248 H. G. Raverty— The Mihran of Sind and its Tributaries. [No. 4, 
force fell short-, and they liad to eat some of their animals for food ; 
places. The passage is, with three exceptions, much as Elliot translates it (p. 61), 
namely : “ West of Narana [ **!/ and in MSS. in text] is Multan distant 
fifty far sang s; thence to [and to?] Bhati fifteen. South-east from Bhati is Arur, 
distant fifteen farsangs. Bhati is situated between two arms or branches of the 
Sind Bud.” The name Arfir is doubtful: the MSS. have jj) - |Jbj| -jjj | '• if Aror is 
referred to, that is nearly south-west. The Sind Rud is the Biah and its tributaries, 
not the Indus (See ante page 211, also page 221, note 163) ; but the word rendered 
“ Bhati” here by Elliot, in his extract, is very different at pp. 37, 39, 40, 77, and 79. 
According to this statement, the stronghold of the Bhatiah would lie exactly midway 
between Multan and Aror. If we calculate the thirty farsakhs between Multan and 
Aror at eight mil to the farsakh, which is certainly not correct, it would make two 
hundred and forty miles, which, as the crow flies, is just the distance between those 
two places; but Lf chch h, the fortress of the Bhati tribe or Bhatiah, is but seventy- 
five miles (equal to twenty-two farsakhs ) from Multan, while Aror is one hundred and 
sixty (equal to nearly forty-seven farsakhs) from lfchchh; consequently, by Bu- 
Rihan’s account, if we are to place entire dependence on it, which I am hardly 
disposed to do for several reasons, his “Bha$i”and “Bhatiah” cannot represent 
l/ chch h, unless we read his statement to mean that this Bhatiah lies about midway 
between Multan and Aror, without taking distances into account. There is still a 
Bhati Wa-han in this part, an ancient place, once the chief town of a mahdll of the 
Berun-i-Panoh Nad district of the Multan sdbah, which is situated just midway 
between Lf chch h and Aror; but, from what other writers state, as will be seen 
farther on, there can be little doubt, that, under the name of the town or city of 
the Bhatiah, Lfchchh-i- Sharif is referred to. 
Elliot, in the two first volumes of his “ Indian Historians,” tries, by many 
arguments to prove that the Bhatiah here referred to, is what he calls “ Bhera on 
the Jailam,” that is, Bahrah, no less than one hundred and ninety-two miles, north- 
north-east of Multan ; while from several translated passages in his own work, its 
whereabouts is distinctly shown. All these errors arise from the supposition that 
the courses of the rivers have never changed, and, that the tracts east of the Indus 
have always been a desert. See Vol. 11, page 439. For example: Sultan Mahmud 
returning from the expedition against Somnath in 417 H., set out with the object of 
returning by Mansuriyah, the ruler of which was a Mulhaidah or Karamitah. On 
the news of his approach the heretic fled to the date forests in the vicinity of Man¬ 
suriyah, but the Sultan having surrounded the one in which he had taken shelter, 
oame upon him and his followers, the greater number of whom were either killed 
or drowned in endeavouring to cross the river (the Hakra or Wahindah), and very 
few of them escaped. 
From thence the Sultan, having crossed the Ab-i-Sind near Multan, moved 
against the Bhatiah, and after reducing that refractory people to submission, returned 
to Multan again, and from thence to Ghaznm, which he reached in Safar, 417 H. 
(about 11th March, 1026 A. D.). Now how is it possible that “ Bhera on the Jai¬ 
lam” can be the place referred to? There is a “Bhera” just five miles east of 
Aror, if a “ Bhera” is required. 
After this, in the year following, a naval battle was fought; and it appears to 
have taken place near the then place of junction of the Ab-i-Sind with the Sind Rud 
or llud-i-Sind wo Hind, on the then Ranch Nad consequently. I believe it was fought 
