Talk:Indian martial arts

Shastar vidya, a dying art

Here is a citation that can be added to the article; the first paragraph states:

"A former factory worker from the British Midlands may be the last living master of the centuries-old Sikh battlefield art of shastar vidya. The father of four is now engaged in a full-time search for a successor."

The citation:

{{cite news
|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15480741
|title=The only living master of a dying martial art
|author=Stephanie Hegarty
|publisher=BBC World Service
|date=29 October 2011}}

— Loadmaster (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian or South Asian

"South Asian martial arts" currently redirects here, and this makes perfect sense. The history of combat in India cannot be separated from that of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Lathi khela and wrestling are found in all three countries, as was archery and boxing in pre-modern times. Even Sri Lankan angampora is closely related to Dravidian silambam and kalaripayat. So I suggest renaming this article "South Asian martial arts" and including systems from the neighbouring countries. Not only would this be more inclusive and logical, it also prevents people from creating short unnecessary stubs like the former Dravidian martial arts, Pakistani martial arts, Sri Lankan Martial Arts and the unashamedly nationalistic Bangladeshi martial arts. Hopefully such a change would be possible before someone decides that Nepalese martial arts need an article of their own. Morinae (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not reasonable, because all of those other countries exist in the modern world and are likely to want to stake a claim to geographically indigenous martial arts within their borders at some point. You are pre-empting the possibility of someone finding out, for example, that a former factory worker in Wolverhampton is the last inheritor of a secret Bangladeshi martial art. You don't know it doesn't exist... --Birdtread (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually the entire point is to pre-empt claims to so-called "unique" arts within their artificial modern borders. Already Bangladeshi editors on the lathi khela article are claiming that lathi khela is "unique" to Bangladesh when it is in fact indigenous to India as well. Personally, I find "Indian martial arts" adequate as the word "Indian" here refers to the historical India. The average Pakistani or Bangladeshi still accepts their traditions and languages as being from the Indian cultural sphere. The only problem with this is that it encourages people from neighbouring areas to want a separate article for their countries. And if you're wondering what's wrong with this, it's that not every country needs an article on national martial arts. This is generally only done when a country has many systems (eg. Chinese martial arts) or when the styles from that country don't have a single name (eg. Italian martial arts). So if a secret Bangladeshi fighting style exists and you feel it is notable, go ahead and create a new article for it. But we don't need a separate article for "Pakistani martial arts" just for an introduction to kusti and "Pakeedo". Even in its current state, this article is very much a "South Asian martial arts" article because there is absolutely no way you can talk about Indian martial arts without including Pakistan and Bangladesh. The reverse is also true, unless you make a concious effort to selectively ignore history and geography. Morinae (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Artificial modern borders" doesn't make sense. You're saying that modern border are man-made not natural, so they are less real than historic borders. According to what you imply, there is more "truth" in the past than in the present. I don't think you can dismiss "modern borders" on that basis. Modern borders are real. There is no subjectivity about it. If you want to go to Canada you must pass through immigration control. There is no debate about that. Whereas there is plenty of disagreement and debate about history, because the past requires evidence while the present just requires demonstration. This is a basic reality. Modern borders are real.

I really think your statement "The only problem with this is that it encourages people from neighbouring areas to want a separate article for their countries" is deeply problematic. That was your original point. You wanted to prevent other nations from writing articles about their own martial arts. The root of your desire seems to be your deep inner belief that there was a pan-Indian historical martial art that transcended the ethnic, linguistic and religious boundaries of the past. The only problem is, that's just your personal belief. It's not based in fact. Your example: "there is absolutely no way you can talk about Indian martial arts without including Pakistan and Bangladesh" is false, because you are imagining a Greater India of some unspecified periods before 1947 in which all of the martial arts were mixed and influenced each other and couldn't be separated out from each other. So according to your unproven theory, the area now covered by modern Pakistan never had any indigenous martial arts and neither did the area now called Bangladesh. Even though separate languages and religions were there. Even though there are many separate regional martial arts of India, from Naga martial arts to Manipuri. Totally baseless to try to mish-mash things together like that.

In addition, I would point out there are Thai martial arts, Burmese martial arts, Laotian martial arts, Cambodian martial arts. Martial arts related only in that their users were fighting each other all the time. So what's wrong with, say, "Bangladeshi martial arts" apart from you considering everything in their country a minor variation of a historic pan-Indian culture that supersedes everything?--Birdtread (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify a few errors here. First, there was never a "pan-Indian martial art". India, both the modern republic and the historical region, is a big place with many cultures, ethnicities and languages. It is, and has always been, home to many styles of fighting. Take a look at my writings on this article. I never tried to hide this fact. On the contrary, I emphasise it. These styles did indeed influence each other and are closely related until today, but I never said they were all one single monolithic system.

Second, I never said there is more truth in the past with regards to modern political borders. What I said is that the fighting arts we are speaking of predate such borders. The regions of Panjab, Kashmir and Bengal are today separated between two countries each. Yes modern borders are real, but they are historically irrelevant. And I'll emphasise again the phrase historically irrelevant just so you don't accuse me of saying they are irrelevant altogether. To take but one example, the Panjabi style of fighting existed long before the region was divided. This style has been passed down through the generations, also irrespective of border. Today, it still exists on both sides of the border. The techniques, the weapons, the terminology, the underlying culture, none of this has changed in spite of how "real" the border is.

Third, it is not my opinion but a simple undeniable fact that pre-modern Indian history cannot be separated from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Don't take my word for it, I can provide sources corroborating my point. This is not confined to martial arts either. Harappa and Mohenjo-daro are typically referred to offline as "Indian" civilisations, despite being located in present-day Pakistan. Same with kingdoms like Takshashila in northeast Pakistan and Gauda in Bangladesh. The languages of Pakistan, Bangladesh and even Sri Lanka are often grouped together as "Indian" both colloquially and academically. And yes, this is done with martial arts as well. Donn F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith had a single chapter for "India and Pakistan" (just as they did for Malaysia and Indonesia) rather than separating them, as you might prefer.

If we're going to draw a clear distinction between the martial arts of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh according to politics, then where do we draw the line? Where does malla-yuddha come from, India or Bangladesh? How about musti-yuddha, India or Pakistan? If you wish to confine Pakistani and Bangladeshi history to post-partition, you're not doing those countries any favours by ignoring their ancient heritage. But if you are going to take their pre-independence history into account, you cannot deny the shared martial heritage of these countries. And if you do, you're very much in the minority and certainly not within the scope of any reliable sources. Traditional armed combat in Pakistan and Bangladesh was much the same as in north-central India. Once again, I have sources to back me up. Colonial British described the same style throughout the region, on all sides of today's borders. In more recent decades, the much-cited Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts writes that "Attacks and counterattacks vary between Hindu and Muslim but the basic techniques are the same". This doesn't apply to all of India, but they were referring to northern sword-fighting.

This doesn't mean that Pakistan and Bangladesh have no indigenous fighting systems. However, since you brought up the topic, I'll say that you would be hard-pressed to find an adequate number of uniquely "Pakistani" or "Bangladeshi" martial arts to warrant a separate article. I, along with many other editors here, feel it is unnecessary to have an article for the martial arts of every country, region, or ethnic group just for the sake of national/regional/ethnic inclusivity. Whether you want to admit it or not, not every country needs an article for its fighting arts. This is more than what you see as my "deep personal beliefs" about India. I have previously objected to the Irish martial arts article, for example. Besides, there's a reason why the articles on Pakistani and Sri Lankan Martial Arts were merged out of existence, and that reason certainly wasn't me and my POV.

Southeast Asia is of particular interest to me and it's a region I'm very familiar with. But I don't see why you're bringing up the systems of those Southeast Asian countries, and I don't understand what you mean by "Martial arts related only in that their users were fighting each other all the time". If you're trying to say that their arts have no relation to each other, you're very wrong there. Krabi-krabong, banshay and silat are all closely related. The ancient version of Malaysian tomoi is essentially the southern style of Thai muay boran, of which there are at least four variants in Thailand. Kickboxing is found throughout Indochina under different names according to language. So how are they not related? And I may add, notice that there is no "Thai martial arts" article, even though there are several of them and at least one is commonly known. Why do you think this is? Because of some anti-Thai nationalist? No, I think it's more likely that editors simply felt such an article would be unnecessary because the style-specific articles are sufficient. We don't need a Thai martial arts article that simply repeats information from the muay Thai, muay boran and krabi-krabong articles. Which, by the way, is exactly what the Bangladeshi martial arts article does.

Before we start going off-topic here, let me say I am perfectly fine with your objecting to my rename suggestion. This article can keep its current name, but it must continue to be inclusive. Politics change and will continue to change the map, but the reality of historical and traditional fighting systems will not necessarily change with them. Nobody tries to separate the history of martial arts in Korea despite the fact that we now have two Koreas: north and south. There is no article on "Taiwanese martial arts" because we all know and accept that it was historically a part of China and culturally still is (except for the aboriginals who, interestingly, have their own martial tradition). And if China today decided to split up into smaller parts, we wouldn't have articles for the martial arts of each part. Modern borders are real, but they are artificial and should not be over-emphasized when speaking of culture. I'll provide the citations you requested in the article once we finish this discussion. Morinae (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this excessively long explanation. You seem to be in the habit of making a lot of assertions of fact in relation to the martial arts of India and surrounding countries. From the way you wrote that, I think I'm fair in assuming that the majority of the content of the main article is also written by you. This way of writing a Wikipedia entry is unsatisfactory because it's inadequately sourced. I don't know if you really follow what I'm saying here. But unless we can agree on some basic fundamentals we'll be going in circles with edits and reversions. For a start, backing up these statements about martial arts and linguistics isn't complete when all you do is take more a footnote or two in an obscure National Geographic from the 80s and claim it supports your point. You tried to fill YOUR ARTICLE out with citations but most of these references you added are inaccurate or poorly understood. Let's try to agree on some basic things before we go into the long list of problems you brought up when you wrote up all of this unsourced content that you later tried to gloss over with fake citations.

First, do you acknowledge this article doesn't belong to you but is a public resource? Second, in your opinion, is the article perfect as it is and in no need of revision apart from minor edits? Third, do you agree that "oral tradition" or "according to tradition" as it appears in this article is weasel words? With the first question, I am trying to contextualise your anonymous claimed expert knowledge of various martial arts, geography, history, Sanskrit, etc. With the second question, maybe we can invite a fresh pair of eyes to give an independent opinion about the need for genuine citations. Answer these questions directly and maybe we can work together. Or we can edit each other out every other day (I hope it doesn't come to that).--Birdtread (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, cooperation works for me. In answer to your questions..

Yes this article is a public resource and in no way belongs to me or anyone else. I don't dispute that in any way at all. And please don't put words in my mouth, I never claimed to be an expert in those topics.

The article is far from perfect. If it were perfect, maybe it would have been a GA by now. There's plenty more that needs to be added in here, and not necessarily by me. I thought I had provided proper citations but if I'm in error, please feel free to point it out.

I assume what you mean by "as it appears in this article" is "unsourced"? Whether they're believable or not, oral traditions should be included in the article as long as they're sourced. As far as I know, weasel words mean trying to sneak your opinion in under a cloak of authority? I might be getting the definition wrong, I don't know. But if I'm correct, then no I would say that including oral traditions does not equal weasel words. Morinae (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sqay

There is this File:INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF SQAY2.pdf uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which really does not belong there as it is a media repository, not a place for text documents (I’ll be filing for its deletion soon). It should be moved to Wikibooks or Wikisource, maybe, but some of its information might be used in this article and/or in a separate Sqay article. Tuvalkin (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been wanting to create a sqay article for a year already. This should prove useful. Morinae (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Others

Please also add Bandesh, Niyuddha, Ayuddha and others lesser known arts :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.215.92 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Those arts all belong to South East Asian countries and aren't Indian.--Birdtread (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There actually is a mention of bandesh here. Ayuddha just means weapon. Morinae (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem. How can you possibly know anything about these obscure names of martial arts apart from through Google? I could say these arts are from Italy and you could say they are from India. Or we could agree, based on a single word in Draeger, that they are Indian. Then I could say they are from a tribe in the foothills of the Himalayas, you could say they belong to a Sufi cult. Unless you have been exposed to all these arts and have research to share? This whole article is just a series of anonymous assertions with no sources to back them up. If we allow this article, and add all those arts as Indian martial arts without references, by the same logic we should allow more articles headed Pakistan martial arts, Bingo martial arts, Goan martial arts, Nepali martial arts, etc.? Ayuddha just means weapon, so should we include it in a separate article on "Weapons in martial arts"? --Birdtread (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to be frank, I didn't understand a thing you just said. Are we arguing here? I didn't say we need to add anything. A user made a request and I replied. I never use google for reference or research. The words mentioned have nothing to do with Southeast Asia. I think you must be confusing bandesh with Burmese bando. And as a matter of fact, I have been "exposed" to bandesh in person but I try not to add anything from personal experience since that would be original research. Morinae (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

While you may have been trying to be helpful, your latest round of layman edits has merely butchered the article further. You have made assertions about things you haven't established by proofs or evidence and which are actually contradicted by statements elsewhere in the article (such as the "connotation of BLADED weapon" as the definition of shastra), and provided "references" that don't say what you think they say (i.e. they don't support the claims being made). Apart from your exposure to bandesh and Irish martial arts, are you a Sanskrit scholar to fill us in on the definition of "shastra", which is used even in the present day to refer to all weapons including firearms and naval battleships? Just stop, please stop.. Thanks to your well-intended interventions, this Wikipedia page has zero credibility. We don't need any more "helpfulness" with this article, thanks. We need information backed up with authentic references about the very specific claims made. I note you have removed half my citation needed tags. I do try to assume good faith but if that doesn't work it would help if you could let me know where you're coming from and what your angle is. Don't remove my "citation needed" tags again without explaining your reasons here first. --Birdtread (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about "Systems" ? its' Ref seems amature backed information, he says this she says that, word of mouth ect as its sources

The book has just One rating aswell as having poor sources to back up it's claims, the writer of the book (Christopher-Fernandes), gives warnings at the start of his book claiming he is basically not responsible for any errors he has made which tells me he himself is unsure of his own work.

Shall we just scrap it and instead make a list of south martial arts, north martial arts, east and so on, it would beef up the page.92.236.96.38 (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Caplock

That section had previously been a list. I changed it to its current form because not all areas have a specific name for their fighting arts like Tamil silambam or Keralan kalaripayat. For example, Karnataka has its own style of sword fighting and stick fighting, but I am not aware of a name for Kannada martial arts as a whole. Having the section in paragraph form allows us to include information on any regional style and not have to think of convenient names for them. And as for the book, I acknowledge it's not a very authoritative source. But it's the same with newspaper and magazine articles. In fact, many books on martial arts don't have any references other than the author's own knowledge. The book in question isn't being used to backup some contentious claims, but just some basic information. Regardless of whether the author is an expert or not, I think this stuff is pretty basic even if he wrote from the perspective of a casual observer. Morinae (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indian martial arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090829143736/http://www.palmlandtours.net:80/kerala/tours/kalari/kalaripayatte/kalari.htm to http://www.palmlandtours.net/kerala/tours/kalari/kalaripayatte/kalari.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indian martial arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712234507/http://www.iakoweb.com/pakhada.html to http://www.iakoweb.com/pakhada.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130719050229/http://orissadiary.com/Shownews.asp?id=5299 to http://orissadiary.com/Shownews.asp?id=5299
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924032151/http://www.iakoweb.com/pakhada.html to http://www.iakoweb.com/pakhada.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160819174918/http://www.guruhemang.com/ to http://www.guruhemang.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vaalum-parichayum.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

new section

I have mentioned about kalaripayattu at the top and bottom of the page that kalaripayattu is the mother of all martial arts in India. Can anyone help me if there is any mistake.Glandmos (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Some of the sources you cited are plainly unreliable. The ones that are reliable identify the accounts as legends and not history - that is your mistake. MrOllie (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)