1892.] H. G. Raverty —The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. 163 
made inquiry of a party (of prisoners) 22 why the army of Islam marched 
along the bases of the mountains, for the route was long, and the way 
by Sarsuti and Marut (Mirat ?) 23 was nearer ? He was answered that 
the numerous fissures on the banks of the river rendered the way impossible 
for the army.’’ 2i 
The writer of the Calcutta Review article on the “ Lost River,” 
might have noticed, that, in a foot-note, the editor and translator says, 
“ The text—j _^25 is far from intelligible and ap¬ 
parently contradictory. The royal forces are said to have marched along 
the banks of the river , although that route is declared to have been im¬ 
practicable. The whole passage is omitted in Sir H. Elliot's MS.” 
The translator and editor appears to have been much puzzled, 
certainly, and seems to have forgotten that he took the army “ across the 
river “ Ravi ,” as far as Labor, just before, because it was doubtful 
whether it could proceed along the banks of the “ Biyah.” He has 
confused one river with the other; and, if the route along the left or 
east bank of the Biah was supposed to be impracticable, it did not follow 
that there was no way along the right or west bank. As previously 
stated, there were other reasons for not following the course of the Biah 
direct to TJohchh, even if the route had been practicable on the other 
or on both sides of “ the river,” which referred to the Hakra, which 
flowed past Marut, and not to the Biah at all. 
The 11 Review ” writer, further says : “ In the same volume, page 
22 There is not a word about “ prisoners” in the original. 
23 Here it will be seen, that, in two places where the author was perfectly 
right as to the names Mangutah and Marut, Mr. Dowson thought he knew better, 
and turned the first into “ Mangu Khan,” and the latter into “Mirat,” and has 
thereby shown the extent of his historical and geographical knowledge. Mirat is 
justjfrt'e degrees east of Marut, and, more than that, lies north-east of Dihli, in a to¬ 
tally opposite direction. 
24 See Elliot’s Historians, Yol. II, page 364. 
25 I have noticed in my “Translation,” in note 3, page 812, that the word j ^ 
supposed to mean “fissures,” is but part of the plural form of namely 
part of the word being left out in the Calcutta text, signifying ‘ islands,’ etc. Under 
any circumstance, j ^— jar —does not mean either a fissure or fissures, but the Hindi 
—char —means, ‘ a bank,’ ‘ an island.’ This word is used in the Panj-ab for such 
shoals, banks, or islands as are found on, and near the banks of rivers after the 
subsidence of the annual inundations, and this local word may have been used by the 
people of whom Mangutah made inquiry. 
See the large scale map of the Bahawal-pur territory, and some idea may be 
formed respecting such ‘ islands ’ or ‘ banks ’ as the author refers to, still to be 
seen in the ancient channel of the Hakra or Wahindah, and also the notice of that 
channel which will be found farther on. 
