168 H. G. Raverty— The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. [No. 3, 
from Dilili to Multan, “ after this time always took the road by Abohar,” 
or to name a single instance of an army taking that route in preference. 
The Marut road was taken both by bodies of troops and travellers 
long after, aud was taken by an English traveller—Arthur Conolly—in 
company with a caravan of that branch of the Tarin Afghans com¬ 
monly known as the Sayyids of Pusliang, as late as 1830. 
As to the route being “closed at this period and after” because of 
the disappearance of the “western branch of the Naiwal,” which “ was 
the last of the channels connected with the Hakra which, therefore, at 
this time (about A. D. 1220) finally ceased to flow,” the writer of the 
article in the “ Review,” himself says, that “ a great part of the Indian 
Desert has undergone little change since pre-historic times,” and, that 
“ its ancient name of Marustliali (region of death) proves this.” Does 
the “ seige of Uch” belong to pre-historic times? The writer at¬ 
tributes the movement of the Dilili army towards Labor, instead of fol¬ 
lowing the route by “Marot,” to the drying up of the Hakra ; while, in 
other places he says, that, “ the downfall of the Sumras must have 
occurred between A. I). 1223,” and, that that year had “been preceded 
by the disappearance of the Hakra river.” Now the year 1220 A. D. is 
equivalent to the year 61 7 H., which commenced on the 7th of March of 
the above year, or twenty-six years before the investment of Uchehh ; 
and the year 1223 A. D., is equivalent to 620 H., which began on the 
3rd of February, or just three years less. This is certainly very con¬ 
tradictory. 
“ If the “ Hakra river ” had dried up in 1220 A. D. or in 1223, the 
route by “ Abohar ” between twenty-three and twenty-six years after , 
would have been no better than that by “ Marot.” Both routes would 
have lain through much the same description of country ; for Uboli-har 87 
was situated on one of its tributaries, and we know from Ibn Batutah 
that there was no want of water in that part eighty years after the invest¬ 
ment of l/chchh. 
Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah the Turk, 38 who ruled over the terri¬ 
tories of Sind and Multan, on the sudden death of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din 
I'-bak-i-Shil, from the effects of the accident which befell him when 
playing at the game of chauahdn at Labor in 607 H. (1210-11 A. D.), 
annexed all the country east of Multan and U'chchh, as far as Tabar- 
hindali (the old name of Bhatindah), Kuhram, and Sarasti. 39 This fact 
37 The derivation of this name, which in error is written Abuliar generally by 
the Muhammadan historians, will be found farther on. 
38 He is one of those turned into a “ Pathan” by the experts. 
39 Sarasti is the ancient name of Sirsa : Sursuti is the name of a river, the 
ancient Saraswati. 
