Talk:Indian martial arts/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A conclusion for "The decline of martial practices" section in sight and Mallayuddha

R.Venkatachalam , a first hand practitioner of IMAs has called Mallayuddha "the real lethal one" and has listed it as a martial art, Alters translates it to "wrestling combat" not "generic wrestling". Other sources have also endorsed Mallayuddha as a martial art and a codified system. [1]

No compromises on changing either the interpretation of the term or coining an art divided in four forms as generic, especially when it's based on personal point of view.

As for the "Decline of martial practices" text, we seem to have come a long way from poverty contributing to martial arts and the British being absolute angels.

Anyways, sarcasm attempts aside, we're definitely reaching a concluding compromise, though you'll understand my feelings of cautious optimism as I seem to lose more in compromises than in actual arguments. So far, I agree on the general outline of the "Decline of martial practies" section, the British banning Kallari will have a mention in it as well (I'll provide a write up for that one and more citations as soon as I find time).

Prima Facie, with a little more content, the "decline of martial practices" should be ready to go.

And thanks for putting up with the delayed replies the last couple of times. I've been keeping very busy and can hardly find time to answer. I'll see to it that it that I find time to reply no matter how busy I am in the future. Thank you. Freedom skies 13:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Write up suggestion

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.^[1]

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.^[2] During the period of the British raj, Kalarippayattu was also outlawed by the British colonial government. [2]

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.^[3]

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)

Proposed code

== Indian martial arts under colonialism ==

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.<ref>{{cite book | last = Bayly | first = C.A. | title = Indian Society and the making of the British Empire | origyear = 1988 | edition = Sixth printing | year = 2002 | publisher = Cambridge University Press | location = Cambridge | id = ISBN 0521386500 | pages = 103}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Zarrilli, P. | year = 1992 | title = To heal and/or harm: The vital spots (marmmam/varmam) in two south Indian martial traditions--Part I: Focus on Kerala's kalarippayattu | journal = Journal of Asian Martial Arts | volume = 1 | issue = 1 }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite book | last = Zarrilli | first = Phillip B. | title = When the Body Becomes All Eyes: Paradigms, Discourses and Practices of Power in Kalarippayattu, a South Indian Martial Art | year = 1998 | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = Oxford}}</ref>

The British Raj banned kalarippayattu in 1804 in response to a series of revolts.<ref>{{cite book | last = Luijendijk | first = D.H. | title = Kalarippayat: India's Ancient Martial Art | url = http://www.martialartssupermarket.com/index.cfm?action=showProd&subid=1083 | year = 2005 | publisher = Paladin Press | location = Boulder | id = ISBN 1581604807}}</ref>

The resurgence of public interest in kalarippayattu began in the 1920s in Tellicherry as part of a wave of rediscovery of the traditional arts throughout South India which characterized the growing reaction against British colonial rule.<ref>Zarrilli 1998</ref>

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)

JFD has questions about mallayuddha

Generally the Indian wrestling can be divided into two categories. The malla krida and the mallayuddha. Malla krida is the sports version while mallayuddha is the real lethal one. Again according to the techniques and methodology used, the wrestling is of four types. Bhimaseni, Hanumanthee, Jambuvanthee, and Jarasandhee.

Bhimaseni wrestling stresses on the acquiring of strength and its use. Most suitable for persons of huge build and strength

Hanumanthee type concentrates on the technical superiority of the wrestler and here superior skill will help one to beat an opponent of greater strength.

Jambuvanthee wrestling uses locks and holds to force the opponent into submission.

Jarasandhee is the most lethal form among the above as it concentrates in breaking of the limbs and joints.

– R.Venkatachalam

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.

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, and that wrestlers moved from place to place to enter contests for which prizes were given.

– Draeger and Smith

66.65.179.63 03:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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)

JFD has more questions about mallayuddha

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".[3]
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.

Detailed descriptions of bouts, training methods and stories of great wrestlers are available in the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata.

– R.Venkachatam

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)

The answers

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[4] 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)

mallayuddha

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)

Why would I give you a statement that I would leave this IMA martial arts section alone if you guys are going to exclude me from the editing agreement?Indrancroos: "I'll rather be happy than right, anytime." 00:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you bring anything to the table other than accusations of racism?
JFD 00:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed final source code for "Indian martial arts under colonialism"

The following is my proposed final source code:

== Indian martial arts under colonialism ==

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.<ref>{{cite book | last = Bayly | first = C.A. | title = Indian Society and the making of the British Empire | origyear = 1988 | edition = Sixth printing | year = 2002 | publisher = Cambridge University Press | location = Cambridge | id = ISBN 0521386500 | pages = 103}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Zarrilli, P. | year = 1992 | title = To heal and/or harm: The vital spots (marmmam/varmam) in two south Indian martial traditions--Part I: Focus on Kerala's kalarippayattu | journal = Journal of Asian Martial Arts | volume = 1 | issue = 1 }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite book | last = Zarrilli | first = Phillip B. | title = When the Body Becomes All Eyes: Paradigms, Discourses and Practices of Power in Kalarippayattu, a South Indian Martial Art | year = 1998 | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = Oxford}}</ref>

The British Raj banned kalarippayattu in 1804 in response to a series of revolts.<ref>{{cite book | last = Luijendijk | first = D.H. | title = Kalarippayat: India's Ancient Martial Art | url = http://www.martialartssupermarket.com/index.cfm?action=showProd&subid=1083 | year = 2005 | publisher = Paladin Press | location = Boulder | id = ISBN 1581604807}}</ref>

The resurgence of public interest in kalarippayattu began in the 1920s in Tellicherry as part of a wave of rediscovery of the traditional arts throughout South India which characterized the growing reaction against British colonial rule.<ref>Zarrilli 1998</ref>

It leaves the door open for bringing up Gama, Bhollu and Imam Bux later on.
JFD 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Indrancroos Final Proposal

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)

If Kenny, JFD, and Freedom skies can have their say on IMA, then so can I...Indrancroos: "I'll rather be happy than right, anytime." 04:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to consult the existing articles on Tamil martial arts at Varma ati and Southern Kalaripayattu

It is actually Marma (pertaining to nerves) in the Kerala language, and Varma (pertaining to nerves) in the Tamil language. Also, varma ati is actually Marma Adi, the art of pressure point attacks from Kerala. The Tamil pressure point fighting and healing system is called Varma Kalai. The Tamil foot and hand combat is called Kuttu Varisai. Varma Kalai can also be a healing art called Varmam or Varma Cuttiram.

Sources:

  1. Marma adi : the deadly art and science of hitting the vital marmas 
     /Sanjay V. Javalkar
     Belgaum, India : Warrior Publications, 1996

  2. Varma cūttiram, a Tamil text on martial art : from palm-leaf manuscript 
     /translation, M. Radhika ; editor, P.  Subramaniam;
     general editors, Shu Hikosaka, Norinaga Shimizu, G. John Samuel.
     Madras : Institute of Asian Studies, 1994

Indrancroos 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

you know

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)

you know "you know"

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)

Thanks for the reply... Anyways, out of curiousity and apart from the Bodhidarma controversy, didn't Alex Doss quote from reliable sources? Weren't they listed of where he got his info from? I am talking mainly about the history, geography, and linguistics part of it he wrote about and the description of the different fighting techniques, not his POV and ending statements. Also, (I hope you are not going to accuse me of being him... lol...) but why all the attacks on the guy? After all, it was not he who was posting his name as a scholar or what not on wikipedia... It was from other people...Indrancroos 05:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, out of curiousity and apart from the Bodhidarma controversy, didn't Alex Doss quote from reliable sources? Weren't they listed of where he got his info from?''

Doss lists a couple of reliable sources in his bibliography, but his claims of Tamil origins for the martial arts certainly aren't taken from them.
You won't find the words "Tamil" or "Kanchipuram" anywhere in The Bodhidharma Anthology by Jeffrey Broughton or The Intention of Patriarch Bodhidharma's Coming from the West by Hsuan Hua.

why all the attacks on the guy? After all, it was not he who was posting his name as a scholar or what not on wikipedia... It was from other people...

This is very true, but a couple of editors tried to bluff the rest of us by referring to Doss as a "scholar" and referring to his "posts and accomplishments," which made it necessary to clearly and decisively demonstrate that the only thing Doss was an expert in was at being a Tamil nationalist, not at being a historian of the martial arts.

Well, that and hairballs.
JFD 07:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu and Kerala were never under the rule of Ashoka

(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)

Asoka's Empire did not include Kerala, Tamilnadu, and Sri Lanka. Did you know that you have just CONTRADICTED yourself? Here is the contradiction in your arguement:

(Contradiction)

1. it was stated that "Restoring ancient India, a country which included the ancient south under Ashoka the great".
2. a link was added to Ashoka in the sentence.
3. on the page of Ashoka, it showed the map of his empire which did not inlcude Southern India
  (primarily Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka).

Here are some links to other wikipedia and websites on Asoka. Please take a look at the maps closely.

(Web Sites)

1. Ashoka
2. Maurya Empire
3. The Mauryan Empire [[6]]
4. Span of the Mauryan Empire [[7]]
5. Map of Mauryan Empire [[8]]

Still not satisfied? Please let me recommend you to take a look at these books in your University and take a look at the maps, and perhaps read the books itself. Here is a list of them which will prove you wrong.

(Books)

1. Mookerji, Radhakumud (1967). Asoka. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
2. Gokhale, Balkrishna Govind (1966). Asoka Maurya. New York: Twayne Publishers.
3. Smith, Vincent Arthur (1964). Asoka, the Buddhist emperor of India. Delhi: S. Chand. 
4. Thapar, Romila Aśoka and the decline of the Mauryas (1997): with a new afterword, bibliography, and index. 
   Delhi ; New York : Oxford University Press.
5. Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. (1967). Age of the Nandas and Mauryas. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

By the way these were books written by both Northern and Southern Indians and one European. This is about as fair and balanced it is going to get. As quoted on the Indian martial arts page, I shall use this to describe the sources I have used above as "diverse in nature and have origins of different times from various different ethnic groups", which all prove one point Asoka's Empire did not include Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka. I would dare say the reason for this was because of the Dravidian martial arts and fighting tactics, including a strong infantry, cavalry, and a poweful Navy.

You need to get your facts straight if you are going to try to get your point across.

Indrancroos 05:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fabricated Maps

To Freedom Skies:Your fabricated maps [[9]] 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 [[10]] 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)

Ancient India

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)C

Bakasuprman vs. Peter Pan

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)

Here are some more facts for you:

1. Mizo Hills were formally declared as part of the British-India by a proclamation in 1895.[[11]]
2. The State of Nagaland was formally inaugurated on December 1st, 1963, as the 16th State of the Indian Union.[[12]]
3. The 'Tripura' is a small state within the union of India. It was an independent country till the merger with independent India 
   in 1949 A.D.[[13]]
4. Manipur was not a Part of India. It was forcibly annexed by India. In 21 September 1949 the king of Manipur was forced to sign 
   the Marger Agreement.[[14]]
5. Pondicherry becomes part of India in 1963. [[15]]

These are not the only states which did not become part of India until the arrival of the British or after the British left. If India was actaully one Empire during ancient times, how come there are over 23 distinct languages, and thousands of dialects? Why are there three major families of ethinic groups Dravidians (of African/ Australian roots), Indo-Aryans (of Persian roots - and of course where the name India came from), and the Mon-Kmher (of Burmese/ Cambodian roots)?[[16]]

"Come with me to Never Never Land" - Peter Pan

Indrancroos 02:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bakasuprman Strike's Again

"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.[[17]] Also, please explain to me why the Northern Indian scripts use the Devanagiri script vs. the Dravidians using the curvey scripts.[[18]] 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?[[19]] 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?[[20]] 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?[[21]]

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)

Indian Nationalism

In this diff [22] 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)

Misinformation

(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" [[23]]. 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)

GA Nomination

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)

mallayuddha is disputed

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)

everything is disputed by you it seems....--D-Boy 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No where will you find that mulla yuddha is written as a true wrestling martial art.

Wikipedia does not subscribe to your definitions of true martial arts and untrue ones. Live with it.

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.

This art has very real practitioners as described in the book by Joseph Alter. This is in addition to ancient arenas devoted to this art in India.

There was an edit war and then we all agreed on a compromise with mullayaddha staying in the text.

This edit war involved editors who contributed to material which was actually put into articles. Unlike our Kenny here.

Alter in his book on Indian Wrestling writes that mullayuddha is a generic term for wrestling.

Plain and white lie. Alter translates it to wrestling combat.

Freedom skies 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the alter book. He talks about wrestling. he does not state that mullayuddha derived from ancient indian texts and that the ancient epic character bhima used mullayuddha. I've read all of those ancient texts. a lot of the descriptions of bhima relate to his acts in leading troops. there are no outright descriptions of a particular martial arts called mullayuddha. That website that is the link talks nothing about the history of mullayuddha. all it talks about are the four forms of mullayuddha. the history that you wrote is made up history. Kennethtennyson 17:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the alter book.

Obviously you have seen it from a distance kenny. The question is have you read it ? If you would read it and for once talk about things you have any idea about then you'll come across him clearly stating the martial art of Malla-Yuddha. I'll do you a favour and see that you get to live with it kenny.

He talks about wrestling. he does not state that mullayuddha derived from ancient indian texts and that the ancient epic character bhima used mullayuddha

He actually does speak about it Kenny. With references to gods and everything. Are you sure that you want to still pretend you've read the book, Kenny ?

I've read all of those ancient texts.

Again you waste my time by blurting about things you have no idea about. Are you sure that you have read "all of those ancient texts", Kenny ?? Your incompetence shows through.

that website that is the link talks nothing about the history of mullayuddha. all it talks about are the four forms of mullayuddha.

It does Kenny. Read it. Access it and read it.

the history that you wrote is made up history.

Even when I am the one with material being actually placed into articles and you're the outcast who likes to display tags of desperation on talk pages, Kenny ?

Stick to incessent reverts, your job as asigned to you by JFD and exchange barnstars to fake credibility [24][25] (barnstars exchanged within a difference of a day's period). This is all you've shown competence for.

Freedom skies 23:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives