287 
1892.] H. G-. Raverty —The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. 
and the inhabitants of the place obtain water from a hol-i-db or lake, 
which is filled in the rainy season. It was said that no foreign army 
had ever reached it; and, on this account, the rebels who had fled from 
Debal-pur and Ajuddhan, and other places, had assembled there. Such 
a number had reached it, that there was not room for them within ; 
consequently, there were many people, and a vast number of animals 
and loads of property, left outside. This place, and the territory around, 
was held by Rao Dul-chin, 266 who collected revenue from those parts, 
and from all who passed that way, either merchants or travellers; and 
harwans of traders were not safe from his exactions.” Suffice it to say, 
that the place was nearly carried when the defenders called for quarter, 
and next day Rao Dul-chm came out. After this, however, the people 
again rose, closed the gates, were again attacked; and when Timur’s 
troops had gained the walls, they again sued for quarter, which, was 
once more granted. The fugitives from Debal-pur and Ajuddhan, and 
other places, having however gained an entrance, in conjunction with 
the Bhatis, again broke out, and closed the gates. This, as might be 
expected, raised the ire of Timur ; and the place was stormed and cap¬ 
tured. Many of the defenders burnt themselves, along with their 
women, and other belongings. Of the Debal-pur fugitives who had 
been concerned in the massacre of Musafir, the Kabuli, and his force of 
1,000 men, 500 were put to death, and their families made slaves, and 
the remainder spared, but the defences of the fort and town of Bhatnir 
were levelled with the dust. 267 
Zafar Namah, nor is such a word as fcos to be found throughout the whole work. 
Compare also pp. 421 and 422 of Elliot s work. 
256 The name is written Dul-chin, and those who copy from the Zafar Namah 
alter it into Khul-chin, but, in Elliot, it is made “ Khal-chin ” of. 
257 All these matters are set down against Timur by history compilers to make 
him out a monster, but they leave out what caused him to act with stern severity. 
Here persistent treachery, after being twice forgiven, is shown. I wonder whether 
in the present enlightened days Skobeloff and Komaroff, and other “ divine figures 
from the north” or west would have acted differently ? or even if, during the late 
Afghan campaign the Afghan “ rebels ” would not have been served much after 
the same fashion, if they had acted in the same manner after once surrendering ? It 
would have been very strange if they had not. And yet one writer sets down what 
he supposes to be “ Abu’l Fazls little knowledge of Bhattiana,” which knowledge is, 
however, very great, as the A’in-i-Akbari shows, to “ the depopulation caused by 
< the firebrand of the universe,’ Timur.” The Chingiz Khan put more people to 
death after surrendering, at Bukhara and Samr-kand alone, than fell in all the wars in 
which Timur engaged during his whole lifetime; and yet some, unacquainted with 
these historical fwts, sing the praises of the “ great Jangez,” without knowing even 
how to spell his name correctly, and exclaim against “ the ruthless tyrant and bar. 
barian Taimur.” Such writers would do well to read, mark, learn, and inwardly 
