203 
1892.] H. Gr. Raverty —The Mihran of Sind arid its Tributaries. 
son. It is strange that this new name applied to Multan was also un¬ 
known to the ’Arab writers. See what the Balaziri says on this subject 
farther on ; and, moreover, the Khalifah Mansur did not succeed to the 
miles of Thatliah ; bat Elliot, after stating that “ there seems no reason to conclude 
that Brahmanabad or Balimanabad was founded by the Persian king [he was not 
king at the time], Baliman, upon his invasion of Sind,” tells ns that “his city is 
expressly said to have been built in the province of Budha [this is what he some¬ 
times writes Nudha, and is correctly, Budah, described at pages 207, 8, and 9] which 
never extended so far as the Indus.” At page 78 he tells ns, that “ Mansura” [which 
he also says was close to “ Brahmanabad ”] is “ on the west of the principal branch 
of the Mihran;” and at page 370, that, “ we may rest assured that it was on the 
eastern side of the Indus.” Again, at page 83 he says, “from Multan to the vicinity 
of Mansura the country is occupied by a warlike race called Nadha, and at page 106, 
that Balimanabad was founded by Baliman in Budha ” which is “ supposed to bo 
Mansura.” At page 189, also, quoting from the “ Chach-nama,” where he writes 
the name “ Brahmanabad or Bain-wdh,” he has the following note :—“ The real name 
of this place was Bahmanu or Bahmanwd .” At page 34 he had previously called it 
“ Bamiwan,” and at page 61 “ Bahmanu Mansura.” After all this, and in several 
places calling it by its correct name, and indicating its correct position, he winds up 
with “ we may fairly consider that Brahmanabad [with the extra ‘ r ’], after being 
immediately succeeded by the ’Arab capital, is now represented by the modern 
Haidarabad.” However, all his contradictions of his own quotations, even when 
correct, and all his speculations on this subject, based, apparently, on the supposition 
that the Mihran of Sind always flowed west of Haidar-abad in nearly the present 
channel of the Indus, have been refuted by the discovery of the ruins of Bahman-nih, 
Bahman-noo or Bahman-abad, close to the ivest bank of the principal channel of the 
great river, as the old geographers and historians had clearly stated it was. The 
value of other similar speculations of his may be judged of accordingly. See note 147 
Crow, who, in the last century, was the Honourable East India Company’s 
Agent at Thatliah, also falls into error respecting Bahman-no or Bahman-abad, as 
well as “ Tatta being Debal Sindy.” He says : “ Brahminabad, called by the natives 
Kulan-kote , the ruins of which lie four or five miles to the south-west of Tatta,” etc. 
Dr. J. Burnes (“ Visit to Sinde,” page 133), and Sir A. Burnes, following Crow’s 
statement, also considered “ Kullan Kot, near Tatta” to be “Brahmanabad.” The 
correct name of the place they thus mistook for Bahman-no or Bahman-abad, is 
Kalyan Kot— kalydn, in Sanskrit, meaning ‘ prosperous,’ ‘ happy,’ etc. 
Tod (Vol. II, page 229, note§). among other wild assertions, actually tells us 
that “ Omar, in the first century [the Khalifah ’Umar, died in 23 H. i. e. 643-44 A. D ], 
had established a colony of the faithful at Bekher [as he spells Bakhar], afterwards 
Mansooria while a few pages farther on (233), he says, “the celebrated Caliph 
A1 Walid was the first whose arms extended to the plains of India, and one of whoso 
earliest conquests and chief positions, was Arore, the capital of Upper Sind.” At 
page 269 he says : “ the ancient capital of Sind was Mausoora, better known to the 
Hindus as Rori Bekher .” At page 310, he states, that, “ The islandic Bekher, or 
Mansoora (so named by the lieutenant of the Caliph A1 Mansoor) is considered as 
the capital of the Sogdi, when Alexander sailed down the Indus ; ” and he also sup¬ 
poses that “the Sogdi and Soda [the Sodah tribe] are the same. At page 93 of his 
first volume, he states, that “ the Soghdi country is Dhat in the desert 
