480 H. G. Raverty —The MiJirdn of Sind mid its Tributaries. [Ex. No. 
ul-Bilad. But long before Bu-Rihan-al-Berum finished his “ Tahkik-ul- 
Hind ” 567 (about 422 H. = J030-31 A.D.), a great change had taken place, 
although not so much as be, or rather Rashid-ud-Din, who quotes him, 
would lead us to believe. Be this as it may, the statement, that “ the 
river Bihat and the Chandra [Chin-ab] flow west of Multan,” and that 
all five rivers, viz., Ab-i-Sind or Indus, Bihat, Chin-ab, Biah, and 
Irawah or Ravvi, thus reversing facts, “unite with the Sutladr or Sutlaj 
below Multan at a place [sic] called Panch Nad — which for a place is 
an impossible name — is incorrect. It is clearly shown from various 
statements in history, that the Sutlaj continued for a long period after 
his time, and subsequent to the investment of U'chchh two centuries 
after, to be a tributary of the Hakra, at the time that the Panch Nad or 
Five Rivers used to unite with the Hakra, at Dosh-i-A'b.” B53 
The second transition was when the course of the western branch 
of the Mihran or Hakra, with which all the other tributaries had pre¬ 
viously united, namely the Ra’in branch, or the branch which flow T ed in 
the Ra’in or Ra’ini channel, was diverted, by whatever means accom¬ 
plished, and directed more to the westward from nenr Kandharah or 
Kandharo, and cut a new channel for itself much farther to the west¬ 
ward than the gap in the lime-stone hills where Bakhar and Riirhi were 
afterwards founded. I say much farther westwards, because, if it had 
only been diverted into about its present course, Alor or Aror need not 
Always mistaken for “ Tarikli-ul-Hind,” even by its translator. See note 79 
page 186. 
653 The only other construction that can be put on this statement is, that by 
the Sutlaj he meant the Hakra or Wahindah, with which the Sutlaj united some 
miles lower down than the Panch Nad, for the Hakra or Wahindah is never men¬ 
tioned by Bu-Rihan separately. If this assumption is correct his place called 
Panch Nad, would refer to the Dosh-i-Ab. 
The Istakhari, who visited Sind and Multan about the period that the diversion 
of the branch of the Hakra is supposed to have taken place, says : “ there is a river 
of Sind called the Mihran. It passes the borders of Samand [ of the old 
’Arab map] and Aror from the neighbourhood of Multan, and then flows on to 
Mansuriyah,” etc. He says nothing of any recent change, which he could not have 
failed to have heard of had it occurred before his time, cansing, as it did, the ruin of 
the ancient capital, and other vast changes. It is evident, therefore, that this 
diversion of the river took place subsequent to his travels in this part. The inscrip¬ 
tion, and the date contained therein, in the shrine of Kh wajali ka Than near 
Bakhar, noticed farther on, does not refer to the date the stream was diverted 
westwards, but to the period, when the Ab-i-Sind or Indus, being joined by the 
Sind Rud or Panch Nad, which had deserted the Hakra, gained fresh power, and 
found its way into the channel of the diverted branch of the Hakra, and then, chang¬ 
ing its course, began to cut its way through a depression in the lime-stone hills 
near where lturhi and Bakhar were afterwards founded. 
