Thanks so much guys for the added input which include some outstanding observations!
Emanuel I appreciate your notes on the tulwars you have and agree that the Indians did not need to modify the tulwar to adjust to certain preferences in using it, and that there were probably considerable numbers without the ricasso. As rick has noted, the Persian shamshir blades were without ricasso, and obviously with Mughal courts highly influenced by Persia, of course these blades would have been mounted in tulwars.
Kai, thank you for the observation on the flower on the blade being quite possibly a lotus seedpot, and for including the botanical reference. The lotus would of course be very logical in representation here. I had thought there were too many petals for a lotus, and your observation would resolve that.
Ariel, you have added an extremely valid purpose for the ricasso that I had honestly not thought of, adding strength to the root of the blade. Your comment on the purpose of the guard to separate the hand from the blade is of course clear and well established as several others have noted. This is one of the reasons that make the extended and wrapped forefinger so questionable, but all possibilities must be considered.
It does seem that it was commonly accepted that the hands of Indian warriors were indeed smaller and that the hilts were made to more firmly accommodate them, as evidenced by the size of hilts of other Indian sword forms as well. As Katana has very well pointed out, and I believe the reference he cites is from Robson ("British Military Swords") where it is noted that swords made for Indian troopers were made with smaller hilts. It is important to note as Katana has, that there is no evidence of that particular action being based on any actual study, but probably a simple assumption.
The reference that Fernando included suggesting that weapons in armouries were often kept disassembled is most interesting, and I am glad that he noted the source as Mr. Daehnhardt's book. The author is indeed a highly respected authority on arms and armour and I would consider references found in his work quite valid. Just as most references however,it must be remembered that often new evidence is presented that could requalify material in most any resource.
Thanks for patching up the slight derailment there guys!
All very best regards,
Jim