326 H. G. Raverty —The Mihran of Sind and its Tributaries. [Ex. No. 
joined by the “ Nad, ” or “ River,” coming from Little, or the Lesser, 
Tibbat. Subsequently it is joined by the Kishan-Ganga, and after leaving 
the Muktanah, Baha-ud-Din, the chief da’i, or apostle, of Hamzah, one of the leading 
personages of the sect, at the commencement of the reign of the Saltan’s successor, 
Saltan Mas’ud, in 423 H. (1032 A D.), to the }£aramitah of Multan and Sind and Hind, 
and particularly to a Sumrah, the chief of the tribe probably, -whom he addresses as 
“The Shaikh, the son of Sumar [Sumrah, as the word is also written] Rajah Pal,” 
calling upon him, as though he, too, had been a da’i, to accomplish the mission 
wherewith he was charged, of bringing back backsliders to the Karamitah heresy, 
and particularly, Da’ud, son of Abu-l-Fath-i-Da’ud, the heretic ruler of Multan, who 
had fled from thence, and whose son, Da’ud, here referred to, had been thrown 
into prison by Sultan Mahmud, and had been set at liberty by Sultan Mas’ud, on his 
recanting his heresy apparently. 
The Sumrahs paid obedience to the sovereigns of Ghaznin, nominally at least, 
until the reign of the amiable, but weak, Sultan ’Abd-nr-Rashid, the affairs of whose 
kingdom were in great disorder ; and, in 443 H. (1051-52 A. D.), taking advantage 
of the state of affairs, the Sumrahs assembled in the Thar or That, the sandy tract 
between Sind and Kachchh, and set up a Sumrah to rule over them independently. 
His name is not given by the Sindi writers, and it is probable that he was no other 
than this same Rajah (or rather, Rana ; for that, and also Ra’i, were the Hindu 
titles by which the local chiefs were known) Pal. But whoever he may have been, 
he is said to have ruled several years, and to have left a son, Bhungar by name, 
who, after reigning for a period of fifteen years, died in 461 H. (1068-69 A. D.), 
in the tenth year of Sultan Ibrahim of Ghaznin. Eighteen others of this race are 
said to have followed in succession. 
After the fall of the Turk dynasty of Ghaznin, the Shansabani Tajzik Ghiiris held 
Sind and Multan, the former territory nominally perhaps to some degree, from 578 
H. (1182-83 A. D.), when Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam marched against 
Debal, and possessed himself of all the territory on the sea-coast. See paragraph 
15 of this note 315. After his assassination in 602 H. (1205-6 A. D.) by the 
disciples of the Mulahidah, a name applied, as well as Bataniah, to the Karamitah, 
and who may have been, as stated, of the Khokhar tribe of Jats nevertheless, since 
the Sumrahs were Karamitah (See Tabakat-i-Xasiri,” page 485, and note 3), his 
feudatory of Multan, and l/chchh, the then capital of all Sind, Malik Xasir-ud-Din, 
Kaba-jah, one of the Sultan’s four favourite Mamlulis, and a Turk, following the 
example of Malik Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, and Malik Kutb-ud-Din, T-bak, the other 
Turk feudatories of Ghaznin and Dihli (Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, the fourth of the 
favourite Mamluks , had been dead some time), declared himself independent, and 
assumed the title of Sultan. At this period there were seven petty Ranas in Sind 
subject to his suzerainty, one of whom was Raua Sanir, sou of Dhamaj, of the tribe 
of Karijah Sammah Lohanos, who dwelt at Tung in the Riipah territory, and an¬ 
other, Sinan-ud-Din, Ohanisar, of Debal, who was the fourteenth of the Sumrah 
dynasty, and the same who fled, and escaped by sea, from Sultan Jalal-ud-Dfn, 
Mangbarni, when he attacked Debal and Damrilah, as mentioned in the paragraph 
above referred to. 
In after years it is said, during the reign of ’ Ala-ud-Din, the Khalj Turk, Sultan of 
Dihli, the people of Lar or Lower Sind, complained to him of the tyranny and op¬ 
pression of their chief, Ra’i Dudah, aud that the Sultan, to whom they must have been, 
