hi,
i realise i am bordering controversy, but hope this will be taken as it is meant, and not how it could possibly sound.
i dont relate gatka with the formation or original martial use of the tulwar. i have seen gatka a few times, and know people that practise it to a realtively high standard, and theorise on the use of this and other swords. no matter how convinced they are themselves, none have ever managed to sway me past the thought that this is not much more than a dance with swords, done in the membrance of a lost history of martial prowess.
as rick says, put in a real situation, i dont think they will be swinging so much in pretty patterns.
the tulwar is not a sikh weapon, although it was adopted as such.
the 'dances' i have seen are truly fabulous, and a wonder to behold. but then again, so is michael flatley.
there are many accounts of encountered indian warriors in battle, described by the british. although they sadly dont recount the actual weapons (we can assume they could have been tulwars) i am sure they would have mentioned the wild swinging as this was very un-british.
i am afraid that, like most other oriental martial art, it is only a matter of time before gatka hits the general public after a c-list celebrity decides to make a fitness video using its basic principles.
the ricasso arguement, as jim stated, is long going and without a possible outcome. i think both camps locked horns and argreed to disagree
as to the grip size, i feel this too has had many theories. mine is rather simple, and as valid and invalid as any other :-)
i believe the original hindus (especially in the north - rajput and before) to be of a much smaller size. muslims (from all over) have been in india since well before the moghuls, and left a solid mark not only in art and architecture, but also in the people themselves. if you go to india, you will see many very small men, with very small hands (that today would fit comfortably in a 300 year old hilt). i think this form was very much like their original hindu ancestors. then you see many indian that are much larger, and i think these had a mingling of blood from the turks/persians/moghuls/sultanate who were larger people. there is no such thing as a hindu hilt in the tulwar form, as no one can prove who the original sword was made for (could have been a small moghul, or a large rajput!)
i have accounts of a famous 17thC rajput prince of 'pure' hindu line that had a huge brother who owned outsized weapons. the maharajas state's armoury still exists, which a number of huge weapons (possible owned by his brother, or just another big guy some years later). what i am saying is nothing can be assumed or put past speculation.
another interesting point, to bolster my long-standing arguement against fingering the ricasso, is that early hindu swords (from 16thC and before) had absolutely tiny hilts, smaller than most small tulwars. the form of the enlarged guard makes slipping a finger anywhere absolutely impossible.