THE MYTH OF GURKHA RIFLEMAN CARRYING PRIVATE
 

On the Gurkha site they used to have the below statement, and it is sill in the current GM pamphlet the ‘Kukri’, they also have this statement;
‘Most hill villages in earlier days would have a Smith (or Lohar of the Kami clan) who forged kukris for the people: now there is a good deal of mass production (Definitely not always the case), though the best are still made by skilled craftsmen. In World War II Gurkha recruits were issued with mass-produced government kukris but nearly all brought back their own from their first leave. Weight, balance and fit are crucially important.’
This quotation is often referred to by some collectors as gospel that private kukri were carried in both WWI and WWII by Nepalese Gurkhas, but it never struck me as being right. Certainly in WWI there is evidence QGO did carry their own kukri, but not in WWII, and I have found no evidence of Gurkha Rifleman carrying their own kukri in both WW’s. However to be absolutely sure I decided to do further re-search, so that I could confirm that Gurkha Rifleman carrying private kukri was a myth;
I then decided to ask the famous Gurkha Officer and Author Lt. Col JP Cross (WWII, Malaya and Borneo) his opinion on this subject;
JP; “I expect that men took their issue kukri with them when they went on leave as a weapon was always needed in the Hills. I can't quite see why a man would have changed his issue kukri for a personal one when at home as he could have got a new issue one when he got back to his holding unit or his battalion"
I have also been fortunate enough to get to know Captain McCalla (WWII Gurkha Officer), and he had this to say;
“In olden times the kukhri was the equivalent of our axe & a multi purpose tool which would also be useful as a weapon of defence or attack. Many mountain folk regarding neighbours with suspicion & untrustworthy (every man for himself ) Kukris would all be made locally.......Army issue would be machine made & all men wore the same as otherwise if they used their own, there would be no standardisation” “All men carried regulation IA kukris”
JP Cross also contacted QGO Capt Bakansing Gurung (joined in 1933 1/6 GR), who features in the very important Historical book by JP Cross and Buddhiman Gurung 'Gurkhas at War', about this matter, Captain Bakansing had this to say;
"That none of his contemporaries had ‘private kukri’, all carried issued kukri".
Then both Captain Lalbahadur Rana and Major Yambahadur Gurung contacted another Gurkha Veteran for me, QGO Captain Bhaktasing, and he had this to say;
'They were not issued kukri while they were recruited in the recruiting centre.
A kukri was issued for jungle training phase after he completed basic training that was not as smooth as nowadays.
He has had taken the kukri with him after his completion of training and posted to the regiment 2 GR
They have used for big and ceremonial parades and the guard duties. They have polished and sharpened for that events.
He took the kukri with him while the regiment deployed in NW frontier (I.e. Afghanistan border)
They use to travel with kukri in uniform while they come to Nepal leave.
He has taken the kukri with him while they deployed in WWII, Singapore.
They have not taken their own village kukri to the regiment.
He has not taken any his own kukri from Nepal.
As far he concerned those days the strong iron and better kukris are made in Dehradoon and Kunraghat by Nepali expert Ironsmith for the Gurkhas issued kukri
Before 1816 those areas belong to Greater Nepal and mostly Nepalese tribes are leave there'
Major Gerald Davies (post WWII Gurkha Officer) Curator of the GM in Winchester felt that the 7th GR might have had cause to use personnel kukri from being in North Africa and then going up through Italy; I was able to contact the last remaining 7th GR British Officer who fitted the bill, Major Deny’s Drayton (7th GR WWII) who ended up at Monty Casino, said;
‘That Gurkhas only carried IA issue kukri which had wooden handles that were of *stick tang construction, and no private kukri were carried’.
This term ‘stick tang’ came about after discussing the various handle types with Major Drayton.
I would like to thank all the above for their tremendous help in this matter, and for their enthusiasm towards my re-search.

Top to Bottom WWII Kukri;
Mk2 WWII full tang kukri (carry over from WWI)
8TH GR kukri, stick tang
IA kukri, stick tang
IA kukri, stick tang
IA kukri, stick tang (style used in WWI)
Mk3, full tang
http://www.torabladesforum.co.uk/uploads/4/a1_001.jpg
http://www.torabladesforum.co.uk/uploads/4/a1_002.jpg

Fantastic! Thanks Sirupate for sharing your research & photos :)

I second what Nathaniel said. Many thanks. :)

Many thanks guys, although the real thanks should go to all the Gurkhas that helped in my re-search, top people :)

Query
 

Query,

I have a Kukri, Pre WWII made circa mid1930s so I have been told, it was taken from a dead Japanese soldier in Burma, there is no disputing the line of provenance either as I have the family history and the military stamped and post marked wooden crate this Kukri another item came back to the US in.

Any ideas behind this? Were 1930 made Kukri standard army issue?

Thanks

Gav

Any pics Gav? that would be a tremendous help, cheers Simon

Kukri
 

Simon, image attached;
Details - overall out 40cms, blade 29cms, spine 7.6mm, Koudi is 11.3mm from the bolster hilt 17.6mm at the narrow part, pommel 53.2mm high. Hollow ground blade.

Thanks

Gav

It looks like a very nice small Villager kukri,quite what a Japanese soldier was doing with it I have no idea, unless it was taken from domiciled Nepalese that they killed in a village?
ps Partial tang kukri of that type are always hard to date

Nice Kukri Gav, It appears pre. or very early WW2 probably private purchase but military style kukri to my eyes. I would say it could easily have been collected of a Gurkha during WW2, The loop round the scabbard looks designed to be hold in a military frog rather than a natives belt?

As for the Argument put forth by Simon although interesting, Id rather take the word of the offcial "Brigade of Gurkhas" website myself for several reasons.

Not least that they know rather more Gurkhas & Gurkha officers than the esteemed few Simon has spoken with, who according to Simon were apparently unaware of such practice?

And of course to describe it as a "myth" is rather strange , the idea that no Gurkha would ever buy or use a kukri he liked in the arms emporiums that riddled so many British Indian Garrison towns & Hill Stations were Gurkhas would take local leave.{Or from Nepal if he was lucky eniough to have home leave.

And of course the major point must be that for Simon to try & proove such a thing is to try proove a negative which is logicaly impossble & is generally known as "argumentum ad ignorantiam" ("appeal to ignorance"} in which is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

Spiral

Guys, I'm not really interested in the he said she said stuff as everyone has an opinion and perspective of only what they saw and were exposed to in their immeadiate enviroment and nothing is absolute outside of these immeadiate boundries but having this item here and it some what looking like the second Kukri with the grey hilt, I thought I must bring this provenanced example forward and if it didn't come with the unbroken linage and original post marked and dated shipping crate I wouldn't be wasting the time with the notion but it does kinda debunk the fanciful notion that private purchase Kukri were never used by Gurkha in WWII.

Simon, whilst I commend your exploration on a notion, but to me this discussion cannot be an absolute. I know many a good professional soldier who in one way or another, pack a little more than his standard issue kit, the personal and psychological edge that these non standard items brings to the individual is what keeps these warriors ticking and adds a touch of comfort and reassurance to each one...sometimes these changes are so subtle with the exchange of one item for another or better quality that looks so very similar but does a better job in the eyes of the individual.
In a war zone no one is going to be looking at his mates Kukri next to him and be thinking hey, that really doesn't look like mine I'll be telling the CO when we get through with this, heck I don't even think the CO would care if the job was done so long as next time they are on regimental parade he is displaying the correct kit.

Gav

While I agree with your sentiments & conclusian Gavin , I must also point out in all fairness that many non Gurkha British troops also carried private purchase kukri in that theartre at that time.

Spiral

Indeed, there were many possible routes by which a private-purchase kukri could have come into Japanese hands:
http://i50.tinypic.com/np06zd.jpg

Well noted Spiral and well presented with an Image Berkley. All factors are important for any discussion or conclusion.

Gav

For what it is worth I have a non issue Kukri that was carried by an officer (later to be CO 5th GR) in Burma during WW11 and later in conflicts with Pakistan and the Naga Wars.This Kukri comes with impeccable provenance. So whilst it might not have been the norm it certainly did happen. Rod

Jonathan, I believe the info you are referring to has been taken of the Gurkha web site (http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/13192.aspx).
I presented this information to the GM, and other Gurkha Officers (in early 2009, before the re-vamped MOD site), who accepted my findings.
(The whole précis I did was originally done for the Nepal Army Museum in Kathmandu, by request.)

According to them Jonathan, there was no such practise allowed. One would have thought they would know after all, as they were there as Officers (you and I of course were not Officers in WWII, and therefore do not have their knowledge) fighting the Italians, Germans and Japanese, part of their job was of course to enforce the Regimental Regulations. Also these few Officers new many other Officers very well, from different Battalions and Regiments, i.e. JP knowing Brigadier E.D. Birdie Smith (recommended for a VC) and so on, and for example JP also interviewed some 450 Gurkha veterans for his book ‘Gurkhas at War’.

I think one has to wonder why they would buy another kukri Jonathan.
1/As JP said “I can't quite see why a man would have changed his issue kukri for a personal one when at home as he could have got a new issue one when he got back to his holding unit or his battalion”
2/ Also as Chas had to say “all men wore the same as otherwise if they used their own, there would be no standardisation” “All men carried regulation IA kukris”,
3/ Not to mention QGO Capt Bakansing Gurung Joined 1933 (plenty of time for home leave!), "That none of his contemporaries had ‘private kukri’, all carried issued kukri".
4/ Then there is QGO Captain Bhaktasing MC, “They have not taken their own village kukri to the regiment. He has not taken any his own kukri from Nepal.”
5/ Major Deny’s Drayton (who was in both the N. African and Italian campaign)
Had this to say; “Gurkhas only carried IA issue kukri, no private kukri were carried”.
I also have a kukri that was taken back to Nepal by a Gurkha when WWII finished to have as a user in his village (which I picked up in Nepal), which has a good quality Nepalese scabbard. I also have handled a Mk1 that taken back to Nepal as a user (which has the nut ontop of the handle, due to repair), and this certainley fits in with what QGO Captain Bhaktasing MC had to say about kukri, which rather fly's in the face about Gurkhas getting their own kukri.

Please explain in what way does it debunk what QGO's and British Gurkha Officers have to say, who were after all there fighting in WWII? It seems strange that you seem to ignore what the Gurkhas have to say that were there?
Also your kukri was collected off a dead Japanese soldier, and there were plenty of domiciled Nepalese in Burma during WWII lets not forget, who helped many a British and Indian army soldier when in need.
It quite possible the Japanese soldier acquired the kukri from one of them, although I do not know about Japanese regs regarding carrying of non issued equipment, except in regard of Officers carrying family heirloom Nihonto.

This was strictly against protocol of the time (Covered a bit later), for all British and Indian army troops, this does not apply to souvenir hunting off the dead or wounded enemy, and it is certainly not the mind set of Gurkha from the hills Nepal back in the 1940’s (ref JP) where little had changed for hundreds of years.
Also in General Sir Walter Walkers (a good friend of JP’s) autobiographical book, ‘The Fighting General’ by Tom Pocock, Walter Walker 2nd in command of 4/8th GR in Burma having replaced Colonel Twist after he was killed (later taking full command), covers how strictly enforced regimental standards and regulations were upheld, and how inspections were frequent and closely done.
There was an occasion when he found a Gurkha with a dirty kukri, he was not best pleased, goodness knows what would have happened if it was not an IA regulation issue!!
This is one of his slogans that he had his troops digest and act on; ‘It is the ambition of every man of the 8th GR to redden his kukri and bayonet in the enemy’s blood’.

Very well pointed out;

First thing about the above Ron the article isn’t dealing with Officer Carry, however was your kukri carried by a British Gurkha Officer who stayed with the regiment post 1947, or Sikh Officer who then later joined the Gurkhas post 1947? ETC Further info would be very usefull. Below is some info on Gurkha Officer carry in WWII;

British Gurkha Officer carry in WW2
First of all not all British Offices carried kukri as JP recalls “I never carried a kukri, along with several other British Officers”
However many did; such as Major-General M. Callan who used a Quarter Master issued kukri, as he recalls “I am sure I wore a kukri in combat uniform, a QM issue like everybody else in the battalion, which must have been 90% ‘hostilities only’ enlistments apart from only one BO (the CO) and GOs and older ORs from pre-war” .
Major-General Mike Callan sent details of his kukri, and they are as follows;
“I have dug out my old issue kukri from the garden shed. It has been used as a utility tool in the garden, just as a Gurkha would. (You know of course that the common belief that kukris can only be drawn to shed blood is complete nonsense). Mine is now very battered and rusty, but after reading your notes I took a closer look at it. The first thing is that it has no maker's mark, and seems to differ from the ones you described.
The dimensions are: Length from tip of blade to tip of handle - 42 cm. From the tip of blade to the start of the angle (approx 15 degrees) on back of blade - 19.5 cm, and from there to the join at handle - 12.5 cm. Depth of blade at widest part - 5.3 cm, and thickness of blade at back before it tapers down towards the point - 7 mm.
The hardwood handle is 10.5 cm long, with a steel plate on the end, and has two steel bands round (to prevent splitting) and is secured to the blade by two rivets. The centre of the handle is carved to provide the grip. It is a nicely balanced weapon with a good "feel”. The weight is 548 gms.”
Since the correspondence Major-General Mike Callan kindly sent me down his kukri so I could handle it and document it for myself. It is very similar to one in the GM, which has a different Kaudi and brass rings and butt plate.
Major-General M. Callan IA QM issue kukri from WWII;
http://www.torabladesforum.co.uk/upl...ike_Callan.jpg

Chas and some other Officers had their kukri made by the armourers; Captain C. McCalla recalls “…have my own kukhris which were made for me by the (Regimental) armourer in Dharamsala”. I have only seen pictures of Captain McCalla’s kukris and the one he carried not only looks like a very nice and well made kukri, it also has as Captain McCalla points out, the perfect balance for a kukri.
When asked why some Officers carried Quarter Master issue kukri, some not at all and some like himself who had kukri made for himself this was his explanation regarding his Battalion “Not all Officers went to the Regtl Centre & therefore wore issue kukri from the QM. Many Officers were commissioned in India & joined Gurkha Regiments (seconded from Brit Army & were never in the Indian Army). Others like myself were commissioned in UK & volunteered to join a Gurkha Regt. We were then gazetteered straight into the Indian Army proper.”
A picture of one of Chas's Gurkhas (No.1 Bren, No2 had just been killed) after some fighting in Abya;
http://www.torabladesforum.co.uk/upl..._Bren_no.1.jpg
And here are Chas's kukri;
http://www.torabladesforum.co.uk/upl...ri_of_Chas.jpg

Another Article that didn't seem correct.
With kind permission of the Burma Star Association;
This is part of an article by Mr. Hannah’s son of his father’s recollections (Trooper 2884497 William Hannah of the 9th Gordon Highlander’s) of his experiences in WWII, who passed away in the late 1990’s.

'Out at the defensive perimeter, the Gurkhas were stationed, 2 men to a trench. It was standard practice never to put 3 Gurkhas in a trench, as with 2, one will guard, 1 will sleep. With 3, 1 will watch, 1 will sleep, and 1 will strip off, grease his body, and draw his Ancestral Kukri to go looking for Japanese souvenirs. Only this blade requires to taste blood before returning to it's sheath, not the Sheffield steel one that the army issued, that was used for splitting sticks and opening tins, and could be obtained simply for the asking, as it had no honour. If a Gurkha fell in combat, his comrades would retrieve his Ancestral Kukri, for return home, and vesting with the next eldest son. Gurkhas were not normally seen carrying bayonets, preferring the Kukri. *At Kohima, it is said that a Japanese officer carrying his traditional Samurai sword and a Gurkha soldier squared off at knife fighting distance in a trench, and both drew steel'
* I have come across 3 rcorded incidents of Gurkhas fighting with kukri against Japanese sword, and JP in his 450 interviews came across one instance.

This is an interesting article, in that it has been used by some collectors and kukri enthusiasts (it is with reluctance that I looked into an old soldiers story and recollections, who fought for our freedom, but I felt much was wrong with the article), as in part of using to prove the both the carry of so called ‘private’ kukri and so called ‘ancestral kukri’.

This is what Chas had to say about it; “Dear Simon, I can only say that with regard to any wild stories about Gurkha's....... just believe it. !!!!!!!!!!” (In other words a load of nonsense)
Then Chas had this to say; “It is more than likely that some kukhri's were handed down in their home & in that respect they could be deemed Ancestral” This was in respect to their home in Nepal, and as Chas (and others) had said previously “All men carried regulation IA kukris”,

The Curator of the Gurkha Museum, Major Gerald Davies had this to say;
“Dear Simon, I have never heard of the practice for trenches described below. In war, section strengths are dependant on casualty figures and continued reinforcements to replace the casualties. Normally a section is 8 x men. To say there will be 2, 3 or 4 men per trench is not realistic, as it depends on the ground, the width of the defensive layout, the enemy tactics they use against you, and the role of the unit (offensive or defensive). You do the best with what numbers you have. The story of greasing bodies is fanciful I am afraid – I have never heard or seen any tactical books advocating this action. The drawing of kukris and tasting blood is also a myth that has no truth or reality. The kukri is a utilitarian implement as well as a weapon. Sheffield steel is not used in kukris, so that is fanciful – rail steel or car springs make up the majority of kukri blades in the past 65 years. The retrieval of ancestral kukris for return home is also fanciful. If a soldier died in service his possessions were* auctioned in Company level auction sales to raise the best price. The total money accrued was then sent to the deceased family.
Gurkhas did carry bayonets and many photographs show that to be the case. It was part of regimental dress regulations for combat dress. In restricted areas such as jungle, in buildings (FIBUA), trench warfare, the kukri was favoured by Gurkhas over the bayonet”.
*This is very well described in the Book ‘Quartered Safe Out Here’ by George MacDonald Fraser

JP had this to say: mostly nonsense. I had not heard about 'greasing the body' but I very much doubt it, where would a man have got the grease from?
JP also remembered that a Gurkha did come back in just under dress in WWI, in France with just his kukri, but had this to say on the subject; “I cannot for the life of me think why a man, especially one from a country where it probably would not
be so cold, in the cold of November (when it happened, towards the battle of
Neuve Chapelle) would want to go hunting for souvenirs, especially at night,
which could be picked up almost anywhere on the battlefield - as my father
did. I expect he went on a one-man raid - or sat in a pile of shit and felt the only way to go on was in bare buff.”
JP also said that in 450 interviews for his book (Gurkhas at War) nothing like that was mentioned.

2 kukri displayed at the Gurkha museam as battlefield or theartre pickups. The top one in Egypt probably from the 3rd Gurkha rifles the lower one from Gallipoli in 1915.

Neither look very official issue or standarised to me.... :rolleyes:


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...chasekukri.jpg


& then again 4 Gurkhas in WW1 displaying there kukri. Again not very standardised. Looks like at least 3 different types of kukri to me. :D {picure courtesy of PCpostCards.]

Spiral

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/003-13.jpg

Jonathan, please at least get the quote correct from the GM, as it puts a whole different emphasise on the kukri one looks at, and is quite misleading;
“acquired by a trooper of the Queen’s Own Oxfordshire Hussars, c.1917 in Egypt, and is potentially from 3rd Gurkha Rifles.”

1st Kukri;The quality of the kukri has in reality only two potential sources;
1/ Lets not forget that this practise was only done if time allowed;
‘If a soldier died in service his possessions were auctioned in Company level auction sales to raise the best price. The total money accrued was then sent to the deceased family’
It is feasable that the kukri was a dead British Officer's kukri, whose face and uniform may have been badly mutilated, and this may have been the reason behind the word ‘potentially’.
2/ That it was a kukri for mess orderlies, here the word ‘acquired’ springs to mind!

Before we go into the second kukri this is what I had to say in my précis about this period, which is relevant to this section;
There is a picture of British Gurkha Officers, of 1/1st Gurkha Rifles, in discussion with Nepalese Gurkha Officers in France during WWI. From the picture it would appear that the British Officers are not wearing kukri, but that the Nepalese Gurkha Officers are. In foreground, of the picture, one of the Nepalese Gurkha Officers is wearing a kukri on his left hip, which has what appear to be metal rings going around the handle and a metal butt plate, and another Nepalese Gurkha Officer (a bit further into the photo) is wearing a wooden handled kukri, again on his left hip, rather than the regulation carry of rifleman on the centre back, or the right back. In WW1 Nepalese Gurkha Officers including Naiks and Havildars etc. were allowed to carry personnel kukri.

2nd Kukri;Displayed directly below the alloy handled kukri in a green scabbard, is a kukri potentially used by10th Gurkha Rifles, and was picked up by Naval Officers during the Gallipoli campaign. We also have to remember that the 2/10 GR had problems getting hold of kukri, and ended up making them themselves for the new recruits, of which I have one.

Second picture;First of all, it does seem strange to me that one would present a picture as evidence, without knowing the circumstances and background behind the picture!!
Before we cover that, it is well known that there were huge supply problems for kukri and equipment in general (ref; 2/10 GR.) during WW1, due to the huge influx of men, which would not have been catered for in the normal run of things. Of course this was the same in WWII, for example the new 8th GR training centre at Quetta, by 1943 suddenly found itself with 6,000 Gurkhas!!
Regarding the problems of obtaining kukri, JP had this to say ‘If Ordnance Branch asked Regimental Depots to help out and held a pool of such to supplement other sources, then yes, If not no’. In other words, other sources were used to obtain what kukri they could get. This of course would lead to variations, but the kukri would still be ‘Sarkari’ issue.
Also one has to take into account that to replace Gurkha casualties in 1914 and 1915, they milked other Gurkha Battalions from India for replacements, therefore Gurkhas from different battalions were often mixed in.

So about this picture you have presented;
1/ The Havildar on the left; is not of rifleman rank, and was entitled to carry his own kukri, if he so wished, this did not appear to be the case By WWII.
2/ The two middle Gurkhas; They may well have been pr-WW1 enlistments, with Battalion regulation or original Sarkari issue kukri, from when they joined.
3/ The Gurkha on the right; He may well have originated from another battalion, so a different style of issue kukri, or it may be a replacement Sarkari sourced issue kukri, but not his own private purchased kukri!



Once again there are in reality only two possibilities, it was a British Officers kukri, or a Nepalese Gurkha officers kukri, as mentioned before.
Indeed British Officers often wore large kukri in that period, as you know, I have one from that period, spec; It has a 39cm long blade of the Rana period style, a belly of 7.1cm, a smooth spine, with a width of 9mm by the handle, tapering down to 2mm just before the point, and a ridge-less, hollow forged cross section, weighing 790 grams. It has a thick wooden stick tang handle of 11.2cm in length with a nice curve to help it fit the hand. The handle has a protective metal butt plate which has a basic attachment to the stick tang. For such a large kukri it is beautifully balanced and handles like a much lighter kukri, it is possible that this kukri was made by one of the Battalion armourers.

O dear...

The fact is I didnt quote the Gurkha museam re. the found Egyption & Gallipoli theartre kukris. I paraphrased it in an accurate manner. ;)

Where as despite you accusing me of bieng missleading, you have blatenly deliberatly missquoted what the Museam Identification card actualy says.

Which Is. {& I quote.}

"This kukri which is believed to have belonged to the 3rd Gurkha rifles was aquired in Egypt c.1917 by a trooper of the Queens Own Oxfordshire Hussars."

{End quote.}

Also The Gallipoli kukri Picked up by a chief pety officer makes no referance "potentialy" or otherwise to any particular Gurkha regiment.

It pointless trying to deal in facts with someone who missrepresents evidence in this manner.

Spiral

Strong language indeed Jonathan, to acuse me of lying, why would I lie about such a thing?
Indeed you are correct about the card on the kukri;
http://www.torabladesforum.co.uk/uploads/4/Aquired.jpg
I confess to getting muddled up between Major Gerald Davies description of the said kukri 'potentialy' and what was said on the card.
You are quite correct, and I never said he did Jonathan, but Major Gerald Davies did so, as infact so did Gavin, it is certainley considered a kukri from 10th GR (from notes taken of when Major Gerald Davies the curator of the Gurkha museum talked to me about the kukri on display).
Strong words again Jonathan, I'll let the what the Officers and men of the Gurkhas have said, speak for themselves, which has proved that Ancestral and Private kukri carried by Rifleman of the Gurkhas to be incorrect.

Play nice, people. There is no place for personal attacks in a civil academic debate. ::dusts off his thread-locking key:: :cool:

Agree
 

I agree, play nice, leave some stuff behind the curtains :o , I'd hate to see such a passionate thread locked and further mysteries never revealed. Lets stick to the facts and let the evidence speak for itself and we can all draw our own conclusions, no one likes having info shoved down their throat :(

There is a lot of good info and debate here that no doubt will cause further research to be conducted and presented, this is a good thing :), (only if the thread stays open) :rolleyes:

However IMHO, with very few things in this world being absolute, especially where human interface is had. Can the initial statement title of this thread be proved beyond reasonable doubt, IMHO not, as there a lot of may, maybe and possibly words used above in response to images, but saying this, there still is a world of scope to be explored so lets keep this open and see what develops :)

My exacting knowledge only runs so deep but the green velvet sheathed example in the pic above looks to me to be a Nepalese presentation Kukri of as high standard and similar to the one I show sold here;
http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/s148_full.html
Not something that would have been worn in the field but something that was found in the field (the auction notion indicated private purchase surely?), again not conclusive without provenance but it offers other suggestions to the notion.

Gav

The write up doesn't in anyway imply private purchase Gav, it implys that it was potentialy a presentation peice by the Royal Court of Nepal to a Diplomat?
It would be nice if the seller actualy said whose Estate it was from, and why they think it was most likely a presentation peice, so that their statement could be verified.
The kukri has classical Nepalese shape, and the writing on the spine is often found on kukri with that shape and style.
Here is a picture from my 2008 visit to Nepal of Prithvi Narayan Shah's kukri, from when the curator of the National Museum in Nepal, Bhess Narayan Dahal took me around, talking me through the kukri there;
http://www.torabladesforum.co.uk/upl...n_Shah_GAK.jpg
Green velvet covered scabbards of the type in the picture from the GM, are most likley to be either to be officers kukri, or kukri for ceromonial wear by the likes of Mess Orderlies.
I think the statement has to be disproved Gav, as it was obviously against regulations to carry non issue kukri, until around the 1950's.
And obviously using photo's as evidence is not the anwser, unless one knows the exact circtumstances behind the photo, and who is what and from where, which battalion they were transfered from etc etc. as I answered to Jonathan's picture in a prev post.

Interesting to start with we have....

Now QGO or Queen's Gurkha Officers were only the following 3 ranks Subedar Major, {Major,}Subedar Captain & Jemadar {Leutenant.}

Yet after I post a picture that features several varient kukri which includes a Gurkha NCO namly a Havildar {Sergeant] He then states.


mmmmm. pause for thought as Haviladars are not QGO and but know Simons state Seargents can carry there own kukri as well. :confused:



The velvet scabbarded kukri is clearly not standard issue, other than that we can only surmise, {Presentation/private purchase or cerimonial seem most likley though assuming the scabbard is original to the kukri of course.} One should also remeber each regiments bandsmen where intitled to wear more exotic kukri though & in front line theartre they would operate as the regiment own strecher bearers. {Separate from either Army Bearer Corps or feild hospital units.} So thats another possibility.{Interestingly the 2nd man from left in the photo I posted seems to most likley be wearing a red cross style armband as used by some strecher bearers, although his kukri matches that of the rifleman next to him.}

I dont know if this helps anyones clarity or just muddys the picture further But Heres two regimental or rather battalion style kukri from WW1 era that would have been actualy purchased & paid for by the troopers of the 2/8 th Gurkha Rifles who carried them. One can see variation between the styles although both were clearly at the very least regiment or battalion approved & marked as such by the regiments armourers.

spiral

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/001-7.jpg


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/0025.jpg



But for all these statements,possiblitys, probabilitys, thoughts & "confusians" in the above posts the real answear of the "official" veiw should at least be obtainable.

It will be in the various regimental & battalion standing orders for these time periods and that at the very least the "Official stance" would be prooven. :eek:

Spiral

Quite correct Jonathan, I profess to using the term QGO loosley;

You do seem to have lost track of the title of the Article and what the article is about, so I will remind you ‘THE MYTH OF GURKHA RIFLEMAN CARRYING PRIVATE’ No where does it say, talk or suggest that we are talking about Lance Naiks, Naiks, Havildars, Subedars and so on, so why you keep bringing them up is beyond me, we are talking about Rifleman!

You seem to have completely forgetten this statement of mine in a previous post, and a long held belief of mine!
'Before we go into the second kukri this is what I had to say in my précis about this period, which is relevant to this section;
There is a picture of British Gurkha Officers, of 1/1st Gurkha Rifles, in discussion with Nepalese Gurkha Officers in France during WWI. From the picture it would appear that the British Officers are not wearing kukri, but that the Nepalese Gurkha Officers are. In foreground, of the picture, one of the Nepalese Gurkha Officers is wearing a kukri on his left hip, which has what appear to be metal rings going around the handle and a metal butt plate, and another Nepalese Gurkha Officer (a bit further into the photo) is wearing a wooden handled kukri, again on his left hip, rather than the regulation carry of rifleman on the centre back, or the right back. In WW1 Nepalese Gurkha Officers including Naiks and Havildars etc. were allowed to carry personnel kukri.'
But once again this is irrelevant to the original article!

When you last presented a picture of a Gurkha bandsman wearing a Kothimora kukri as evidence, those kukri turned out to be bought for the band by their CO for his bandsmen to wear. So they came under Battalion issue kukri, not private purchase, and not entitled as such, but a Privilege on the whim of their CO, to make his band a bit brighter in appearance!!

That’s the trouble with trying to use pictures as evidence Jonathan, it is all supposition, as I said before;
Second picture;
First of all, it does seem strange to me that one would present a picture as evidence, without knowing the circumstances and background behind the picture!!
Before we cover that, it is well known that there were huge supply problems for kukri and equipment in general (ref; 2/10 GR.) during WW1, due to the huge influx of men, which would not have been catered for in the normal run of things. Of course this was the same in WWII, for example the new 8th GR training centre at Quetta, by 1943 suddenly found itself with 6,000 Gurkhas!!
Regarding the problems of obtaining kukri, JP had this to say ‘If Ordnance Branch asked Regimental Depots to help out and held a pool of such to supplement other sources, then yes, If not no’. In other words, other sources were used to obtain what kukri they could get. This of course would lead to variations, but the kukri would still be ‘Sarkari’ issue.
Also one has to take into account that to replace Gurkha casualties in 1914 and 1915, they milked other Gurkha Battalions from India for replacements, therefore Gurkhas from different battalions were often mixed in.
So about this picture you have presented;
1/ The Havildar on the left; is not of rifleman rank, and was entitled to carry his own kukri, if he so wished, this did not appear to be the case By WWII.
2/ The two middle Gurkhas; They may well have been pr-WW1 enlistments, with Battalion regulation or original Sarkari issue kukri, from when they joined.
3/ The Gurkha on the right; He may well have originated from another battalion, so a different style of issue kukri, or it may be a replacement Sarkari sourced issue kukri, but not his own private purchased kukri!

How on earth did you come to the conclusion that they were bought and paid for by Troopers (surely you mean rifleman?) of the 2/8th?
Also if they were privately bought by the Gurkhas, which is completely ignoring what the Gurkha and Gurkha Officers have said previously, the armourer (glad to see you now agree with me about the armourers marking the kukri) would not have stamped the kukri, as they were not issue! Which they obviously were!!
Also the stamp on the bottom one (in the bottom picture) doesn't appear say 2/8th! Picture below;
http://www.torabladesforum.co.uk/uploads/4/8.jpg
http://www.torabladesforum.co.uk/uploads/4/0025.jpg
Also I have one exactly the same as your top one (in your top picture,which I have told you about before), clearly battalion issue Jonathan, picture of Official Armourer stamp on said kukri;
http://torabladesforum.co.uk/uploads..._types_015.jpg

Well you would have thought that Major-General Mike Callan would have known, having also served with the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, and that Lt. Col JP Cross, with his vast experience as both a Gurkha Officer and Gurkha historian would know, wouldn’t you?

I have been enjoying this thread but the posting are getting too big for my monitor so could you make them a little smaller in the future :D please.

Agree
 

No dueling allowed mates . :D

Maybe you should just agree to disagree . :shrug:

Sorry Ted, I'll do my best.

I understand Rick, however I think one has to ask penertrating questions of someone, that has IMHO a highly flawed view of what Gurkha's could or could not carry kukri wise pre-1947, and whose opinions have influenced so many people about kukri.
I would think that it would be very hard indeed to argue against not only Gurkhas, but British Gurkha Officers who were there and done the business. They should know exactly what they are talking about, especially the likes Major General Mike Callan, who not only served with the Gurkhas, but also in the Royal Army Ordnance, etc. and the likes of Lt. Col. JP Cross, renowned Gurkha Officer, and Gurkha author, who is the only non Nepalese to be granted permision to have his own land and property in Nepal, by the Royal Family.
IMHO their view carries far more weight, than someone that has taken articles at face value, like the one by Mr. Hannah’s son of his father’s recollections (Trooper 2884497 William Hannah of the 9th Gordon Highlander’s), and looked at pictures and and comming to conclusions without knowing the circumstances behind those pictures and so on.

Just my two pennies worth Rick, cheers Simon

Understood Simon .

I'd just hate it if ill feelings arose during this discussion .

That's all Mate .

You make me laugh Simon you come out with such a pompos statement yet only A month ago you were claiming the Army Bearer Corps didnt carry kukris! That is Till I prooved you wrong once again. You now say you refer to Corparals & sargents as commisioned Officers{QGO} thats not "loose" its tottaly wrong.

Im done with this Rick, as you basicaly implied its pointlesss.

But just to add to Simons confusion. I always liked this bit published in 1952 in Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxfords Official history of the originaly Assam based 8th Gurkha Rifles. {I Think one battalion went to NWF about 1914 the other to France.}

"The men had to pay for there own kukris,though the leather frogs were an ordanance supply."


Spiral

Where too now???
 

Where to now :shrug:

Anywhere without rancor or ill feelings, Gav .

That was not the original debate Jonathan, it was originally about Gurkha caste being in the ABC, so far all you have done is shown pictures of Sikhs in the ABC carrying kukri? hardly proof of Gurkhas in the ABC for one, and that they (Gurkhas) are carrying Mk1 and Mk2 kukri in the ABC, is it?

"Once people were enlisted, the British seperated Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus. They separated them from each other. I don't know why, but this was British policy."
Sikhs without beards in WW1, which according to you was a no no in WW1;
http://www.harappa.com/mom/gif/sonopat2.jpg

Certainly one battalion went France, the 2/8th were almost wiped out at Loos, of the 500 men in the attack, only 1 BO, 1 GO, and 49 rifleman were left! The 1/8th GR were involved in Mesopotamia campaign at Kut.

A rare book Jonathan, and if that is the quote it is wrong indeed;
1. A question to Lt. Col, JP Cross (noted Gurkha Officer, Gurkha Historian and author) on 3/12/2008; With the issued kukri in WWII, would you say the kukri was produced as weapon first and a utility blade second?
Answer from JP; Weapon every time but also I think you will find that the Tripartite treaty lays it down, or if it doesn't the Maharaja did, that the kukri being a national weapon it HAD to be carried by every soldier. Otherwise the Indian Army then and the British Army later would not have bothered to arrange for their production or issue.
JP also siad in further correspondence, that the quality of the Battalion/Regimental kukri depended what the battalion was prepared to spend on each kukri for issue.
2. They would already have had Battalion issue kukri
3. A quote from You (Jonathan) on 10/11/2008 on IKRHS;
'Its definatly a mk.1 issue kukri blade, is the end of the tang still threaded?
I would say the numbers mean that it belonged to soldier number 108 in the 2nd battalion of the 8th regiment of the Gurkha rifles in WW1. Spiral'
Since when have Gurkhas or any other members of the Indian or British army had to to pay for their own Government Issue kit?
4.The statement not only breaks the agreement with Nepal about the supply and carry of kukri, I can't imagine Gurkhas being suddenley told that they had to pay for their entitled kukri, being to chuffed, especialy after what happened to them at Loos!
5. It fly's in the the face of what every single Gurkha, and serving WW2 Gurkha Officer, and every other book says about kukri and issue, even in the Gurkha Museums own book about the Kukri in WW1!!
6. Below are three issued 8th GR kukri of mine;
WW2 top
2/8 GR WW1 middle (Plus of course the 2/8th GR WW1 Government issue Mk1 picture on IKRHS)
Pr-WW1 bottom
http://www.torabladesforum.co.uk/uploads/4/IMG_2067.jpg

Regarding your quote Jonathan from Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxford, I can't imagine he would spell there instead of their?
Also it is even harder to imagine some 500 odd Gurkhas running around trying to buy kukri (Which we know were in short supply), that would fit ordanance frogs for kukri, which were made to fit and come with a certain type of sarkari issue kukri anyway! So these poor Gurkhas had to go and find kukri from somewhere that fitted these particular frog types, that also complied with regimental/battalion regulations on type of kukri carried? It is a very bizare statement indeed!
Can you imagine British soldiers being given frogs for their bayonets, and being told they have to pay for them (when like the Gurkhas with kukri, it is issued kit, as is the bayonet), and then go and find bayonets that fit with carry regulations, and also fit in the frogs supplied!

The spelling mistake is certanly mine. :rolleyes:

So first you say that Lt.Col.H.J. Huxford OBE Official Regimental history is wrong? Fascinating as he was the regiments Commanding Officer pre.ww2, Shame you besmirch such a Gurkha heros memory in this manner, rather than thinking any one man knows evrything.

Then you seem to accuse me of lying about what Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxford said in print Simon? Is that correct? {Please notice I havent said we only have your apparent memmory of what any gurkha officer may of said, are you sure there was no confusion there on your part?}

He also wrote a good piece about in 1944 them making there own kukris out of scrap.. .I have posted a quote about that for you before a couple of years ago.

Interesting "sikh"post card, please share a larger versian so we can read the regimental belt buckles in case the French postcard maker got the title wrong? ;)


Why you quote Mohammad Hayats 1990 statement about seperating religions in 1941 British army I have no idea? :( Hardly relevant to Army Bearer Corps that was disbanded or rather amalgamated into the Indian Hospital Corps on 01 June 1920.

For the good members of this forum I should point out this discusian followed Simon saying this kukri on ebay ," seems to have Armourey Markings on it that don't seem quite right."
http://www.kipinga.com/f39.jpg


I then pointed out on IKRHS that I have similar marked kukris collected many years ago & it now appears so do quite a few others, The markings are genuine.


Heres a few photos of this piece. The Quetta arsenal stamp appears to be rare as its the only one to date Ive come across. {For whats that's worth as Ive only had 15 to 20 mk.1s in my hands & seen maybee another c.60 or more in photos & many thousands were obviously originaly made.}
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/0042-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/0062-2.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/009-9.jpg



This upset Simon enough that he came out with this on his forum.


I have to question why a member of the 3rd company (10 in all, some were based in Quetta) Indian Army Bearer corps would be carrying a kukri? and why a *different scabbard to the original? Who were mainly made up of Kahars (loosley 'a bearer') and Dooley (a bit like a Palanquin, but not as good) bearers, they would have to be very low caste Nepalese to be working in that corp, at that time, certainley not Gurkha caste!!
So no reason to issue kukri, which was only done to rifleman upwards in appropriate fighting regiments anyway.


Some Simon allegse that the Army Bearer corps were all low caste coolies etc so therfore could not. be of Gurkha ancestry.

To that I say you should also read this as well...


"and Indians in South Africa, under
the leadership of Mr. M. K. Gandhi, Barrister
at Law, organised themselves into an Army
Bearer Corps. It was touching that men of
high caste and station in life should brush
aside their pride of race and standing, and
work in the humble capacity of coolies. But
as more than one Indian who was thus em-
ployed has said to me, they cheerfully carried
the wounded British soldiers from the field to
the hospitals as their contribution towards
Britain's success."

From SAINT NIHAL SINGH Author of "India's Fighting Troops," 1914 marston press.

& some photos of ABC kukris & Men.

Ive got the names & army records of over 1500 ABC ww1 personal, the were all creeds,colours ,religeons & castes. Some were of Gurkha ancestry. {Over 1000 of them cam from the War Graves Commisions records.].

Also Brave Nepali men who served & survivd like.

Jagan Nath
Corps: Army Bearer Corps
Regiment No: 44342
Rank: Bearer

Kanshi Ram
Corps: Army Bearer Corps
Regiment No: 3532
Rank: Bearer

Harak Bahadur
Corps: 2nd Army Bearer Corps
Regiment No: 224613
Rank: Bearer


etc. etc. These names clearly show descent from the Gurkha/Gorka castes.



& as Dr. Premsingh Basnyat (Ph.D) states on his website when talking about the jobs of Nepalese army units on loan to the British Indian army.


"The impending tasks given to the Nepalese army were :-
Stretcher Bearer,Military Police,Sentry Duty,Artillery crew."

Which means even the Gurka solders from the Nepalese army Battalions KALIBOX, PURANO GORAKH, DEVI DUTTA, KALI BAHADUR, BARDA BAHADUR, SUMSER DAL, JABAR JUNG, PASUPATI PRASAD, RAMDAL, SHER, SINMHANATH, MAHENDRADAL, NAYAN GORAKH, SABUJ AND BARAKH were not above the task of bieng strecher bearers. I figure its safe to say they were of Gurkha ancestry as after all they were in the Royal Nepal Army!

Not to mention

ABC is the official identifying abbreviation & marking code of the Indian Army Bearer Corps.This code is used on Army Documents,medals & issued equipment.




Heres a partial list. from "The Collector and Researcher's Guide to the Great War" by Howard Williamson.{courtesy of National Archives.}


A & N.Z. SIG. SQUN. AIF Australia & New Zealand Signal Squadron AIF AUS
A. CYC. CORPS Army Cyclist Corps G.B.
A. CYCLIST CORPS Army Cyclist Corps G.B.
A. EMP. COY. A.I.F. Army Employment Company AUS
A. GYM. ST. Army Gymnastic Staff G.B.
A. MULE DEPOT. Army Mule Department I
A. PROV. C.A.I.F. Army Provost Corps AIF AUS
A. & S. HIGHRS. Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders G.B.
A. & S.H. Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders G.B.
A.A.H.A.I.F. Australian Auxiliary Hospital AIF AUS
A.A.N.S. Army Auxiliary Nursing Service G.B.
A.A.N.S. Australian Army Nursing Service AUS
A.B. CPS. Army Bearer Corps I
A.B.C. Army Bearer Corps I

Heres the ABC uniform of WW1.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/abc1.jpg
& a bearer wearing it.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/abc.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/010-9.jpg
Close ups might help?
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/011-7.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/012-7.jpg

As a

point of information for those who may not realise, The Army Bearer Corps uniform including the turban was worn by all denominations,castes & religions by WW1. It was the standard uniform. It doesnt mean there Sikh, Some are without doubt but in truth & record they were mostly Muslim & Hindu with Sikhs & converted Christians in the Minority. { Curiosly most of the converted Christians were just recorded under the single name of Joseph}At one time even one of the Gurkha regiments wore turbans for a short few year period. As apparently some accuse me of desperatly scraping the barrel
on this subject perhaps I should share a little more? , to re educate you again? Heres some pictures Ive had since I first researched the ABC kukri so many years ago... Heres A mk.2 Cossipore made kukri dated 1917 & marked to an ABC unit That I picked up even before my Mk1 ABC marked kukri, alongside the ABC marked 1. {via Fort William & Queeta.}


http://www.ikrhs.com/forums/download/file.php?id=412
http://www.ikrhs.com/forums/download/file.php?id=413
http://www.ikrhs.com/forums/download/file.php?id=414
Heres a posed photo commercialy Published in Marseile 1915. sometimes misstranslated as French Hindoos actualy it translates as Hindoos in France.


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...kukrichaps.jpg


I know this because I bought this photo 8 years ago when first reasearching into the Army Bearer Corps & It features the same chap. With the same background.


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/0062-5.jpg
There belt buckles even say Army Bearer Corps!


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/017-2.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/022-1.jpg

Threads & quotes relevent to this post.

http://torabladesforum.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=900

http://www.ikrhs.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=617



Rick,Gav,Tim etc. I have confidence in your abilitys to eventualy get to the truth amongst the smoke & mirrors.

Ive waisted one hour of my life putting this post together today.
His point is not proven.

Have fun chaps!

Spiral

Heres Andy Taylors kukri obtained from his long time friend Peter Prentice MBE ex Gurkha rifles officer & his statement about it.

This is Peter's khukri that he carried with him during his time in the Ghurka Rifles. As I mentioned officers weren't issued with khukris but his men presented him with this to use in the field. It was used through the whole time he spent in French Indo China. The jungle warfare scenario would have contributed to its condition. The hilt cracked and he said one of his men effected a battlefield repair with some wire. The hilt also has a chunk out of the end and the aluminium butt plate is loose. There is only one chakma and this has a square edge for honing. You will also notice that the surface is rough and this was used with a flint to make fire. Peter said the flint was kept in the leather pouch, which you will notice that the stitching has rotted. The small pointy stick was a puzzle and I assumed it was for making shavings to start a fire. Peter told me it was his tooth pick and tooth brush. He said the wooden and bristle army issue toothbrushes rotted quickly in the damp atmosphere and if a bit of stick was good enough for the men of Nepal for God knows how long it worked for him!

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...ticeKukri1.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...ticeKukri2.jpg

Its clearly a ww2 era villiger piece from Nepal or heavily Nepali influnced & garrisoned areas {such as Darjeeling perhaps}, & interesting that the riflemenmen gave their esteemed officer such a clearly private purchase village kukri & that they had it ready to hand when official issue kukris would have been so easily obtainable from army stores? & they {the gurkha ranks.] clearly thought such a piece made a more valid piece to present to an Officer for field carry.they clearly valued such a fast & balenced native piece more highly than the officail pattern issue mk.w2 or mk.3 at the time.

But one can make thier own deductions, from thios I am sure.

Interestingly many people dont realise the British army & Gurkha regiments used many captured Japanese prisoners of war {including officers.}, by rearming them in 45,46,to help quell the native desire for independance in areas like malaya & vietnam etc. in that difficult period. That always seemed so cynical & incorrect to me to use such people, given the circumstances, but I guess goverments always do what they will to control the masses. :shrug:

spiral

Jonathan, this thread has become so diverse with your introduction of old debates from other forums, that I have re-started on a new thread, so people will find it easier to follow.

If you want to start a new thread about Gurkhas in the ABC walking around with Mk1 and Mk2 kukri that is fine by me, if you also want to start another new thread about so called double inspection marks on the Mk1 kukri that is also fine with me as well.

In the meantime an answer to my question posed to you on this thread would be excellent;
Part two

Dont run away simon, Please answear the points raised on this thread, I am sure that will hope peoples clarity no end, i have confidence in the abilitys of the forumites here to gain the perception of how reliable or not, what each of us say is on these given points are,re. private purchase & the ABC questian that is still current & illustrates quite a lot about both are attitudes & usde of evidence I think?

As does Peter Prentices kukri.

Thread divergence is quite usual on this forum. ;)

Please continue.

Spiral