THE MYTH OF GURKHA RIFLEMAN CARRYING PRIVATE

[sirupate]

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

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

Yet after I post a picture that features several varient kukri which includes a Gurkha NCO namly a Havildar {Sergeant] He then states; ‘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’ mmmmm. pause for thought as Haviladars are not QGO and but know Simons state Seargents can carry there own kukri as well.

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!

but know Simons state Seargents can carry there own kukri as well.

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!

Jonathan; One should also remeber each regiments bandsmen where intitled to wear more exotic kukri though

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!!

Jonathan; .{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.}

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!

Jonathan; 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.

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;


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;

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.

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?

[Tim Simmons]

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 please.

[Rick]

No dueling allowed mates .

Maybe you should just agree to disagree .

[sirupate]

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

[Rick]

Understood Simon .

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

That's all Mate .

[spiral]

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

[Gavin Nugent]

Where to now

[sirupate]

Jonathan; only A month ago you were claiming the Army Bearer Corps didnt carry kukris! That is Till I prooved you wrong once again.

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;

Jonathan; I Think one battalion went to NWF about 1914 the other to France.

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.

Jonathan; Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxfords Official history of the originaly Assam based 8th Gurkha Rifles. "The men had to pay for there own kukris,though the leather frogs were an ordanance supply."

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

[tom hyle]

Well, I will read this whole thread, but my initial thought is that what official sources or leaders say about what soldiers actually do in any army in any time is close to useless/meaningless information Do you know soldiers? Their slaviness is over-rated. If their leaders are competent their interest in their soldiers' slaviness and standardization are more for outer show and inner unity and efficiency than for interfering with what works.
In other words, what would you expect the officials to say? The official line.