Pre WWI Photo of a Bombay Policeman

[Brian Wolfe]

Hello Everyone,

Meryvn's Indian Policeman's Uniform post started me searching for this photo that I've had for a while. It is of a Police Officer from Bombay, India. While there is no date on this picture postcard I've seen another that did have the date printed on the front as "c. 1910". The officer wears his number, "188", on his unifrom as well as on the belt buckle except the "188" on the buckle is under the letter "A". Would anyone know what this "A" stands for? Perhaps his detachment, or station house?

He is armed with a truncheon, though this one is not as nice as those Mervyn has been posting lately. But I'll bet it would deliver quite the headache all the same.

Regards

Brian

[Mervyn Mitton]

Brian - Hi ! I bet Leigh 'slaps' you for not putting this very interesting picture on the new forum !! People tend to take photos of officers and not the men - so, in my book this is rare and informative. Any more ?

[Brian Wolfe]

Hi Mervyn,

I must admit to being a bit confused as to which area some of the items should now be posted. I posted this on the British and Commonwealth Police Forces section as India was under British rule at the time of the photo. I also noticed that some of the older Indian Police medal groups are also in the section for world police services.

I am thinking that my Special Constabulary Long Service Medals should be under British and Commonwealth as would any Canadian items I have as Canada is a part of the Commonwealth of Nations. South Africa and India are also members of the 53 nation Commonwealth organization.

Are we now going to post ONLY British items under the original thread? If so then I would respectfully suggest the Titles be changed to, "British Police Forces" and "World Police Forces", leaving the term "Commonwealth" out. Personaly I like the "British & COmmonwealth Police Forces" title as we (Canada and South Africa) are part of the Commonwealth of Nations. I hope that is not too political for the forum, as it was not meant to be so.

Any direction regarding where to post "Commonwealth" items would be welcomed.

Regards

Brian

[James Hoard]

Hi Mervyn,

I must admit to being a bit confused as to which area some of the items should now be posted. I posted this on the British and Commonwealth Police Forces section as India was under British rule at the time of the photo. I also noticed that some of the older Indian Police medal groups are also in the section for world police services.

I am thinking that my Special Constabulary Long Service Medals should be under British and Commonwealth as would any Canadian items I have as Canada is a part of the Commonwealth of Nations. South Africa and India are also members of the 53 nation Commonwealth organization.

Are we now going to post ONLY British items under the original thread? If so then I would respectfully suggest the Titles be changed to, "British Police Forces" and "World Police Forces", leaving the term "Commonwealth" out. Personaly I like the "British & COmmonwealth Police Forces" title as we (Canada and South Africa) are part of the Commonwealth of Nations. I hope that is not too political for the forum, as it was not meant to be so.

Any direction regarding where to post "Commonwealth" items would be welcomed.

Regards

Brian

Hi Brian,

As far as I am aware, the modern Commonwealth of Nations would not even exist without India taking a very active part in the decisions of 1947-1949. So it is a little difficult to see exactly who would possibly object to India being in the Commonwealth section. Certainly not any citizen of India that I know.

Cheers

James

[Mervyn Mitton]

Glad I'm not the Chairman ! I think it is his decision, but in my mind , I will post anything in the British Isles under British police and everything else under Worldwide. I think it's great how members are responding and we certainly want more from other Countries to truly represent World policing.

Ed - I hope we don't have to have 'pistols at dawn' ???

[Brian Wolfe]

I don't and won't post Indian material under "British". (Nor do I tend to read that section or reply to posts there. My historical view doesn't "fit") Others can make their decisions as they will.

To say more would get political.

I know it's hard to avoid getting political when it comes to many topics here at the GMIC and I would rather see the content stay with collecting and the research of history. My concern is for the ease of that research. It seems to me it would be a good idea to attempt to keep all posts regarding, say, India, under one title so that one is not forced to search each section for material. If we are putting everything Indian under the police forces of the world then that's good by me. I would just like to see continuity in what we are posting. I just brought up that India, like Canada and others, are indeed members of the Commonwealth of Nations as that seems to be one of the choices. Perhaps I am just being anal in wanting to post my material under the proper heading.

Regards

Brian

[James Hoard]

Bombay City Police from a period just slightly earlier period than the picture posted above. This one of ordinary constable.

Sorry about the scan quality.

Cheers

James

[James Hoard]

Bombay City Police from the same period as my previous post. This one of armed constable.

Again, sorry about the scan quality.

Cheers

James

[Mervyn Mitton]

All three of these pictures have interesting features. With the first two, the truncheon is suspended by a leather holder - the early Br.Police used to carry the truncheon outside of the uniform, in a leather holster.

The rifle looks like either a Lee Enfield or, the earlier Lee Metford - both of which would be logical in India. However, the bayonet looks like it has a ring mounting ? Perhaps a firearms expert could give an opinion?

[Brian Wolfe]

All three of these pictures have interesting features. With the first two, the truncheon is suspended by a leather holder - the early Br.Police used to carry the truncheon outside of the uniform, in a leather holster.

The rifle looks like either a Lee Enfield or, the earlier Lee Metford - both of which would be logical in India. However, the bayonet looks like it has a ring mounting ? Perhaps a firearms expert could give an opinion?

Hi Mervyn,

I was just looking through some older posts and noticed the photo of the Indian Police Office with a rifle. I do believe it to be the Martini-Henry. Note the loading lever along the rifle's butt. The Lee-Metford was a lot like the later Lee-Enfield in looks. I can't tell the actual "mark" but I'm pretty sure it is the Martini-Henry. If this were a photo of a soldier in the British Army then I would date it as before 1888 as the Martini-Henry was replaced by the Lee-Metford in 1888. However, the Martini-Henry may have continued in use in India well after that date. Perhaps breathing "life" into this post will bring out some more comments regarding this.

Oh yes, the bayonet is not for the Lee-Metford but would be the type found with the Martini-Henry. It looks a lot like the socket bayonets found on older "muskets".

Regards

Brian

Edited August 18, 2009 by Brian Wolfe

[Mervyn Mitton]

Hi Brian. What a good idea to give this thread another chance - there was a lot of good info. and the uniforms most interesting. Looking closely at the points you mention, I have to agree that it is probably a Martini Henry (but, could it possibly be a muzzle loading Enfield ?) -unfortunately it doesn't give an accurate date as they continued in use for quite a long period. The Boers between 1899 and 1902 probably had more in use then they had Mausers.

I was looking again at the truncheon suspenders - with them in both photos they obviously were a standard pattern. I will show the English version, although it is fully enclosed. Let's hope others will now be able to add.

[Brian Wolfe]

Hi Mervyn,

I do think it is a Martini-Henry looking at the the ejection lever and the area on the top of the breech where the bullet was manually inserted into the weapon. I've owned two Martini-Henrys when I used to collect firearms, one looked like the one in the photo and the other was a .303 cal carbine. I've included a photo of this area to show what I am talking about. The one in my photo has a shorter lever, mine had the same length lever as in the photo of the police officer.

A local fellow was getting out of medals and into firearms as I was doing the opposite so there was a flurry of trading for a while. Now I own no firearms...I do miss them from time to time.

Regards

Brian

Edited August 18, 2009 by Brian Wolfe

[Mervyn Mitton]

You're right - of course ! I really only 'threw' the Enfield bit in to see what others would say...

When it had the short ejector lever, wasn't that for the Carbine ?

[Brian Wolfe]

You're right - of course ! I really only 'threw' the Enfield bit in to see what others would say...

When it had the short ejector lever, wasn't that for the Carbine ?

So you threw Enfield in to see who would "bite" and of course it would have to be me. Good one all the same, Mervyn.

Correct. the short ejector is on the carbine.

Regards

Brian

[Mervyn Mitton]

Sorry , Brian - I wasn't trying to 'trick' you - I realised at once that you also wanted others to write. There is just so much knowledge within the membership, but, people seem nervous to post ''in case they have it wrong'' - or, their English is not perfect , my German and French will be much worse ! So what if they aren't always correct - we can all add constructive comment - I'm always pleased if I make a mistake and someone points it out - I certainly don't get upset - we can't know everything. ( Just try to give the impression we do......)

[Brian Wolfe]

Sorry , Brian - I wasn't trying to 'trick' you - I realised at once that you also wanted others to write. There is just so much knowledge within the membership, but, people seem nervous to post ''in case they have it wrong'' - or, their English is not perfect , my German and French will be much worse ! So what if they aren't always correct - we can all add constructive comment - I'm always pleased if I make a mistake and someone points it out - I certainly don't get upset - we can't know everything. ( Just try to give the impression we do......)

No Problem. My wife and kids are all fairly well versed in history and like to "hook" me when they can. For example when we are all together one mught use, "Just like in the Boer War of 1914-18", as an example of the point they are trying to make. The bait has been tossed and now they wait...little beads of sweat are starting to break out on my forehaed as I try not to fall into their trap. But I can only stand it for so long and then I will correct them as to the date. Of course they all knew the date and we just messing with the old guy's mind. They are a sick and evil bunch but what can you do?

Actually I just posted my Bahawalpur collection and some errors were pointed out by a fellow member. This is like being paid to post as where else can you improve your knowledge, display and notes simply by showing off your collection.

Keep up the trickery Mervyn...say, you'd fit in quite well at our place as you seem to have an sick evil streak of your own. Oh yes, you were a police officer, that explains everything.

Cheers

Brian