271 
1S92.J H. G. Raverfcy —The MiJirdn of Sind and its Tributaries. 
The guides proved treacherous, and brought the Sultan into the Kunchi 
ran or marsh 2o2 [the ran of Ivachohli], and his whole army was on the 
point of perishing for want of water. The author says it was “ such a 
howling desert that no bird ever flapped its wings over it; not a tree 
was to be seen; not a blade of grass; not even a miserable, noxious 
weed.” 
232 This word is spelt ran, but never rin, because rin means ‘ battle,’ while ran 
means ‘ a marsh ’ or 1 marshy ground.’ 
The Tarikh-i-Tahiri states, that this run extended from the ocean between the 
countries of Sind and Gfuzarat. Abu-1-Fazl, in his A’in-i-Akbari says, that “ between 
Jhalawarah [Jhalawad] of the Sarkdr of Ahmad-abad, and the Pattan or City [i. e., 
Anhal-warah], and Surat h [i. e., Saurashtrah] there is a great depression, in length 
ninety kuroh , and in breadth from eight to thirty kuroh. This they call ran (with 
short ‘a’ to ‘ r,’ and the ‘ n ’ quiescent).” 
When Saltan Mahmud-i-Sabuk-Tigin returned from the expedition to Somnath, 
towards Mansuriyah, he was led by his Hindu guide into this ran, and on this occa¬ 
sion, according to the Baihaki, one of the Sultan’s huntsmen killed an enormous 
serpent,—a python or boa-constrictor—which was skinned, and found to be thirty 
ells [grass] in length, and four in breadth. The Baihaki adds, “ Whoever doubts the 
correctness of this statement, let him go to the citadel of Ghaznfn, and see for him¬ 
self the skin in question, which is hung up like a canopy.” See note 105, page 196. 
It is a wonder that Sultan Mahmud ever ventured to attack this hot-bed of idol- 
worship ; and that he and his army escaped is more wonderful still, because, in a 
book published at Bombay and in London in 1S82, entitled “ Tarikh-i-Sorath: A 
History of the Provinces of Sorath and Ilalar in Kathiawad, by Ranchodji Amarji, 
Divan of Junagadh, and edited by Jas. Bargess, LL. D , F. R. G. S., etc., etc , etc.,” 
who considers it “ a genuine native history,” and so it is in a Hindu point of view, 
we are told (p. Ill) that, “ The hateful Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi marched with an 
army from Ghaznin to Gujarat with the intention of carrying on a religious war. 
In Samvat 1078 (A. D. 1021, A. H. 414) he demolished the temple of Sri Somnath 
and returned. This act so provoked the Maharaja Mandalika, who was a protector 
of his own religion, that he marched with Bhim Deva, the Raja of Gujarat, in 
pursuit: 
They ran like fawns and leaped like onagers, 
As lightning now, and now outvying wind ! 
The Muhammadans did not make a great stand, hut fled; many of them iveie slain 
by Hindu scymitars and prostrated by Rajput war-clubs, and tvhen the sun of the Riga s 
fortune culminated SUh Mahmxtd took to his heels in dismay and saved his life, but 
many of his followers, of both sexes [sic], were captured. Turkish, Afghan, and 
Moghal female prisoners were, if they happened to be viigins, etc., etc. So much 
for the “ genuine native history.” It is strange the valiant Rajah of the Hindus did 
not make the Sultan “ take to his heels ” before he captured the place, and that he 
did not bring back the four fragments of their stone deity, instead of allowing the 
Musalmans to carry them off to Ghaznin, where a fragment was cast before the 
entrance of the great masjid and the Sultan’s palace, respectively, to be trodden 
under foot (and where they might have been seen a little over a century since), and 
the others sent to Malckah and Madinali. 
