167 
1892.] H. G. Rrverty— The Mihran of Sind and its Tributaries. 
junction of the Rawi and other rivers with the Biah south-south-east of 
Multan], * * * he made inquiry of some persons [natives of the country, 
without doubt], 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 near. They replied, that, on ac¬ 
count of the number of islands on the banks [of the river], 35 there might 
not be a road for the army of Islam.” 
The writer in the Calcutta Review , misquoting, as it will be seen, 
his own authority, says : “ It is said in the Tabakat-i-Nasiri that, when 
Uclih was besieged by the Mughals in H. 643 (A. D. 1245), the army 
sent [the Sultan, ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, commanded it in person] 
was unable to march by Sarsuti and Marot , in consequence of the drought 
on the bank of the river u ! What river he does not say ; but, in Elliot’s 
“ Historians,” which he quotes, there is not one word about “ drought ,” 
and in the author’s text there is not one word to indicate that “ the 
numerous fissures rendered the way impassable,” as Mr. Dovvson trans¬ 
lated the words fcfj— rah na-bdshad —which means that there might not 
be a road—a doubt, not a certainty. Consequently, as far as the authority 
of the “ Tabakat-i-Nasiri ” is concerned, there is not the least reason for 
supposing that either the Rawi or the Biah had then changed their 
courses, or that the Hakra had dried up. 
“ Marot,” the writer continues, “ is now in the heart of the desert, 
but then the high road from Delili to Multan passed under its walls, 
and followed the course of the Hakra from Sarsuti to within a few 
marches of Uchh. After this period, armies marching from Dehli to 
Multan always took the road by Abohar and Ajohdan; but the more 
direct way by Marot was occasionally taken by travellers for some time 
later -” 86 
All this, like the “ drought ,” is mere surmise. That there was a 
route by Marut is certain, but no scrap of evide?ice can be produced to 
show that armies, going from Dihli to Multan “always ” took the route 
by Marut, nor would the writer be able to point out any place where it 
is stated that the route by Marut was the “ high road between Dehli 
and Multan,” or any authority for the statement, that armies marching 
36 As I have before noticed, which of the rivers is not mentioned, and in comino* 
from Dihli by way of Marut the Hakra would have had to be crossed, under any 
circumstances, unless the troops crossed the Ghag-ghar at Sarasti or near it, and 
after that had been crossed, the Biah and its tributaries, forming the Sind Rud, 
would have to be crossed likewise. 
36 Yet', at page 3 of his article in the Calcutta Review, the writer says : “ Our 
knowledge of the condition of this tract of country previous to the time of Sultan 
Firuz Shah in the fourteenth century is very vague.” 
