The second image is a little more mystical, in that for years we have been told of it’s existence, and that it quite clearly shows a kurki with rings on the grip, but it has never actually been posted in support of the “For” argument.
Until recently however, when it was shown in two images. One was too far away to be seen clearly, and the other was a close up, but which, for some inexplicable reason, had a rather immaculately coiffered man’s finger held over the exact spot where a hilt may have been discerned.
The image in question depicts of Rifleman Pun, 1/4th Gurkha Rifles, taken in Burma in 1944.
Luckily, and unlike the previous images published by the author in question, I have been given official access to the image in question by the Gurkha Museum, Winchester, in order to examine it more closely.
I informed them, on my latest visit, of the online debate which their image had caused. They were more than a little perplexed when I explained that they had been quoted as confirming the kukri had rings, and rather infuriated that their images had been published online without their express permission.
I wish to thank the Gurkha Museum for allowing me to take clear, and unobscured photographs of this image, and to further express my gratitude to them for granting me express permission to publish those images in this article*.
(*I would kindly request that these images not be copied and used elsewhere, as the image belongs to, and is the sole copyright of, the Gurkha Museum, Winchester, Hampshire.)
Below are the images in question, and as can quite clearly be seen, the hilt of the kukri, where these rings are to be found, this “lynchpin of evidence” cannot actually be seen in the photograph. It is obscured behind the shadow cast by Rifleman Pun’s right elbow.
|