277 
1892.] H. G. Raverty —The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. 
of liis acts was the plundering of some of the parganahs around Labor 
(the Buda’uni, and Firishtah—who copies the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shah-i 
and other writers almost word for word—say, that he destroyed Labor, 
which Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Diu, Balban, is said to have rebuilt, after its 
destruction by the Mu gh als in the preceding reign), after which he 
crossed the Biali, and from it passed the Sutlaz, 243 and plundered the 
tal-wandi of Ra’e Kamal (Kamal-ud-Din, previously mentioned), the 
M a’in, or Mahin, as it is also written. After this he moved towards 
Ludhianah, and, after that, re-passed the Sutlaz and invested Jalandhar. 
Sultan Mahmud Shah had to move against the Khokhars in person; and 
in that same year he reached Ludhianah, although it was the height of 
the rainy season. The Sutlaz was, however, so much swollen, and all 
the boats in Jasrath’s hands, that the Sultan was unable to cross; and 
Jasrath, with his forces, was posted on the opposite bank. Matters went 
on in this wise for about forty days; and when the waters began to 
Smith! At page 488 he quotes Elphinstone thus, showing Elphinstone’s terrible 
mistake at the same time. He says : “ Elphinstone observes that, ‘ Kasim’s conquests 
were made over to his successor,’ ” etc., etc., and here again we have the dead 
father making conquests in Sind ! 
Lieut.-Colonel H. S. Jarrett, in his translation of “ A's Suyutis History of the 
Caliphs,” page 229, note after writing, that “ Muhammad-b-ul-Kasim commanded 
the army in Sind,” immediately under refers to Elphinstone’s India, “ where will 
be found a sketch of Kasim's conquests”—the dead father for the son again. 
I could mention scores of other instances in Elliot’s “ Historians,” and in the 
writings of many others. The famous blunder of turning Tajzlks, Turk slaves, Jats, 
Sayyids, and others, into “ Pathan Dynasties,” and their money into “ Pathan 
Coins,” arose entirely through reading the names of the ancestors of the Shansabanf 
Tajzik Sultans who ruled in Ghur, namely, Muhammad-i-Suri, or Muhammad bin 
Suri—for the names appear in both ways on the same page—as that of one man , 
thus: “ Muhammad Sun.” On this, those who knew no better, at once jumped to 
the conclusion (since there was a Patan or Af gh an Sultan of Dihli some centuries 
after , styled Sher Shah, Sor or Soraey, who belonged to the Sort subdivision of the 
Lodi tribe, but whose progenitor Sor or Soraey was not born at the period that 
Muhammad, the Shansabani Tajzik, and his father, Suri, flourished), that this 
“ Muhammad Suri ” must be one and the same person, and at once turned all the 
Tajzik rulers of Ghur into Afghans likewise. See “ Tabakat-i-Nasiri,” Appendix B, 
page VII, and a note farther on. 
The Ohach Hamah contains scores of instances to prove the izdfat. All the 
headings have lia’e Daliir, bin Oh ach, but when we come to the text we find Dahir-i- 
Oh. ach ; and Dharsiyah bin Ohach in the headings, and Dharsiyah-i-Ohach in the text. 
This occurs not only with respect to Oh ach and his sons, but the names of others 
are written in a similar manner, just as Muhammad bin Kasim and Muhammad-i- 
Kasim. 
243 This is the way in which the name of the river is written in the I abakit*i- 
Akbari, and in other works of that period, 
J J 
