It is unlikely to be Kirach: those are single edged and usually ( here I am cautious) have a sharp point.
Firangi by definition use European blades , but there is too much rust to see any markings.
Thus, I am torn between Khanda and Tulwar.
However, here we get bogged in the linguistics. There are far too many languages in India and different ethnicities called the same things differently.
In a way, it is like asking what is a correct name for “ a sword from Europe” , a place roughly comparable in size to India, but infinitely poorer in the number of languages used. Sword? Schwert?Spada? Kard? Espada? Epee?
In the new Elgood’s book he shows blades he calls Khanda, but whose appearance is totally different from the “classic” khanda blades as per Rawson or Egerton. And, by the way, locally produced “ Firangi”-type swords were called Dhup and Asa Shamshir depending on their locality.
I would clean yours, hugged it and kissed it, and I would call it Khanda. If I am wrong, it would take it no more than couple centuries to accustom itself to a new moniker:-)
The curved pommel projection is ( also per Elgood) compatible with 17th century.
Hope it cleans well. I love those old and unpretentious things that saw a lot of battlefields but nary a single palace wall.
|