[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It seems that we have been scurrying down the wrong path here concerning the notion of 'hiding' the bagh nagh. In rereading the post by Jens, I clearly misunderstood that what he actually said was that this weapon was 'hidden in the hand'......meaning the 'claws' were enclosed in the closed hand and projecting between the fingers.
It would seem that was indeed how the weapon was used, and has nothing to do with whether it was concealed prior to its actual use.
I just wanted to clarify that aspect of the discussion at this point.

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

The bagh nakh is 'tiger claws' hidden in the hand, so the later ones shown, with a dagger at each end, is more than doubtful to be a bagh nakh, as it can hardly be hidden the way it should be.

Originally Posted by ariel

I am jumping in when all the relevant things were already said. Thus, just my personal opinion. This cannot be a Bagh Nagh, because it is not hidden.

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Gentlemen, I know little of these weapons, but as a bagh nakh is a concealed weapon, I do not think we can call the weapon in question by this name,

Jim, I think these quotes clearly show that there is a perception that the bagh nakh is a "hidden/concealed" weapon, as I stated this is in my opinion primarily due to the most well known and publicized use of the bagh nakh, which was in the killing of Afzal Khan in 1659 by Shivaji. There are many detailed 1800s essays on this event (all of which stress the "hidden/concealed nature of the bagh nagh used by Shivaji) and it was a very important point in Maratha history and National identity as well as the beginning of the Mughal decline.

Unfortunately there have not been a lot of images available online and/or research that is readily available on bagh nagh and other small Indian hand weapons, so how these weapons were used, when they were developed and who used them has been obscured by time.

Some detailed images of the claws.