1892.] H. G. Raverty—- The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. 479 
running in the direction of about south-south-east to the tract in which 
Nasr-pur 556 was afterwards founded, and flowing from thence, by some 
of the channels the remains of which still exist in that direction, 
towards Wangah, they united with the Puranah channel. 556 Subse¬ 
quently, perhaps, they found their way by forming a new channel 
lower down, the Gu.ni channel of the present time, or a still older one, 
and fell into the sea by the Kohra’i inlet, along with the Mihran of 
Sind or Hakra. 
This was the state of the rivers forming the Great Mihran, or 
Mihran of Sind, at the time of, and for about two hundred and thirty 
or forty years after, the conquest of Sind, when the Istakhari wrote, 
and for a short time after the “ Masalik wa Mamalik” was written, and 
Ibn Haukal came into Sind and obtained the materials for his “ Ashkal- 
• • —• 
The Bolan river during the past year (1890-91) has given proof of what it 
liad previously been. I stated in my “ Notes on Afghanistan,” that it was liable 
to become greatly flooded, when it swept every thing before it. This was sometime 
before a line of Railway was thought of ; and during this last year,* the correctness 
of my statement has been fully proved, and at a great cost to the State. I hope 
I shall not, from this fact “ hurt any one’s susceptibilities,” which is the most 
important thing, it appears, after all, to be thought of in these days, but only 
persons who make mistakes are supposed to possess any “ susceptibilities.” 
555 In the Noh-shahrah district of the Haidar-abad Collectorate of Sind as at 
present constituted. The Tuhfat-ul-Kiram says it was founded “on the banks of 
the A'b-i-Sind ” by Sultan Firuz Shah, the Khalj Turk sovereign of Dihli; and 
that he also built a fort near Nash-pur, which was called by the latter name, 
on the banks of the Sankarah [the Hakra or Wahindah], on his way from Guzarat 
against Thathah, when the Jams were reduced to subjection.” Consequently, 
Nasrpur and Nasir-pur are totally distinct places, and far apart from each 
other. 
Postans (“ Personal Observations on Sindh,” p. 161) says, that “ Nasirpur [Nasr¬ 
pur is the correct name] is alluded to by geographers as one of the most beautiful 
cities of Sindh ; but it declined in consequence of the desertion of the main stream. 
The learned D’Anville considers this to be the Mansura of the Arabs, and a city of 
great importance. ’ See note 173, page 224. 
556 q’he wr iter in the “ Calcutta Review ” calls the eastern branch of the “ Indus ” 
the “ Dhora Puran, which meets the Narra,” but, in this case where did the Pura¬ 
nah Dhorah come from if not from the Hakra ? 
Seven paragraphs after, the same writer says, that “ although much inferior 
in size to the Indus, the Hakra must have been of vast importance,” etc. It will 
be seen from this that he confuses the Hakra with the afterwards formed, and 
modern Narah, the origin of which has been shown, and vice versa , and does not 
appear to have known that the Ab-i-Sind or Indus, at the period mentioned in the 
text above, was a mere tributary of the Hakra, which was a great river —the Great 
Mihran as it is called by the ’Arab writers. There is no authority, I believe, in 
history, to show that the Indus was so great a river as the Hakra, in those early 
days. 
