[B.I]

a great assessment, jim, of which i fully expected and enjoy every time :-)
i think the problem with a 'western' assessment of indian arms is the difficulty in understand what we would class as 'clumsy' or strange weapons. to us they have always seemed cumbersome and inefficient, but this is because we were not trained with their use from a very young age. whilst there are numerous accounts of the 'strange' weapons of the native in british 19thC accounts, there are also a few admissions of the expertise these natives had when wielding these weapons - the katar and pata being good examples.
and so, i think a western martial aspect falls foul of a true assessment. this is because it is too easy to generalise indian weapons.
all this could be heresay except for a very lucky fact. the antique arms world was lucky enough to experience a hoard of these early armoured shirts, which was something noteable academics and museums never had a chance to do., before this, these armours were rare, and so diagnosis of any kind could only be led by speculaton.
however, when you have 800 chainmail shirts, a comparison can be made.
for some unknown reason, when people mention indian armour, we tend to think of the lighter armour of the 18thC. when we think of european armour, we think of the heavy medievel and post medieval suits.
indian armour developed according to whoever was wearing it and whoever they were fighting at the time. for this reason, the heavy armour tended to generate from the south, where the ottoman influence was very strong. the moghuls took there style of fighting from the persian, with other ancestery influences. however, the deccan had direct links with the ottoman empire, with bijapur being ruled by an ottoman prince, who brought this own culture into these foreign lands.
as for the katar and the chainmail shirts, this is a double ended arguement. some katars couldnt pierce chainmail, and some could. some chainmail could protect against a katar and some couldnt.
this is because no two shirts of the 800 were the same. the best fo them had two solid, heavy gauge plates at the front, with 3 rows of 'lamellar' plates at the back. the mail above the front plates (up to the neck area) were of a much heavier gauge and thickened for strength. each link was well crafted, and some chamfered to an almost sharp point, like mini chackrams. the mail reduced in size (evenly) down the arms and towards the bottom of the tunic. some had a mail collar, which doubled over the neck area. some had a seperate section, like a bishops mantle. these were the best of the lot and each shirt could match the quality of european shirts and repel even the thickest of katars. also, some had interspersed links with koranic verses (again, like the earlier ottoman shirts) which provided a talismatic feel for the wearer.
all the above description was not the majority of the shirts, but a large handful.
more than half were relatively crude. the front plates were thinner, the rear smaller plates of lighter gauge, the links uneven and poorly made, even small and light. i have seen a riveted chainmail shirt of the same period with some of the links of absolutely tiny size, giving a feeling of 'silk' when holding it.
a good, thickened katar, wielded by an expert could not only punch through the chainmail, but maybe even the front plates as well.
it is for this reason i dont think a modern armourer can give an accurate assessment, as it would fully depend on both the offensive and defensive weapon in mind. a katar vs chainmail is way too vague.
a good katar vs a poor chainmail - yes.
a poor katar vs a good chainmail - no
a good katar vs a good chainmail, well life is too short to speculate on an arguement that will never have any conclusive answer :-)

as for the katar being purely civilian, or secondary, or not meant for battle - i think definately not. the katar was as much the national weapon of india as the tulwar was, maybe even more so. known in miniatures and sculpture since the second half of the 16thC, its form remained so for over 400 years. whilst the south and north both adapted there own style of sword (in the 16th/early 17thC), the katar remained the second weapon.
of course it could not be a primary weapon, as its a dagger and no warrior would go into battle holding a dagger first. however, it features in almost every 'battle' miniature throughout the moughul empire. there is no reason for them to carry it unless it was of some use. unfortunately most miniature show the warriors carrying a sword, but the katar is prominent in their belts, ready for use.
i have attached 4 images. the first 3 are circa 1570 and show 'battle' scenes. the first image is stroming a citadel, and shows a warrior holding a katar.
the forth image is dated 1602 and is amidst a battle. the two main warriors have discarded their swords and are fighting to the death. the warrior holding the katar is fully armoured. his opponent is wearing a shirt, but another warrior wearing a similar shirt shows what could be a chainmail shirt beneath it (the shirt opens at the front, centred by a medalion, as you can just about see on this warrior). his horse is armoured and you would think he would be too. whether he is or isnt is immaterial, as the nature of miniatures are always open to arguemnets about artistic license. however, the moguls emerors took both their martial art and decorative art very seriously and a gross mistake to a court painting would not do overlooked. a warrior would not be shown using a civilian dagger in war.
miniatures should be taken for what they are. there are period depictions and all we have, given the religeous nature of most sculpture. so, to dismiss them completely would end all research before it begins. they should be given the benefit of the doubt, but with a pinch of salt in mind.