Regarding the Matt Easton 'hypothesis'....I watched the very informative video, and Mr. Easton presents a most well reasoned analysis of the techniques used with the tulwar, but I must have missed the 'theory' part.
On the beautiful hilts Jens has shared from Hendley, I am noticing the distinct black background which showcases the gold koftgari, and am wondering if perhaps this style might have had anything to do with the 'shakudo' style of Japan. In the 18th century this fashion was transmitted to European smallswords etc via the East India factories there and in China etc.
It seems I have seen more detailed reference to this style decoration but cannot recall where at the moment. The color plates here are fantastic, especially as they show the key importance of the pommel discs and their inside decoration. Here we see the radiating sunburst, which in varying degree may represent one of the major Rajput clans.
The study of these kinds of symbolism, cosmological as well as floral are significant and intriguing subjects concerning Indian arms.
As Jens has noted, the subject of the 'hooked' finger around the quillon has been debated for a very long time, as also well noted by one of our extremely brilliant former members, B.I. , as I reviewed of one of our discussions on this from 2005.
There have been constant references to the physical size of the Indian individual thus the smaller hands result in the smaller grip size in tulwars hilt. In "By My Sword & Shield" (E. Jaiwent Paul, p.76) the author notes the physical size of Indian people is smaller, but further suggests that the small hilt was to cause a tighter fit for the hand, and that this emphasizes what he terms a sense of 'josh', which apparently loosely translates into a state of aggression, fervor and 'recklessness' in the wielder. Obviously a very subjective and provocative view, but worthy of note in discussion.
Though it is hard to imagine that the hilts of an entire weapon form could be fashioned around such a concept seems far fetched, however the idea of the physical size of the potential users of the sword seems more ascribed to in fact.
In "Swords of the British Army" (Brian Robson, 1975, p.57) in his description of the M1908 cavalry sword, notes , "...a modified version of the 1908 pattern was adopted by the Indian Army in 1918 the blade of which was identical but marked I.P.'08. The hilt generally was much smaller, to match the smaller hand of the Indian trooper".
Returning to the subject of the 'Indian ricasso', the unsharpened section of the blade near the hilt, Philip Rawson (The Indian Sword, 1967) suggests the reason may have been to safeguard the index finger, which ' ...art shows to have sometimes been hooked over the front quillon in India'.
Rawson apparently has this from Mr. B.W. Robinson of the V&A as he has noted in footnotes, however no mention is made of exactly what 'ART' is referred to.
In "Indian Arms and Armour" (G.N.Pant, Lahore, 1980, p.31), the author takes to task many of Rawson's observations and comments, however he seems very much in support of the purpose of the ricasso on Indian blades, and claims that this '..saves the fingers from being cut at the time of wielding", with the impression he is referring to 'accidental' slip of finger(s) over quillon.
I am wondering if the curious reference to 'art' in Mr. Rawson's reference to the finger hooked over the quillon may have been mind of an article by the late Anthony North ("A Late 15th Century Italian Sword", 'The Connoisseur', Dec. 1975, p.239). In his discussion the author notes "..placing the index finger around the base of the blade", a technique shown in Spanish and Italian paintings. His reference was footnoted as from Charles Buttin (1939).
Mr. Rawson was working with the V&A in cataloguing their Indian arms as he wrote his book, and Anthony North was of course with the V&A as well.
Is it possible that the hooked finger 'as seen in art' might have been misconstrued into India from the reference to Spanish and Italian practice?
It is of course noted, and as Jens has pointed out, that in these cases there was indeed a ring guard to protect the finger, thus one of the elements in the developing complex guards on these swords.
While it is well known that colonial activity and trade brought in European weapons, fashion and many other things but though it does not seem that swordsmanship techniques were among them. Still, the styling of arms and of course blades etc. were impacted greatly.
So whether the idea of hooking the forefinger around the quillon might have been from small size of the Indian hand, or if it was perhaps an element of technique taken from European swordsmanship, remains a quandary .
I think here it is important to consider more on the manner in which a tulwar was wielded. As shown in the Easton video, it was a sabre very much intended for the draw cut, thus not held nor used in the manner of European or other sabres. The large pommel disc precluded this type of flexibility.
As such, it was also not intended for sword to sword combat, as the draw cut is a sweeping movement and any sort of parry was for the shield.
The reason for the protective ring on European swords for the extended index finger was of course to guard from cuts resulting in blade to blade contact . The purpose of the finger extension on the European swords if I understand correctly was for better control in certain movements.
It seems I have seen it suggested that such a finger position would also add to control in certain cases with the tulwar, but uncertain if that would pertain to the drawcut.
Whatever the case, as ominous as it seems to have a finger 'outside' the guard, it does not seem that the type combat would expose it to danger.
(I still wouldn't advise it
Nothing conclusive of course, but I wanted to share some of the details of earlier debates and discussions with newer members and readers for them to pursue their own perspectives.