All these difficulties about Mahmúd's movements are at once obviated by correcting the reading, and rejecting Batinda altogether. The real name is Bihand or Waihind, as is plainly indicated in the Yamíní.* It was a place of considerable importance, on the western bank of the Indus, about fifteen miles above Attock, on the old high road from Láhore to Pesháwar, and only three marches from the latter. It was the capital of Eastern Kandahár, and is noticed by Bírúní, Baihakí, and Abú-l Fidá, from which latter author we learn that its foundation is attributed to Alexander the Great. The name is now Húnd, and while I was in the neighbourhood I could not find that even any first syllable was ever added to it, either by natives or strangers.

By the capture of Waihind, Mahmúd's progress becomes easy and natural, and instead of having to cross and recross several foaming streams and marching through a hostile and difficult country, he has not yet crossed even the Indus.

Third Expedition.—Bhera (Bhátía). A.H. 395 (1004-5 A.D.)—After a rest of three years, during which attention was occupied by affairs in the west, we find Mahmúd returning to India to take the city of Bhateea (Briggs), Battea (Dow), Bhatía (Elphinstone), Bhátnah (Bird), Bahadiyah (Univ. Hist.), Bhadiyah (Rampoldi), Bahatia (S. de Sacy), Hebath (D'Herbelot),* Bihatia (Hammer-Purgstall). Briggs says he has failed in fixing the position of this place. Elphinstone says, “a dependency of Láhore, at the southern side of Multán.” Bird says it is now called Bhatnír, situated on the northern extremity of the Bikanír desert. Reinaud says it is to the south-east of Multán, and in the middle of an arid country, apparently on the testimony of 'Utbi, but he makes no such assertion. Hammer-Purgstall conceives it to be the present Baháwalpúr. But how could a dependency of Láhore be on the southern side of Multán, itself independent? How could Mahmúd advance over all the Panjáb rivers to attack a city in a desert? Or Baháwalpúr, leaving a country full of hostile and martial populations in his rear? How could Bijí Ráí, deserting his fort, “take post in a wood on the Indus,” as Firishta says, if Bhátía were on the other side of the Sutlej? or how could he “take refuge on the top of some hills,” as 'Utbí says, when there are no hills within a hundred and twenty miles from either place?

Here again we must correct the reading, and all becomes explica­ble and easy. The real name of the place is Bhera. It lies on the left bank of the Jailam, under the Salt range. It bears evident marks of great antiquity, and has on the opposite side of the river the extensive ruins of Buraria, above Ahmadábád, which strike every beholder with astonishment. The only works which read Bhera are the Khulásatu-t Tawáríkh and its followers the Akhbár-i Muhabbat, etc. That Dow's copy of Firishta must have been very near it, is evident, for, although Mahmúd advances against the city of “Battea,” he is made by a strange inadvertence to take the city of “Tahera.” 'Utbí [and Ibn Asír] certainly read Bhátía, and Al Bírúní mentions Bhátía and not Bhera, but his Bhátía scarcely seems the one we are dealing with.

Whether Bhátía is written by mistake, or whether Bhátía is an old name of Bhera, is difficult to say. The latter is very probable, for the Bhatí or Bhattí Rájpúts still point to this tract as the place of their residence before their advance to the eastward, and their name is still preserved in the large town of Pindí Bhattíán, on the Chináb. It is worthy of remark, as observed by Mr. E. Thomas,* that of the list of Hindú kings given by Al Bírúní, the four last beginning with Jaipál I. add the designation of Pál to that of Deva, borne by their Brahman predecessors. This would imply the suc­cession of a new tribe, which he considers to be Bhattí Rájpút. There is no improbability in this, for there is no authority except that of Firishta for declaring Jaipál to be a Brahman, and Bhátía therefore may have been the local title of the capital of the tribe. Firishta* makes the Rájá of Bhátía to be a different personage from the Rájá of Láhore; but he afterwards tells us that the Láhore dominions extended from Kashmír to Multán—which, as has been shown, includes Bhátía.

It is to be observed, moreover, that Mahmúd does not pass through Multán, or the province of Multán, to get there, but passes “by the borders of Multán,” as Firishta says, or “crosses the Indus in the neighbourhood of Multán,” as 'Utbí says. Now, as Multán must have extended, as it always has, even down to the days of Mulráj, nearly up to the Salt range, it is probable that Mahmúd came from Ghazní by the valley of Banú, and following the course of the Khuram, crossed the Indus near Ísákhel and the old town of Rorí, and so, passing the Sind-Ságar Doáb through Mitta Tiwána, reached Bhera by way of Khusháb and Sháhpúr.

A subsequent campaign also indicates the position of Bhera, as will be noticed more particularly hereafter. Meanwhile it is to be observed that Mahmúd annexed Bhera to his dominions, which, had it been any place trans-Sutlej, would have been out of the question.

Fourth Expedition.—Multán. A.H. 396.—[Ibn Asír and] the Habíbu-s Siyar place the expedition to Bhátía and Multán in the same year, but it is quite evident from the Yamíní that special preparations were made for this new campaign. Dr. Bird considers that Firishta has misplaced this campaign, and that it should be deferred till after the defeat of Ílak Khán. I see no reason whatever to doubt that it is correctly ascribed to the year 396 H., and that it has nothing what­ever to do with the invasion which took place after Ílak Khán's. defeat.

We find the governor or ruler of Multán with a Muhammadan name, “Abí-l Futúh, or “Abú-l Fath,” and he is not an infidel but a heretic, one “who introduced his neologies into religion.” There can be little doubt, therefore, that he was a follower of the Karmatian heresy, which we know, from Al Bírúní, to have pre­vailed extensively at Multán, and for a long period previous to this invasion. “He says: “When the Karmatians became masters of Multán, their chief broke the idol in pieces, and massacred its ministers; and the temple, which was built of brick, and situated on an elevated spot, became the grand mosque in place of the old one, which was closed on account of the hatred borne against the Ummayide Khalífas, under whose rule it was constructed. Sultán Mahmúd, after subduing the Karmatians, reopened the old mosque, so that the old one was abandoned; and now it is as a plain, destined to vulgar uses.”

The authors which treat of this period do not,—except in a few instances, as the Tabakát-i Akbarí, and the Khulásatu-t Tawáríkh— expressly say that Multán was held by Karmatians, but by “Mulá-hida,” a more generic term, which, though it might include Karma-tians, was more generally, at a subsequent period, used to designate the Isma'ílians.* For more on the subject of the occupation of Multán at this period, the passages mentioned in the note may be consulted.*

Abú-l Fath Dáúd was the grandson of Shaikh Hamíd Lodí, who is represented to have done homage to Subuktigín. The word “tribute,” used by Briggs, is not authorized. Elphinstone says that Hamíd Khán had joined the enemies of his faith for a cession of the provinces of Multán and Laghmán, and submitted to Subuktigín after his victory over the Hindús. This statement is made on the authority of Firishta.* Dáúd invited the co-operation of Anandpál, who, being defeated at Pesháwar, was pursued as far as Sodra,* on the Chináb. From Sodra Mahmúd goes, by way of Batinda, to Multán, which is so circuitous a route as to be absurd. Here, again, Bhera should be read, which is in the direct line between Sodra and Multán.

Ibn Asír, Mírkhond, and Haidar Rází make Dáúd flee away to Sarandíp, but 'Utbí says a fine was levied from the inhabitants of 20,000,000 dirhams. Firishta says an annual tribute was fixed on Dáúd of 20,000 golden dirhams, or dínárs, with promise of implicit obedience and abstinence from heresy for the future.