432 H. G. Raverty— The Mihran of Sind and, its Tributaries. [Ex. No. 
hurali, 476 a little more than eight Jcuroh south-south-west of Tihwanah. 
It passed Banhurah a kuroli and a half on the east, where the channel 
becomes indistinct, but north of Ohhini, on the north bank of the 
present channel of the Ohitang. About twenty-eight miles in the 
same direction from Banhurah, where it becomes indistinct, it can be 
again plainly traced until its junction with the Ohitang a short distance 
west of Bliadara, where the united streams formed and received the 
name of Hakra. The Gliag-ghar was never called Sursuti, and only 
those unaware of these facts could have imagined that it was so. 477 
These rivers, the Ohitang and the Sursuti had no connection in former 
times with the Ghag-ghar, until they united with it upwards of twenty 
miles south-west of Bliatnir. 
At the close of the last century, when this Survey was made, when 
the Sursuti became flooded, the cultivators of Kaithal, which belonged 
to the Mandar Afghans (a colony of that division of the Khas’his 
settled here from the time of the Af gh an rulers), used to cut the band 
or dyke of the river at Pehu’a, and bring water to their lands round 
about Kaithal. “ A little to the north-west of Harnolali, on the route 
from Kaithal by Agund to Samanah,” the Survey says, “ the great 
river Sursuti is crossed, which, on ordinary occasions, contains but 
little water, and shortly afterwards two other branches of it have to 
be passed.” Now there is but one channel; but two large lakes, about 
two miles or more farther west, indicate where these branches formerly 
flowed. 
Another old channel of the Sursuti can be traced between that just 
described and the present main channel, which runs within just two 
miles and a quarter of Tihwanah, and is lost again eleven miles and a 
half south of the last named place. It branches off three miles and a 
476 “ Buhoonah ” of the maps. 
476 Cunningham, in the maps to his “Ancient India,” numbers Y and YT, 
indicates correctly the course of the Hakra or Wahindah, but, in the first map 
calls it the “ Nudras FI.,” and in the second, the “ Sotra or Chitrang R. ; ” and he 
does not indicate the Na’i Wall branches — the old Sutlaj beds — merely the 
Qh-itang, which he, like some others, incorrectly calls “ Chitrang ” (which refers to 
a part of the great desert already explained), and the Hariari or Gliarah under the 
usual incorrect name of “ Sutlej.” The names “ Sotra,” “ Sodrah,” and “ Sothaur,” 
as the name is written in different maps, and by different English writers, is applied 
by them to the Ghag-ghar not to the Ohitang at all. See page 439, and note 489, 
and note 423, page 403, para. 2. 
In a recent “ Settlement Report of the Hissar District, ” we are told, that, in 
the days of “ Shams Shiraz the Ghaggar was called the Saraswati.” It may have 
been so at “ Shiraz,” but it was never so called in Hind, because they are totally 
different rivers. See note 218, page 264, 
