178 H G. Raverty— The Mihran of Sind and its Tuibutaries. [No. 3, 
horse be lopped off.’ Such like security did tlie Most High God miracu¬ 
lously vouchsafe unto the kingdom of Hindustan through the felicity 
attending the rectitude of the Ulu gh -Khani counsels.” 
All these facts show, that, at the period in question, the Biah still 
flowed in its old bed, and that the Sutlaj river had not united with it. 
The writer of the article on the “Lost River” in the Calcutta Review, 
however, again quoting the “ Tabakat-i-Nasiri ” from Elliot’s “ Histori¬ 
ans,” in reference to the investment of Uchehli, says, that, “ when he 
[Saltan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’ud Shah] arrived on the banks of the Biyah 
the infidels raised the siege of Uchh,” and that, “ here the allusion is to 
the united streams. The Satlej is not mentioned although the writer 
was with the army, that river having become merged into the Biyah.” 56 
Here again the “ Tabakat-i-Nasiri ” is not correctly quoted, and the 
writer contradicts what he mentioned before from that work. It was 
only after the Dihli troops had crossed the Biah, and moved towards the 
Rawah or Rawi of Labor, and were marching down the left or east bank 
of the latter river, in the Bari Do-abah, between that river and the 
Biah, and the troops were approaching TTchoJih from the northwards, 
that the Mu gh als, who had been repulsed in a recent assault, in which 
they had lost one of their famous leaders, finding their line of retreat 
threatened, raised the investment and “ retired in three divisions.” 
In no instance throughout the “ Tabakat-i-Nasiri ” is such a river as 
the Sutlaj referred to; and I totally fail to see what proof the writer 
of the article has to show that the author “ makes allusion to the united 
streams,” when no such river as the Sutlaj is mentioned in his work, 66 
nor in any history of that period. 
65 Mr. R. D. Oldham, too, in his recent paper previously alluded to, appears to 
have been unaware that the Biah flowed near to Multan at this period, or at least he 
does not refer to it as if he had been aware of the fact; and at this period no 
Hariari or Grharah, miscalled the Sutlaj, existed. The Sutlaj was then a tributary 
of the Hakra, and flowed much farther to the east. See note 67. 
66 What “ we call it now ” is no criterion of its correctness ; and the writer in 
the Calcutta Review (page 11) himself says, that, “ The modern term Satlej is rarely 
if ever used, except by those who have been brought into contact with Europeans.” 
The “ modern term,” too, is at least as old as the A’in-i-Akbari. 
It will perhaps be well to state, to make the subject clear, that, as long as the 
Sutlaj or Shattluj flowed in its own separate bed, that is, before it and the Biah both 
left their respective channels and united into one river, the Sutlaj was a; tributary of 
the Hakra or Wahindah. After the junction of the two rivers for a time, they both 
lost their old names, but, having again soon after separated, the Sutlaj returning to 
its old channel, they flowed apart for about one hundred kuroh, equal to about one 
hundred and seventy-five miles, and again took their old names of Biah and Sutlaj. 
After this, in the last century only, they again united, and lost their old names once 
more, and from that time have flowed in one channel, both having deserted their 
