Again, the terminologies in Indian swords are probably even more complex and convoluted than even most other ethnographic weapon forms, where in some cases it has been suggested that with many archipelago types a term can vary from village to village (obviously a bit exaggerated).
In Rawson, "The Indian Sword" (1969, p.90, n.89, p.46) "..."Kirach" is a common Hindustani term for a sword, but here it is taken to refer only to one with a blade which, being mainly straight, is slightly curved forward at the tip like a scythe blade. It is a Deccan weapon".
Elgood ("Hindu Arms & Ritual", 2004. p.252) notes that a Kirach in the Deccan the kirach "may have a slight forward inclination at the tip of the blade". It is defined as a heavy, straight thrusting sword.
On the same page, referring to the 'sukhela' (or dhup, or Hindu basket hilt or whatever), "...if, as often is the case, the blade is of foreign, that is European, origin, the sword is often referred to as 'phirangi' which means 'stranger'". However this apparent variation of the Hindu basket hilt seems to have a blade longer than usual so not exactly the same as the khanda or firangi. The sukhela/dhup is not clearly illustrated nor explained in either of these, but makes the point of the terminology dilemma.
From the examples of kirach I have seen, as Rick has noted, the blade seems 'forward' , that is, edge on the inside. But these kinds of blades, as recurved forms (and scythes as noted in description) are hacking type blades, not for thrusting.
To say study of Indian arms is challenging is an understatement.
