1892.] H. Gr. Raverty —The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. 247 
sitting down before it for a considerable time, the supplies of the ’Arab 
The site is undoubtedly ancient ; and yet, strange to say, it is not mentioned 
in the Cli ach Namah; nor, under that name at least, by the ’Arab writers, includ¬ 
ing tbe Balazarf, in his history ; nor by the other Muhammadan historians of the 
time of Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin and his sons, namely, Al-’Utba, Bu-Rihan, the 
Bailiaki, and the Gardaizi. I believe, however, that it is mentioned by these 
historians under the name of Bhatiah, (called the country of Ramal in the Ohach 
Namah); and for this reason. 
The author of the “ Tabakat-i-Nasirf,” the next author who follows them that 
we know of, mentions (page 449), the “ delivei’ance of Multan from the hands of the 
Karamitah ’’ heretics, but l/ ch chh is not referred to; yet, immediately after (page 
451) he mentions the Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhatnmad-i-Sam, marching towards 
Nahar-Walah by way of Multan and l/ chch h. In the account of his victories, how¬ 
ever (page 491), his “victories over the Karamitah of Multan and l/ chch h ” are 
distinctly stated, but, there is no mention of the Bhatiah among them, although the 
capture of the stronghold of the Bhati tribe is distinctly mentioned. The author 
knew l/ chch h, for he was for a time in Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah’s service there, 
being in charge of the Firuzi College in 624 H. (1227 A. D.), and holding the 
office of Kazi to the forces of ’Ala-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, the Sultan’s son. It is 
strange that the Bhstiah are not noticed by him. Yet others relate that the 
Sultan delivered Multan from the Karamitah, and annexed the territory, and then 
invested the Bhatiah, (which is the plural of Bhati), within the walls of l/chchh ; and 
that, after its fall, it was entrusted to ’All Karmakh’s charge together with Multan. 
It is evident from this, that those authors whose works have been translated, such as 
’Utba’s, did not mean that there was any town or fortress called Bhatiah, but meant 
the stronghold of the Bhatiah, that is, of the Bhati tribe, and their stronghold, we 
know, was l/ chch h, which they appear to have obtained possession of sometime 
before the reign of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazniu, when the power of the ’Abbasi 
Kh alifahs over Sind and Multan was merely nominal. Elliot, therefore, was right 
in supposing that l/ chch h was “disguised under another name”; and I believe that 
the sentence in the “ Tabakat-i-Nasirf” at page 449, was, before the text had been 
interfered with, that “he marched an army towards Multan and U 'ohch h and deli- 
vered them out of the hands of the Karamitah”; and this would account for the 
“ stronghold of the Bhatiah” not being here mentioned by its author. 
With respect to Sultan Mahmud’s capture of the stronghold, the Gardaizf, a con¬ 
temporary writer, states, that the Sultan attacked the fortress of the Bhatiah in 
396 H. (1005-6 A. D.), and that Bajra ( 1^^ ), the Bhatiah, so called on account of 
the number of his men, his success, and his great haughtiness [ —bajra or ivajra 
signifies ‘a thunderbolt’ in Sanskrit], put his forces in array to oppose the Sultan, 
and sent them out against him, while he himself kept aside, near the skirts of a 
jangal. Some of the Sultan’s troops suiwounded' it, on which the Bhatiah Rajah 
drew his dagger and killed himself. Great slaughter was made among his tribe, 
the Rajah’s head was brought in, and a great number of elephants were taken. It 
was after this that the Sultan attacked the Karamitah of Multan, for which I have 
not space here, but it will be related in another place. 
Bu-Rihan mentions this tribe in several places as though it was the name of 
a place, as and hi the printed text, but, in the Index, as two different 
