Talk:Martial race

Pakistani General

Alright, citation #52, where the article quotes a bio of a Pakistani General as supporting martial race theory ("hails from a martial stock") is not in any way evidence. Literally the next line mentions that his father was a Major in the armed forces, and the phrase "hailing from martial stock" clearly refers to his family history - a common phrase in English - not his ethnicity or race, much less "clearly does" as the author wrote. I'm deleting it.--216.99.214.7 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Martial race "Bhumihar"

Why is "(excluded after rebellion)" added to Bhumihar when there is no citation? This is propaganda material. Please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.80.138 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

You are right, it is Macaulay, who had invented the term Non-Martial for Bengalis,after he supressed their rebellion with the help of Sikh troupe. Then it was interpreted, Martial Race is one who can fight for money even against their own country. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:06, 12 January 2010 (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)

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)

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 Ofcourse it is.THe sikhs,marathas and gurkhas were battle hardened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoravar (talk • contribs) 16:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

My assumption is that the Brits and the Americans, Europeans in general really, consider themselves above such notions as this, and that they can be martial or otherwise as they see fit; a mark of their own superiority.

In terms of the kilted Highlanders, bear in mind nobody thought less of them than the unkilted Lowlanders, and the Highlanders were always seen as a form of 'other' well into the 20th century. Certainly they viewed them fierce and brave, tragic romantic figures, but nothing a stout hearted Englishman or Lowlander couldn't handle. Alooulla (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

Yeah and the quote of what was said by Guru Gobind Singh was incorrect I removed it.HE never specified that hell make a sikh fight 125,000.HE said only if/because I make one fight 125000 am I called Guru Gobind Singh.Zoravar (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoravar (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Arains

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

Response

Unfortunately, some partially-literate guys are really ignorant. Truly the elders caution: Little knowledge is the most dangerous thing in this world.

The Arains INDEED were included into the Martial Races category by the Britishers (See some references below) .

• Handbook of the Panjáb, Western Rajpútáná, Kashmír, and Upper Sindh, 1883, p 61, John Murray (Firm).
• The Punjab Alienation of Land Act XIII of 1900, Appendix A, Notified Tribes, pp 146-149, Nihal Chand Anand.
• Annual Class Return 1925, pp 96-97.
• Cf also: Wealth and Welfare, p 214, Calvert.

• The Indian Army and the Making of Punjab, Chapter Recruited Peasants and the Restraint of Immperial Power, Edition 2003, p 105, R. K. Mazumder.

It is also important to note that, in the first cited reference above (Handbook of the Panjáb, Western Rajpútáná, Kashmír, and Upper Sindh, 1883, by John Murray), the Arains in fact are also described as the real-blood cousins of the Jatts (ibid p 61)). This will alutomattically affirm that the Arains were counted among the martial class.

It is always advisable to learn or familiarize with facts before making any wild comments or claims.

Satbir

Arain tag is removed because they are mention as agriculture race but not as martial race and there is not mention of arain as martial race in GENERAL SIR GEORGE MAcMUNN report who is the proginetor of martial race theory  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.183.183 (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC) 

Status of the doctrine of 'martial races'

The article implies that the theory of martial races was an official British Government policy, but evidence of that is needed - in what official document were these races designated as 'martial'? So far as I can see there isn't even a citation of a clear statement of the theory by someone who believes in it: the sources merely attribute it rather vaguely to the British. I've seen pieces which attribute it, or at least its popularisation, to Lord Roberts of Kandahar, but I cannot find any direct evidence that he advocated it.

In the absence of better evidence, the article seems to give the theory a more definite and authoritative status than is really justified.

There is a lot of evidence that the British Government considered the 'Martial race' theory when recruiting for army and it helped in the compilation of historical records of tribes to prove this theory right. One very interesting book in this regards is; The People of India: A Series of Photographic Illustrations, with Descriptive Letterpress, of the Races and Tribes of Hindustan, Originally Prepared Under the Authority of the Government of India, and Reproduced by Order of the Secretary of State for India in Council By John Forbes Watson, John William Kaye, Meadows Taylor, Great Britain. India Office Published by India museum, 1872, which has around 5 or 7 volumes and contains information regarding almost all tribes of Pakistan, India and neighboring regions. This book clearly mentions which tribes or people are considered martial based on their histories and characteristics.Wikitanoli (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Garhwalis

Garhwalis are an attested martial race but someone keeps deleting them from the list. It would be great if people who lack a deep enough knowledge of history stop editing these articles.

Arains are not, and were never, classified as a martial race

To the idiot who persists in peddling myths about the Arains contribution to the armed forces, you are twisting source material and presenting a ludicrous and disingenuous take on the Arains reputation vis-à-vis the military. Please consult the following:

“…Zia came from a community not heavily represented in the armed forces (the Arains from Punjab)…” (See http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/pakistan/pakistan_history_zulfiqar_ali_bhutto_and_a_new_constitutional_system.html)

“Ethnically, General Zia was from a line of Arains, who do not have much presence in the army, unlike Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan who were Pathans. Pathans are well represented in Pakistan’s armed forces.” (See http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:TBifkQ5dKv8J:yespakistan.com/people/past-presidents.asp+%22Ethnically,+General+Zia+was+from+a+line+of+Arains,+who+do+not+have+much+presence+in+the+army,&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk)

"The army was an unusual career for an Arain youngster; the British had not regarded the community as one of India's martial races..." (Pakistan under Zia, 1977-1988, Shahid Javed Burki”)

If after reading the above, you still claim that Arains can be classified as a martial race – which is entirely your own, biased and unfounded viewpoint – then you are not only delusional, but devoid of all shame. The Arains have never been classified as belonging to those groups recognised as “martial races”, pre or post-partition.

Further to my comments above, the most recent change to the Wikipedia entry on the “Martial Races has been made by a user named Street Scholar, who has had to undo your edit to the article, recognising your contribution (based on fallacies you’ve cooked up in your head) as vandalism. Thus, I am not the only one to take exception to your idiocy. As I said, have some shame and desist from peddling what others acknowledge to be myths. As for you linking Arains with Jats and thus concluding that the former deserve to be recognised as a martial race, you have truly demonstrated how very stupid you really are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.165.145 (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghurkas, Scotts

It still facinates me that the Ghurkas and Scotts have not been mentioned, and till today they are recruited into the British Army, and the Ghurka ferocity still proceeds them i.e. look at their service history in the Falklands war.

Also I have read that about the Martial prowess of the Pakistanis they believed that they were able to outclass the Hindus, but were always cautioned when fighting the Sikh Regiment, Sikh Light Infantry, the Ghurka Regiments and the Punjab Regiment. I would like to see a source which strictly quotes because in my oponion it seems to cohered with other anti-Sikh statements in this article. 124.190.91.227 (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)\

Err, this isn't an article where users add the groups they think are qualified to be "martial", this is the article on the British pseudo scientific martial races theory and who they deemed to be a martial race whether people have different opinions, or actual events suggest otherwise or not.KBN (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Scotts and the Ghurkas qualify for martial race, its in the list, I just believe it needs more information about it because if you look at the history of the British Empire, the Sikhs, Scottish and Ghurkas were used as the 'crack' troops of the empire becuase of the belief of their martial prowess. I am not giving an opinion it is fact which is checked in history, i.e the Opium Wars were faught with the bulk of the forces being Sikhs, while in World War 2 lead forces in Burma were Ghurkas, while in UK the Scottish which had given the English a flogging were flagged as being an excellent fighting unit and were encouraged to join the Army which led to dozens of regiments being formed which recruited from both the high lands and low lands (it actually worked really well post-Neapolian becuase of socio-economic factors effecting the Scottish people) 124.190.91.227 (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if there is any specific mention that the British considered Scots and Gurkhas as martial races, go ahead and add. Actually I believe it only refers to "races" of south Asia.KBN (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

why ahirs(yadavs ) are not mentioned?

why ahirs(yadavs ) are not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.216.228 (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=r8WaTfO-McjKrAeViJHvBg&ct=result&id=WzIXHR8kVw0C&dq=jats++and+ahirs+of+pakistan&q=ahirs+

India-Pakistan war, 1965, Volume 1

Book -Everyday life in South Asia By Diane P. Mines, Sarah Lamb

http://books.google.com/?id=QFhYnt2rL6YC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=ahir+is+a+martial+race |title=Everyday life in South Asia|publisher=Books.google.co.in |date= 2002-08-26|accessdate=2010-09-19|isbn=9780253340801}} name = "Mazumdar Rajit"/>

Data in the table is highly misleading

As per the reference provided the table covers Officer intake from one insitute between the period 1978-87. The table gives the impression that it represents the entire Indian Army and that it is current (while its actually 23 years old). The table should be removed or the title altered to better represent the data. If the table contains valid data, references would be much appreciated. Iminer (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(The newest comments on a talk page should be posted to the bottom of the page or the relevant section, so I have moved the above as a courtesy. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC))

Edit request from 59.95.201.51, 11 September 2010

(NOTE: removed repost of the entire article which was placed here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

"Race" in 19th-century terminology...

""Race" in 19th-century terminology corresponds to the contemporary term "ethnic group", and is here not used in the sense of the "great races" of scientific racism corresponding to modern notions of race." Is this statement accurate? Wasn't "scientific racism" a 19th (and early 20th) century doctrine? And it is pretty much discredited now (and has been for decades), so how does it correspond to "modern notions of race"? Wardog (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Marathas

The paragraph on the Marathas seems exceptionally non-neutral and at times anachronistic. For instance, their classification as non-martial after the Sepoy Mutiny was not "blatantly" ignoring their achievements against the Turks during the Great War as that contribution had not yet even occured! Threadnecromancer (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

Constant manipulation of data

This article gets a real lot of edits from IP accounts, or otherwise suspect accounts (blocked users, users with short edit histories), changing the data in the lists and tables without any explanation, or at best no sufficient or intelligible explanation. I've undone the most recent edits of the sort, but any attempt to revert all such edits would be hopelessly overwhelming. This article needs heavy monitoring, preferrably by people with a clue in Indian history and ethnography, to ensure that the data presented comply with what the sources actually say. Obviously, the subject is somewhat sensitive and I suspect various nationalistic or ethnic, regional-patriotic or other biases on the part of many of those who make such edits, even if part of them may be in good faith. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Gujjars not martial race but criminal caste as per britishers

Gujjars were declared as criminal castes not as martial race when the Gujjar men. They actually disobeyed the white man's orders, the Gujjars are a race of men with honor for their women and self respect, a white man mocked a Gujjar woman plowing the ground, then a Gujjar man grabbed the white male off his cavlary and forced the male to plow the land, the Gujjars were involved in the 1857 rebellion also, the Gujjar lost all their land to the Jats and Sikhs because the white male officers granted their land to men who were serving them, the Gujjars were left landless till this very day. The Gujjar male is generally more well built than white males and their martial races serving them, most Gujjars enjoy stonelifting and Kabaddi as their traditional sport. The Gujjar race has a history of fighting for the oppressed even when the odds are against them against an invader, their history has been wiped out due to their resistant past to outside invaders. Check your sources.115.119.104.226 (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted you. The cited source is this. At p. 105 it says, "A district-by-district classification was published. The 'agricultural tribes' included ... Gujar ... The significance of 'agricultural tribes' is that the ones so notified were synonymous with the 'martial races' which the army almost exclusively recruited from." Perhaps we need to explain the synonymity but, certainly, mentioning them here is appropriate. I've never seen a claim that they were a criminal tribe but, sure, it is possible: one does not exclude the other because various communities were reclassified in various ways at various times (eg: the Nairs were degraded from martial status). - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Move? (16 March 2015)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, without prejudice against opening a new discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Martial race → Martial Race – Uncontroversial-type move request, obeyed, and later challenged by this message in my user talk page:- ( --Relisted. Sunrise (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}

• Hi, how do I challenge the move of Martial Race to Martial race? The rationale was something to do with standard casing but the fact is that the article deals with an official classification and that there is a world of difference between a so-called martial race and one that was defined by the British Raj administration as a Martial Race. I am not even sure that this request was notified on the article talk page, which certainly should be a requirement given that RM is for moves that might be controversial.

  I am winding down my activity on Wikipedia because of the increasing gender-based politicisation etc but if contesting this ends up as being my swansong then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - the body of the text and usage in sources does not generally treat it as a capitalised proper noun.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Martial Races beyond the subcontinent?

The idea of Martial Races was also utilized by the British in their African colonies, and the French and the Dutch also had similar sentiments. I might work some of this into the article.

171.66.209.4 (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martial race. 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/20061020114933/http://defenceindia.com/def_common/ethnic_group_recruitment.html to http://www.defenceindia.com/def_common/ethnic_group_recruitment.html

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) 05:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

A couple of supposed sources have been added recently re: communities who were supposedly martial races. The citations were useless because it was impossible to see which page of the sources were being referred to. I suspect also from my reading of those sources that there may be some confusion regarding what this article concerns. It is about the designation of "martial race" during the British era, not the Moghul era etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, similar pre-British concepts are what is missing from this article. Contrary to what the article now very misleadingly says, the British certainly did not invent the concept. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus Required

I made some bold edits and they were reverted, so I would like to reach a consensus first. I will list down the edits which I made and would like to have your opinion regarding them.

1. I added the views of Divid Omissi and Ali Mazuri on the subject (views of Muzammil Quraishi, Gavin Schaffer and Stephen P. Cohen are also added).

However, David Omissi, a modern historian and an expert on the subject, argues that martial races do have basis in the "customs and self-image of Indian communities who had a martial tradition quite independent of the colonial encounter". He also notes that martial traits of Kshatriya and Punjabis predate the colonial encounter. Muzammil Quraishi, another modern historian and an expert on the subject, is also of the point of view that the concept of martial races already existed in India prior to the British presence there. Gavin Scaffer, a modern historian, also believes that the "colonial (re) construction of martial identities were no more or less 'authentic' than pre-colonial ones". Stephen P. Cohen notes that "Many of the recruited classes came to the military already secure in their status as warriors and proudly pointed to their long, glorious martial traditions". Similarly, Ali Mazrui also records that the British regarded East African Sudanic and Nilotic people as martial races due to their "warrior tradition".

2. I added a section for 'By the Indian military'

At the time of India's independence in 1947, half of India's senior most officers were Punjabis even though Punjabis were only 5% of the total Indian population at that time. India’s first Prime Minister Nehru wrote to the Commander in Chief and Defence Secretary, urging to do large scale reform in the armed forces but no reforms were made. India continued the colonial style of military recruitment even after independence. In 1949, India abolished the official application of "martial race" principles with regard to military recruitment but unofficially it continued. By the beginning of the 1970s, India doubled the number of "martial class" units. The Punjab Regiment, that recruits mainly Sikhs and Dogras, has gone from five to 29 battalions since independence. The Rajputana Rifles (mainly Jats and Rajputs) has increased from six to 21 battalions in the same period. Since substantial expansion of the army happened through existing regiments, the consequence of this style of recruitment is that most of the army (infantry and armoured corps) is disproportionately recruited from the same regions and castes.

In 2012, IS Yadav, a doctor from Haryana, filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of “caste based recruitment” to the Indian Army. “Certain regiments of the Army were organised on lines of classification because social, cultural and linguistic homogeneity has been observed to be a force multiplier as a battle winning factor,” the Central government argued in defence of the army’s recruitment practices, as per newspaper reports. “The commonality of language and culture only further augments the smooth execution of operation,” the government added. It dismissed Yadav’s petition in February 2014.

Again, in February 2018, 19-year-old Saurav Yadav from Gurugram filed a PIL in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking expulsion of the caste-based recruitment process for the President’s Bodyguard. The plea mentioned that the process has been going since 1947 and members from only three castes, Sikhs, Jats and Rajputs are allowed to participate in the selection process. The plea sought quashing of the latest recruitment held by the Director of the Army Recruitment office in September 2017. The case is still open.

3. Removed some stuff from the section 'By the Pakistani military' which was not properly sourced.

The Pakistan Army was also accused of bias and racism by the Bengalis of East Pakistan who felt humiliated by this dubious theory that was being floated in West Pakistan, that they were not 'martially inclined' compared to the Punjabis and Pashtuns.

The source is a dead website 'Library of Congress-memories' which has apparently moved to 'Library of Congress-collection'. I checked 'Library of Congress-collection' for any relevant material but I couldn't find it. Plus it was a query link, which again is questionable, so I tried to run the same query on 'Library of Congress-collection' but no results were found.

4. The belief in martial race theory of Pakistan Army remained firm till 1965 changed to 1971.

Though seldom used in today's context, it has been alleged that the Pakistan Military believed in the concept of martial races because most of the martial races of Indian Subcontinent were in West Pakistan, and thought that they would easily defeat India in a war, especially prior to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

Wikieditor6699 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Your research is utterly misleading. The web archives related to Congress link is correctly working.[7] Your removal of content here claiming that the source is not working is again misleading because the source is working fine. Books on East African books that contain one liners on India are not enough. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• So: #1 needs a better source (as well), ideally Omissi direct. There should be plenty of others, as these ought not to be controversial points. #2 seems ok, also # 4. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Omissi has been directly sourced and more sources are also added to #1 as advised. Wikieditor6699 (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You are barking up the wrong tree, Wikieditor6699. Your so-called research continues to be dodgy and misleading. What is much worse is the selective cherry picking of convenient bits from the sources that you have done, not to mention the accompanying glaring misrepresentation of the Omissi and Qureshi sources. None, save for these two, are germane to the issue at hand to begin with. If you read even the introductory portion of this article, you would know that this article is not about the question whether or not there existed classes with martial traditions that dated back to pre-colonial times in India. This is a subject that transcends this parochial point of view.

This is about the British artificial construct of classification of Indian castes into martial and non martial classes and the consequent confinement of their military recruitment to the former and concomitant discrimination resulting from the same.

What does the British recognition of the supposedly 'warrior traditions' of the East African Sudanic and Nilotic people have to do with this article? Coming to the aforementioned sources, the Omissi one at the very outset, on the cited page, makes it clear that, 'Despite these precursors, the ideas which emerged in the 1880s differed markedly from those which had gone before, and goes on to state: But a martial self-image by no means guaranteed the award of a place in the Indian Army, or even the desire for one. Besides, British ideas had their own logic and served purposes quite different from the self-perceptions of Indian society.

The Quraishi source similarly belies your POV pushing. It is worth mentioning here that of the whole chapter devoted to the subject at issue in the book, you selectively and conveniently cherry-picked one line, and that too by omitting the first word (though) itself.[8] Quraishi, if anything, makes it patently clear that the whole notion of martial status or lack thereof was a British construct. It is one of the sources that elucidates the topic in detail, outlining how the whole distinction between the Indian castes based on supposed martiality (or lack thereof) was not at all marked before, and how the notion of martiality was inculcated in Sikhs by the British.

Given this dodgy misrepresentation of sources on your part, this selective cherry-picking, this attempt to mislead other editors, I cannot help but point out the flagrant violation of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia and the glaring WP:CIR issues on your part. Given that, in place of posting a new comment, you chose to edit your old comment which had been already replied to, I wonder if the latter is indeed the case. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Note that I've blocked Wikieditor6699 as a sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2021

Please add below to the below header Tribes and groups designated as martial races Kodava

Sponnappa (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Bias and charged rhetoric

This page is rampant with unchecked and unfounded racism, using modern jingoistic revisions of the past. The earliest martial races were historically Brahmin, which continue to make a sizable contribution to the Indian Armed Forces. It is pathetic that this is being rewritten as dull and subservient when they continue to serve the succeeding armed forces. There seems to be a lot of bias insecurities from others, blaming those that historically fought in the armed forces. Rancid Boar (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)