1892.] H. Gr. Raverty— The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. 161 
some persons what might be the reason of the deviation of the army of 
Islam towards the skirts of the hills, because that was a longer route, 
while that by Sarasti and Marut was nearer. They replied, that, on 
account of the number of islands on the banks of the river, 17 there might 
not be a road for the army of Islam. Mangutah remarked : “ This is a 
vast army : we have not the power to resist it: it is necessary to retire 
and fear overcame him and his army, lest, if they remained longer, 
their line of retreat should be cut off. 13 Their army was formed into 
three divisions, and routed, they fled, and numerous captives, both 
Musalman and Hindu, obtained their liberty.” 
Before I proceed to adduce my authorities and information on this 
subject, I had better refer, as briefly as possible, to an article which 
appeared in a late number of the Calcutta Review , entitled “ The Lost 
River of the Indian Desert.” 19 
The writer of the article in question, in support of his arguments 
respecting the period at which he supposes the Hakra to have disap¬ 
peared, or, more correctly, the period at which its waters ceased to flow, 
quotes the “ Tabakat-i-hTasiri ” as his authority, from a 'portion only of 
that work contained in Elliot’s “ Indian Historians,” Vol. II, p. 363, 
which was translated by the late Mr. J. Dowson, Hindustani Professor 
1 7 To this the following note was appended. “ Long, narrow banks of sand, 
probably extending, in places, for several miles, and sometimes, of some height, are 
doubtless meant here, such as are found after the annual inundations, with water, 
sometimes of considerable depths between ; and to the effects of the past inundation, 
the people no doubt referred. These would have caused great obstruction, and 
have taken much time to cross, as well as have entailed great trouble, therefore, the 
forces of Dihli kept farther north, and made their march a flank movement at the 
same time, which may have been the original intention. In what direction they 
went may be seen farther on.” Here it has been already related. 
18 I wish this last expression to be particularly noticed. See also, and compare, 
this passage with that in Elliot’s Historians, Yol. II, pp. 363-64. 
19 I may mention that part of the present paper was originally intended as a 
note to the investment of U'chchh in my “Translation” [See page 1155], but, on 
after consideration, on account of its length, I thought it would be more advisable 
to publish it as a separate article in the “ Journal,” after completing the Tabakat-i- 
Nasiri. I unfortunately mislaid the rough draft, which our lamented friend, Mr. 
Arthur Grote, saw and read over; and lie agreed with me, that it was better adapted 
for publication in a separate form. In March 1887 I found the MS. quite unex¬ 
pectedly, among some maps, after I had given up all hope of seeing it again, as I 
feared I had burnt it, by mistake, along with some old proofs of the “ Translation.” 
The appearance of another article on the same subject, by Mr. R. D. Oldham, in the 
Society’s “ Journal,” No. IY of 1886, determined me no longer to delay its pub¬ 
lication. What I have here stated will explain my reference to “ a late number of 
the Calcutta j Review.” 
