252 
H. G. Raverty— The Mihran of Sind and its Tributaries . [No. 4, 
of Rasmid, 193 and which flowed into the city into a hauz or reservoir, 
vowel points—the people of which issued forth to oppose him. Now how is it possi¬ 
ble that this place situated on the north or right bank of the Biah, as it flowed in its 
old bed, could be “ Uch,” as Elliot and others suppose, which lies forty-five miles 
farther southwards? The author of the Cbach Namali, who wrote in the time of 
Sultan Nasir-ud-Dfn, Kaba-jah, whose capital was Uchchh, was a native of that 
place; and if it had been anciently known as Askand or Asal Kandah, or whatever 
it may be, is it likely that he would have neglected to say so when writing of its 
former history ? Mir Ma’sum of Bakhar writes the word, or rather it appears in 
three different MSS. of his work; as Axxvo), and and he distinctly 
states that this place, supposed to be “Uch” to support a theory, ivas anciently 
called Talwarah. 
The people fought obstinately, but had, at last, to seek shelter within the walls ; 
and they resisted for seven days all the attacks of the ’Arab forces. The latter had 
now become distressed for provisions, when the nephew of the Multan chief, who 
had defended it so bravely, at the end of this time, under cover of the night, aban¬ 
doned it, and threw himself into the fort of Sikah——which was a great forti¬ 
fication on the brink of the southern (left) bank of the Rawi, the river, at that time 
flowing east of Multan and uniting with the Biah some twenty-eight miles to the 
southward of that place. See farther on. Finding themselves deserted by their 
governor, the inhabitants of Askand or Asal Kandah (or whatever may be the true 
reading), sent to tender their submission to the ’Arab leader. The fighting men 
to the number of 4,000 were put to death, and their families were made slaves, but 
all others were spared. 
Neither the Mujmal-ut-Tawarikh, nor the Chach Namah, mention U chch h, 
which, probably, was not known by that name at the period in question, but both 
mention this Askand or Asal Kandah, or Usal Kandah, said to have been even then, 
an old fortification. 
In one place (p. 366), Elliot is inclined to suppose that “ the Satrapy of Askalanda 
contained the whole tract north-east of Alor, and south-east of the Pavfnad and 
Ghara; almost precisely the same, in short, as the present Daudputra counti’y.” 
He is nearer the mark here, but it will be noticed that he seems to take for granted, 
that the rivers ran then as now. The position of the fortress of Askand or Asal 
Kandah is distinctly stated to have been on the north bank of the Biah, as it flowed 
in ancient times, and must have been within twenty-eight miles or less of Multan. 
Cunningham supposes that “ the old bed of the Rawi and Sikah Multan ”—the 
original is “ Sikah-i-Multan,” that is Sikah of or belonging to Multan—“ to be somewhat 
near Mari Sital, which lies on the old banks of the Ravi, two miles and a half east 
of Multan.” It is no proof, however, as he seems to think, that the Rawi flowed 
under the walls of Multan, because Alexander, the Greek, is supposed to have circum¬ 
navigated the walls of some city supposed to be Multan. This he could have done, 
in the last century, if Multan is the place (only it could not have been according to 
the Greek writers), by the Loll Wa-han, and which then had to be crossed by a 
bridge ; and it was some cutting, or branch from the Cli in-ab like this one, no doubt, 
which, as mentioned in the following note, Muhammad cut off or diverted, and 
caused the surrender of that stronghold. 
193 This cannot be the river of Basmid referred to by T bn Haukal at page 216, 
because that was two days’ journey or more below or south or south-east of Multan, 
