162 
H. G. Raverty —The Mihran of Sind and its Tributaries. [No. 3, 
at the Staff College, previously alluded to, from the incorrect Persian 
text of the original published at Calcutta; but, from that translated 
portion contained in Elliot’s work, the detailed account of the invest¬ 
ment of ITchchli is omitted altogether. Thus it will be seen, that the 
observations contained in the Calcutta Review article, are based entirely 
upon this single extract in Elliot’s “ Historians.” 20 The writer, con¬ 
sequently, has been partly misled by the rendering of an incorrect 
passage in the Calcutta printed text, as stated in a note to my “ Transla¬ 
tion,” and partly by his own errors in reading “ drough t ” where “ fissures ” 
are mentioned in Elliot, and in losing sight occasionally of the old course 
of the Biah, or “ Bias ” previous to its junction with the Sutlaj, when 
both rivers lost their names and became the Hariari, Nili or Gharah. 
The passage quoted from Elliot occurs in the account of the Ulu gh 
Khan-i-A’zam, under the events of the year 643 H., and is as follows. 
“ In this year the accursed Mankuti (Mangu Khan) 21 marched from the 
neighbourhood of Talikan and Kunduz into Sindh. * * * The Dilili 
army arrived on the banks of the Biyah, made the transit of the river, 
and reached Labor on the banks of the Ravi. * * * Trusty men record 
that when Mankuti heard of the approach of the army of Islam, under 
the royal standard, that it proceeded by the river Biyah, near the skirts 
of the hills, and that it was advancing along the banks of the river, he 
20 My translation of this particular portion of it, perhaps, had not reached India 
at the time. 
21 The late Mr. J. Dowson, the Editor of Elliot’s “ Historians of India,” and 
translator of some, and reviser of all the extracts from the Tabakat-i-Nasiri contained 
in that work, turned the old, one-eyed leader of the time of the Chingiz Khan into 
Mangu Khan, his grandson, and called him Mankuti instead of Mangutah. The 
Great Ka’an, Mangu, was the son of the Chingiz Khan’s youngest son, and did not 
succeed to the sovereignty until five years after this investment of l/chchh, which 
happened during the reign of Kayuk, and, moreover, he was never near the Indus in 
his life, nor within hundreds of miles of it. See “ Tabakat,” Translation, note to 
page 1180. Blochmann, in his printed text of the A’in-i-Akbari, where this invest¬ 
ment is briefly referred to, has the shoulder of the vfJ being left ont, made 
that letter ‘ l ’ instead of ‘ g,’ and the letter 3—‘ t * —has been turned upside-down and 
made 2 —‘ y .’ These are probably printer’s errors, because in the MSS. of the work 
the name is correctly written. The author of the “ Notes on the Lost River,” pre¬ 
sently to be noticed, also has “Mangu Khan,” but “ Mankuti” is left out altogether ! 
It is wonderful how people will jump at impossible conclusions ; and because 
one of the Mu gh al sovereigns was called —Mangu—which name they may have 
read of, immediately they see the word —Mangutah—they at once assume 
that the former must be meant, and this, too, when the author in another place had 
stated, that Mangutah was an aged man, with dog-like eyes—[some copies have 
‘ one-eyed’], and that he had been one of the Chingiz Khan’s favourites. 
See “ Tabakat,” Translation, note to page 1180. 
