, you again can't be serious about being spoonfed about the history of those wars, do you? Idleguy 15:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Time you stopped reading handpicked statements and read the whole history of Ind-Pak wars from a neutral perspective. I am still laughing that you searched for the "However, the Indo-Pakistan..." statement in globalsecurity, when it is a summary editorial statement, aka digest of information. Idleguy 15:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is debatable. Why are you removing the information I am adding? my information is also verifiable and true. OK I will add what is says from that website, then you have no reason to remove it as you're quoting that site. Point being made here is you're selectively quoting the article and adding your own commentary to it. Also, this doesn't even proof anything is wrong with the theory where is your proof for this claim: "Of late, this concept is being dismissed as an Imperialistic thought based on racial stereotypes"? why is there no citation to it? this is just your comment. And even if you did know anything majority of the Pakistani and Indian army compromises of these martial races. So the Pakistanis could have lost more units as you claim because they were fighting peoples of the martial races. So again adding backing to the section is irrelevant, India had a military conflict with China and lost badly so shall we now start adding that too? these wars are irrelevant to the theory you have no proof any Pakistani believed in the martial race theory at the time of war. In fact that claim was about one Muslim equal 10 Idolaters, and had nothing to do with martial races this was more so based om a religious theory. And it was to boost the moral of the troops. It has absolutely nothing to do with this martial race theory. So even you ascribing that some offhand comment made is relating to this theory seems strange.

Also please this time try to answer all my questions when you respond.

"I am still laughing that you searched for the "However, the Indo-Pakistan..." statement in globalsecurity, when it is a summary editorial statement, aka digest of information."

I have asked an admin to attribute, am not going to waste my time with you anymore. Because you're making statements which you imply to be factual and then when asked about them you retract them and say you was referring to something else. --StreetScholar 15:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You have taken this totally out of context. I have provided sources where needed and requested. Some like the Chola dynasty don't need sources here since the original article, itself a Wikipedia:Featured article has sources about their military conquest etc. As for misquoting, no I have not done that, the 1:4 or 1:10 figure explicitly says how it was used/misused by Pakistan especially before 1965 and 1971 wars (may not be in 1947, so I've removed it) and how it backfired. This article has nothing to do with wars, only those sides that used the ideology of martial races, either to promote themselves or other races to fight for them. India never proclaimed anything like one Indian soldier is equal to X foreigners and therefore your similar example of India's defeat to China didn't arise out of such a belief. In fact one of the sources - if you had taken time to read - specifically mentions how this martial races theory was dumped in Independent India - though Pakistan might have persisted with it.

The sources are from the library of congress studies shows clearly that Pakistan indulged in this theory to an extent that Bengalis hated it and ultimately led to their downfall. I have never misquoted or lied. You have NOT read the sources, or books and expect to be lazier than me. I'm not adding my own commentary to the article, I'm just adding the gist of Indo-Pak wars, for which you should find the sources in the relevent war articles, here and elsewhere. you seem unable to read first, expect me to spoonfeed you the lines and expect to make edits without a full grasp of history.

And please don't make insulting statements like "one Muslim equal 10 Idolaters". I'm not a muslim or a hindu, but someone reading this will find you as not only having defended your racist edits, but now will question your religious hatred. Idleguy 18:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry how is that offensive, I was saying the persons who believed this has nothing to do with the martial race theory, part of my family are Sikhs and some from my extended family are Hindus. Anyway idolaters is not an offensive term, and if you actually read what I said in context I never implied one Muslim equals 10 Idol-worshipers I was merely power phrasing something it said in your own citation. I would request you do not, remove the tags I add to the section. I have been patient with you, and you keep on reverting it back to your version, you have done this more then 3 times. When I have the time in the morning, I will be filing a compliant against you, as you have violated various wiki polices and made defamatory statements against me. --StreetScholar 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As we speak we're both guilty of 3rr. Please go ahead if you wish to file a complaint, since I am inclined do the same tomorrow as you have violated several policies. Add tags when needed and not when citations have been provided. btw, I can't defame you, unless you happen to be famous. :) Idleguy 19:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An outside opinion

All right, I'm trying to sort through this all. The issue here appears to be that a version of a racist theory developed by Brits was used to bolster troop morale in a war in the 1970s (which is misleadingly included under a heading called "Modern usage"). Scholars examining this issue then said that this theory isn't true, because the side claiming this racial superiority lost. Yes? Of course, the evidence for the claim of racial superiority comes from what may not constitute a reliable source. StreetScholar brings up a point which I think Idleguy misinterpreted--the claim of superiority may not have been racially based, but ideologically: the Pakistanis believed they would win because God was on their side. The idea of "One of us equals ten of them" is hardly unique--I'm pretty sure contemporary rhetoric has Americans saying the same thing about superiority to "the terrorists"--but I don't see that Pakistan made the claim of racially based superiority, which is what this article addresses. At any rate, it's hard to evaluate the article because of the constant reversions. Idleguy, StreetScholar, you're both in violation of WP:3RR, which I think you know. I think the solution to this problem is for both of you to take a break from editing this article (which I really don't want to enforce by blocking you guys for 3RR violations, but I will I have to), and to spend time researching other military groups that have used this rhetoric. Incorporating more information about it, especially information that establishes its racist and unverifiable nature, will help address any problems with WP:NPOV. In my opinion, the entire section about "modern usage" should be removed until contemporary, verifiable information can be asserted. The section about the Bengalis and the residual racial tension left over from this theory might be incorporated, if the unsourced assertion that this is what drove the Bangladesh Liberation War is removed. This includes removing the very NPOV statement about how the Pakistanis were handed a devastating loss--while I'm sure the loss was severe, its inclusion is completely unnecessary. The article appears to be saying that Pakistan deserved the loss because of their promulgation of this theory. The article linked seems to say that it was a residual tension, not overt discrimination.

In short, I'd like to ask both of you to stop editing on this article for at least 24 hours. Any further edits or reversions could result in your being blocked for violating WP:3RR. I will try to sort out some of the article's lack of neutrality, and may even do a little research on the theory this week, to include more information about how it's, well, crap. This article could be very interesting, if it's cleaned up to address the rhetoric of wartime and how it affects racial relations, but right now it's full of non-neutral phrasing and irrelevant information. So. Um. That's my opinion. Feel free to take this to WP:AN/I or to WP:M if you want to solicit more input. Cheers. -- Merope 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't merely another Rhetoric as you put it. Pakistani authors too have disected the matter behind the allegedly poor performance of the military in the 65 war and the dismemberment in the 71 war and found that this martial races theory was one of the culprits. I have provided atleast half a dozen sources for that backing (and those sources themselves are backed up by another 1/2 dozen). Some of the authors are not even sparing the niceties in stating that the losses of Pak Army was because of this theory among others. I hoped you'd have gone through the sources in depth before giving this comment. Idleguy 21:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The wording can be suitably changed to comply with NPOV. Reliably sourced content, however, cannot be disputed or deleted. Idleguy 02:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not the point idleguy, the (one loss the Bengali Independence war) had nothing to do with this theory. And the other wars Pakistan had with India ended in a stalemate. In fact in the 1947 war Pakistan had taken more land in Kashmir then it previously had See Last paragraph.

The Bangladesh Independence Here is what a USA government website says: "On December 4, 1971, the Indian Army, far superior in numbers and equipment to that of Pakistan, executed a 3-pronged pincer movement on Dhaka launched from the Indian states of West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura, taking only 12 days to defeat the 90,000 Pakistani defenders. The Pakistan Army was weakened by having to operate so far away from its source of supply. The Indian Army, on the other hand, was aided by East Pakistan's Mukti Bahini (Liberation Force), the freedom fighters who managed to keep the Pakistan Army at bay" [3] nothing in the whole article about martial race theory. Still its even illogical it doesn't disprove the martial race theory, if Pakistan lost in a war to India, as India also has many Jatts, Gurjars, Rajputs, etc... in its military furthermore, this also disproves the claim you're trying to make the Pakistanis based this theory of 1 Muslim is equal to 10 Hindus. As they would have know the Indian Military also has Jatt Hindu Punjabi's who are also categorized as martial races. That claim has nothing to do with the Martial race theory, its a more a religious thing so ascribing that claim to this theory is wrong and misleading.

Anyway getting back to the Bengali Independence war this is what GlobalSucurity.org has to say: "The origins of the third Indo-Pakistani conflict (1971) were different from the previous conflicts. The Pakistani failure to accommodate demands for autonomy in East Pakistan in 1970 led to secessionist demands in 1971. In March 1971, Pakistan's armed forces launched a fierce campaign to suppress the resistance movement that had emerged but encountered unexpected mass defections among East Pakistani soldiers and police." [4] nothing there about the martial race theory, in fact this actually reinforces it, as people from the none martial race (Bengali's) defected and were disloyal to their own nation. And also it dosen't say anything about the martial race theory. So all of the modern usage section should be removed as it really has nothing to do witht he martial race theory there are no (reliable) sources saying this. --StreetScholar 12:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Given nearly a dozen sources which specifically say that the loss of 71 and the much hyped up victory of 65 never took place in Pakistan, defence experts and others have specified the "martial races" theory. If you refuse to accept the facts and don't read beyond what you wish to read, it's not my problem. But they've been sourced from books, journals and websites. If they aren't reliable sources, then pray tell me what is? When I started editing, there was hardly any source with dubious assertions on an equally disputable racial theory. Now that I've added tons of references, which frankly I feel, you've not even taken the time to read or verify, this is futile. You are merely trying to stifle facts, by attempting to remove them. Ignorance is bliss for some. Tx Idleguy 13:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you're using personal attacks. Indirectly. By saying "Ignorance is Bliss for some" I think an admin will deal with such comments. Anyway, I have verified your claims, none of the wars had anything to do with the martial race theory. Which books are you talking about can you provide page numbers? and names of the books. The point I am making is, the info on wiki should be easily verifiable by anyone. Claiming some vague statement made is linked to the marital race theory is wrong, as I have told you before, that claim is more a religious belief. As the Indian army also had people form the martial races fighting for them. So it wouldn't make any sense to believe the martial race theory and claim superiority as India also have troops from the martial races. That comment is more to do with Islam, I know what that comment is about about the 1 Muslim is equal to 10 Hindus. It has a metaphorical meaning. --StreetScholar 13:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, just as you claimed "idolators" wasn't. Read the sources. Page numbers provided. I am suspecting the very nature of your questions given the large volume of citations provided. I'd suggest you refrain from editing unless you read the sources, because I gather you personally believe in this theory which lists your race. This is the last reply on this matter as you think this is a religious belief than a racial belief. You have not understood the underlying concept to begin with and accuse others of not having provided sources. Please see all WP policies and if you cannot bother reading the sources, provided with page numbers then you shouldn't bother with editing either. Thanks. Idleguy 13:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As a Muslim I believe what Mohamed said in last sermon: [5] tell me do you find anything in there which would suggest I agree with this theory? and don't tell me I haven't "bothered" I've read your sources, you can't bring even once sources which says the Pakistani Army believed in the martial race theory. Anyway lets for arguments sake accept the Pakistanis believed in this theory but the Indian army also had peoples from the Martial race in their army, so we reach at an absurd conclusion that a Pakistani would be referring to the martial race theory then he made the 1 Muslims equal to 10 Hindus comment. It would be an absurd statement to make if infact her was referring to the martial race theory. So that cannot be possible about the martial race theory as I have told you over and over, its a religious statement and has a metaphorical meaning to it. --StreetScholar 14:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided not to reply, but I'm tempted do one last time, given your historically inaccuracte statements. The Indian Army decided to do away with the ludicrous martial races theory and any recruitment based on race post 1947, whilst Pak Army didn't fully implement it, which led to some hatred among Bengalis (again sourced statement). Also no one in their right mind in India even referred to some "superiority", while in Pakistan there are scores of examples, which multiple pak and neutral authors (again sourced in article) have lamented that the silly theory led to political and military debacles.

Do not mix religion into this theory, it wasn't about religion though some in Pakistan also referred to religion but most were only referring to the martial race theory, not a religious supremacy theory. You might have misunderstood. Idleguy 14:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You've just said something irrelevant. I said Indian army had troops who belonged to the martial race, so it would have been absurd to say 1 Muslim with equal to 10 Hindus, it nullifies the persons point the point he is trying to make. As there are 100s of Jatts in the Indian armed forces who fall into the martial race criteria. --StreetScholar 17:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Precisely that's why it's called flawed. Pak Army used it in their rhetoric, not Indian army and for the reasons outlined by u, it's "absurd". you have just proved my point and the pak authors' complaint that this race theory only led to hype and ultimately, downfall, because in ur words "it would have been absurd to say 1 Muslim with equal to 10 Hindus" Similar to Master race propaganda by the Nazis you could say. Both laughable concepts but promulgated by the military dictators of their nations. We are not here to disect why they said but to merely stat what they said and how it backfired. Tx Idleguy 18:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military, State and Society in Pakistan (reference)

"138 cabinet members at the federal level during 1947-58, only 58, or 42 per cent, hailed from East Pakistan. 11

The rise of the bureaucratic-military elite in Pakistan adversely affected the prospects of the Bengalis at the federal level because their representation in these two institutions was very low. Out of 95 Muslim ICS and IPS officers who opted for Pakistan in 1947, only one was Bengali. 12 Their representation was also low in other cadres of the federal civil services. A quota system was introduced to rectify this imbalance but the overall balance of the federal services continued to be tilted heavily in favour of West Pakistan. Moreover, the new entrants from East Pakistan were in the junior positions; the top echelons were monopolized by West Pakistani civil servants, both at the federal level and in East Pakistan. In 1969, for the first time, Bengali civil servants were appointed Secretaries in federal ministries, the highest posi- tion in the federal bureaucratic structure.

The Bengali representation in the military, especially in the Army, was no better. The British authorities had classified the Bengalis as a 'non-martial' race and deliberately discouraged their recruitment to the Army; there was no exclusively Bengali regiment and some branches of the Army (i.e. Artil- lery) did not have a single Bengali. Eastern Bengal had no military canton- ment or pre-cadet training institutions or recruiting centres with the exception of those set up during World War II. At the time of independence, the Bengalis constituted only 1 per cent of the total strength of Pakistan's armed forces; their numerical strength in the Army was 155 which rose to 13,000 in 1965. 13 A modest beginning of the Pakistan Army presence in East Pakistan was made by stationing a garrison in Dhaka. An exclusively Bengali Infantry regiment, East Bengal Regiment (EBR), was raised and, by 1968, four such regiments were in place. A pre-cadet training institution was set up in Dhaka in 1952 which was closed down a year later due to a paucity of candidates.

The pace of induction of the Bengalis to the Army was slow; the situation was somewhat better in the case of the Air Force and the Navy. The top brass of the Army were not willing to take bold initiatives for recruitment of Bengali personnel because they could not overcome the hangover of the martial race theory. Serious security pressures in the early years of indepen- dence, the paucity of resources, and availability of ample manpower from the Punjab and NWFP militated against new experimentation in recruit- ment. By 1963, only 5 per cent of the Army officers were from East Pakistan; in the medical corps, their percentage was 23 per cent. In the case of JCOs and Other Ranks their ratio was 7.4 per cent each. Their representation at the officer level in the Air Force and the Navy was 16 and 10 per cent respect- ively. 14

The imposition of martial law in October 1958 concentrated power in the hands of the top echelons of the military and the senior bureaucrats, virtually excluding the Bengalis from decision-making, although the"

-Page 128- Military, State and Society in Pakistan Book by Hasan-Askari Rizvi; Macmillan

[edit] Clyve

The article states that " Lord Robert Clyve in his book Historical Essays observed a similar concept in India". I can find no book by anyone called "Clyve" entitled Historical Essays. For some reason this is linked to Robert Clive, and no explanation is given for spelling the name with a y. This reference seems to have been added by user:Ikonoblast in July[6]. Clive never wrote any such book. Macaulay wrote a book called Critical and Historical Essays which includes an essay on Robert Clive. Would that be the intended reference? Paul B 18:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about this myself. There is alot of POV pushing going on in this article. So am generally trying to stay away from it, as I find it unnecessary to read books spend my time, contribute and then have my contributions reverted. --StreetScholar 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, hardly any of the sources I've read seem to give credit to Robert Clive for the term's use. Instead Frederick Sleigh Roberts has been credited on atleast two occasions for popularising the term. As for Street Scholar, the less said the better. With these statements it confirms your racism and your continued biased editing based on such a belief, without reading the sources, while claiming to do so and accusing others of POV pushing. I repeat, until I came and edited this article, it was nothing but tosh having no credible references. Idleguy 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well whatever he said in the past, I see nothing racist in the above comment. However, we need to be more precise about this topic. People keep adding to or removing from the list of "martial races". I suspect this is about ethnic pride - either they want to be included in the list or resent being denigrated as non-martial. But this should only be about what the British at the time of the empire thought, not what editors think that they should have thought! I'm ordering a copy of Heather Streets's book. If any editors have the precise information about who codified the list when, and whether it changed over time, I suggest that should be inluded and defined as a definitive list according to the sources - not to be added to or deleted from at editors's whims! Paul B 10:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Street Scholar's comments was removed by another editor for being racial abusive and no, it wasn't the past. He made the comments in this talk page less than 24 hours back, before it was purged.

As for the list, I haven't read Clive or Clyve's book so I am unable to add anything on what was listed by the British. I happened to see a Journal titled "The Martial Races of India by George Mac-Munn". I haven't seen its contents but I believe it should be a comprehensive listing of the martial races. Idleguy 12:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

I have been referencing WP for a little while now and always find valuable information on various topics, mostly for understanding the true nature and history of a subject or event. I had heard the term Martial Race used by some historians and always wondered what it truly meant. I am always amazed to find the wealth of information that is available on any given subject and the tireless effort of all the contributors who disseminate it on here. However I was at first surprised at the contents of the entry especially the later part where the reference to Pakistan and the alleged belief of the Pakistani populace in general and the Pakistan Army in particular of being a superior race. I found it in poor taste and highly dubious to find this reference in there. I became skeptical of the contents and the intent of the contributor and thought it necessary to do some research on other contributions from the user Idleguy. Most of the contributions that I have been able to peruse through have turned out to be (I don't want to use the word prejudice here) inclined towards maligning Pakistan and unnecessarily glorifying India. I appreciate the nationalism and even condone it (when appropriate) but what I do not understand nor appreciate is the level of hostility towards Pakistan in this contribution. I am sure I could find a number of references where the word Martial Race is embedded somewhere deep in the text but without any relevance to the matter at hand and post it here and call it verifiable and in context. I do however apologize for inadvertently modifying a quote without realizing that it was what it was. I only did it because I thought that the premise of the term Martial Race did not warrant such references. I will be more careful in the future and will read up on all the requirements and Wikipedia etiquette. Actually I did see one which I find once key policy very relevant Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus. (This too is a Foundation issue that applies to all Wikimedia Foundation projects.) . I do not wish to make this a controversial issue but would also request that you tone down on the bias. Most respectfully, I remain Fuzzone 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am happy you find Wikipedia useful. I however am a little disappointed that you should try to paint me as a villain when the sources were added only after I personally read them and none of them are out of context. For instance 11 of the citations in the article is about that particular section, which I knew would be subject to constant scrutiny. To top it, all the sources for that allegedly biased section come from either neutral or pakistani authors who have in no uncertain terms mentioned how this theory was used with an unpleasant effect. Wikipedia policies state that if you quote from reliable sources, then there should be no problem. You assessment that I'm only editing to somehow tarnish Pakistan's image at the drop of a hat is also not right. Look at Talk:Muhammad Mahmood Alam where I defended a Pakistani pilot's article from another Indian editor, supporting the need to be accurate and not be editing with nationalism even requesting another Pakistani to chip in here or an appreciation from an editor of Pakistani origin here. Further I have also added and expanded Terrorism in India in its early phase. If I were really a jingoistic fellow why would i be doing all these? Just because I edit honestly and with a no-nonsense attitude to bring out the hard facts, I'm now accused for bias after your "research" on my contributions.

Surely, I assume from your limited edits to Khan article, you are one of those editors who wanted only a rosy picture of races dubbed "Martial" or another Pakistani merely accusing without solid facts. Idleguy 08:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I did not wish to paint you as a villain. If my comments have come across as such, i sincerely apologize. However I still find it highly objectionable that you should find similarities between the supposed Martial Race (as attributed to the Pakistan Army) and the Master race (as attributed to the Nazis). There is no similarity and it seems like just your opinion. I will extend to you the courtesy of removing it yourself. If you have noticed I have added some more references in the Modern usage to somewhat for balance. I have used proper and verifiable sources and have tried to keep it in context. I hope you approve.

As for my edits in the Khan article. Actually that was the word I was initially researching and ended up here. I saw the short paragraph which was filled with grammatic and syntactical errors and I just could not stop myself from 'fixing' it :) But I am glad it has been removed now because it seemed out of place well. Fuzzone 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry myself if you feel I responded too bluntly. Regarding what you said yesterday, I went through the article again and felt that the link to master race was needless myself, infact wishing to delink it from that statement, but something came up and it wasn't removed. Now i've done that, it's only in the see also section since it's not what Pakistan had in mind and may only be remotely similar. Your edits are welcome in the article and I see that they are also referenced. So long as its reliably sourced and have NPOV, all edits to Wikipedia are approved. Hope you enjoy your Wikipedia browsing and editing. Thanks. Idleguy 04:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I find this an interesting topic. Actually I have been meaning to contribute some more to the subject. For the longest time I have been playing with the idea of how ridicule has been used throughout the ages to segregate mostly but also to control certain people (based on race, ethnicity, physical attributes etc etc). Most notable are the English, who got the most mileage out of it. It will need some reading on my part to support it with precedence. Happy Thanksgiving!! Fuzzone 02:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The British Didn't Do So Bad

You know, if anyone actually thought about it, this theory is actually kind of accurate. — Hizrael 7:14, 10 December 2006

[edit] Modern usage

Is there a sense in which this theory has morphed into notions of martial cultures? I expect for example that the Americans consider themselves to be martially skilled, one also hears from time to time an opinion pro or con the idea that the Brits are "good at war".

Also, has the original idea really died away, at least culturally; I get the impression Scots and Gurkhas are still treated by the media as if the old stereotypes held true.

In military terms I'd guess the importance of technology somewhat negates the real or imagined qualities of the individual. I note eg the reference to Israel in the article, suggesting (I think) that the author feels that Israelis are a martial race, when one might observe Israel is well armed, as many countries are.

I can't precisely reference these things right now, I'm sort of hoping someone else might be able to :) Hakluyt bean 19:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are Sikhs singled out- immediate removal

The section on Sikh is totally POV. There is clear bias Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. To make such wide ranging and serious statements with a few POV references who's neutrality is disputed is ridiculous. This should be removed immediately.

Yo! Johnson, I am glad that you have finally decided to enter into a civil discourse.

First thing to discuss here is the content of the Modern Usage section. This section is not yet finished and even though it looks like that only Paki Army and Sikhs have been singled out but this is just a start. Not one single person can edit/contribute to a complete article or section in one session. If you have time you should contribute to it too and add references and elaborate on the other races as listed.

Second concern that you have is regarding the supposed generalizations "-wide ranging and serious statements". If you are questioning the credentials of the personalities and publications referenced, then i must disagree with you as would most people well versed in the south east Asian politics. These people are well known and respected not only in south east Asia but also internationally. I took pains to reference people who are known to be impartial and un-biased. And these are not few, for such a small paragraph i think even the three references are an overkill. You might dispute their neutrality, but that is your own personal POV and you are entitled to it, but has no place in an encyclopedia.

In the end, I would like to thank you again for taking the time to discuss this with civility as I don't respond well to threats, intimidation and ultimatums. Fuzzone 00:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding some more insight into the British thinking of the day

I have tried to shed some more light on how the British thought at the time (presumably not anymore :)) and to clarify the reasoning behind the concept and it's various intricacies. IdleGuy could you please look it over? Thanx! Fuzzone 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arains

The Arains were NEVER classified as a martial race and thus their nonsensical inclusion on the main page has been removed