The Biographie Universelle contains a curious statement, respecting this expedition: “La révolte du gouverneur qu'il avait laissé à Moultan et le débordement des fleuves qui semblait la favoriser, obligèrent Mahmoud de demander passage à Andbal. Sur son refus, il le poursuivit à travers le Candahar et le Kaboulistan jusqu' à Kaschmyre.”* What Kandahár and Kábulistán have to do with the pursuit is not easy to say. Authors agree in saying Mahmúd wished to march through Anandpál's territory, but it is very difficult to discern the reason of the request, as he had already crossed the Indus, beyond the borders of his territory, and by a route which would lead him more directly towards his object.

'Unsurí informs us that Mahmúd took two hundred forts on his way to Multán.

Fifth Expedition.* —Defeat of Nawása Sháh, A.H. 398.—When Mahmúd was called away from Multán by Ílak Khán's invasion of his territory, he left his Indian possessions in charge of Sewakpál, or “Sukhpál, a son of one of the Rájás of India,”* and who, having been formerly made a prisoner in Pesháwar by Abú 'Alí Sanjarí, had become a convert to Islám. Sukhpál was taken prisoner by Mahmúd's advance cavalry, and was compelled to pay the sum of 400,000 dirhams; and being made over, as Firishta informs us, to Tigín the Treasurer, was kept in confinement during the rest of his life.*

Dr. Bird says that there was no such expedition as this, and that Firishta has confounded it with the previous expedition to Multán; but as it is mentioned by 'Utbí, Mírkhond, and Khondamír, as well as by Firishta, there is no reason whatever to discredit it.

Dr. Bird adduces, as an additional proof of confusion, that the name Nawása, “a grandson,” belonged to Abú-l Fath Dáúd, because he was a grandson of Sheikh Hamíd Lodí; but there is no ground for saying that Dáúd was so called, as the name might have belonged just as well to the grandson of Jaipál, as of Sheikh Hamíd. He apostatised to idolatry, after being converted, whereas Dáúd could only have apostatised to the Karmatian heresy, and not to idolatry and plural worship. The designation of Nawása is considered doubtful. His name was Sewakpál or Sukhpál; Ritter says Samukkel. Dow reads “Shoekpal, who, on conversion to Islám, assumed the name Zab Sais.” D'Herbelot has “Nevescha;” S. de Sacy, “Nawaschteh;” Wilken, “Nuvasch Shah.” The Tabakát-i Akbarí says, “Súkpál, the grandson of the Rájá of Hind.” The readings in Firishta are by no means uniform. They are Áb sahárá, Ábsár, Áb basháer and Záb sá. The Táríkh-i Alfí, and some other authorities, make it Záb Sais or Záb Sháh. Hammer-Purgstall says, “Ssabsa or Schiwekpal.” All these are changes rung upon the word “nawása,’ or “grandson,” especially “a daughter's child.” Bird says, Price is mistaken in calling him Nawása Sháh; but 'Utbí gives this name, and there is no reason why we should reject it. It may have been bestowed upon him by Mahmúd as a mark of endearment, and Shah, “king,” may have been added as a term of aggrandize­ment, or it might have been Sáh, a common title of respect. But what is more probable than all is that he was the grandchild (by a daughter) of Jaipál, because, in 'Utbi's account of the expedition to Kanauj, we find Bhím Pál, the great-grandson, complaining that his uncle had been forcibly converted to Islám. Sukh Pál, therefore, was the name, Nawása the relationship to Jaipál, and Sáh the honorific title. He was probably one of the relations of Jaipál, made over by him as hostage to Mahmúd; and that, perhaps, was the period of conversion.

The movement by which his seizure was effected was so rapid, and a new invasion of India was entered upon so soon after, that it is probable the scene of the transaction was the valley of Pesháwar.

Sixth Expedition.—Waihind, Nagarkot.* A.H. 399 (1008-9 A.D.).— It will be observed that the account of the commencement of this expedition is described very differently in the Yamíní, the Habíbu-s Siyar and Firishta. I prefer, as on former occasions, the former, the river of Waihind, or the Indus, being a more probable place of action than Pesháwar, which was then within the Muhammadan border. That the Gakkhars may have performed the part assigned to them is probable enough, whether the action was fought at one place or the other; but that the Gakkhars are the ancestors of the modern Játs, as Dr. Bird asserts, is altogether a mistake, and likely to lead to serious errors.

About the proceedings at Nagarkot all accounts agree, and that Nagarkot is the same as Kot Kángrá can admit of no doubt, for the name of Nagarkot is still used. Its position is well described, and corresponds with present circumstances. The impassable waters which surround it are the Bán-ganga and the Biyáh. The town of Bhím, which is about a mile from the fort, is now on the spot called Bhawan, which means a temple raised to a Saktí, or female deity, and Bhím is probably a mistake arising from its presumed founda­tion by the heroic Bhím. M. Reinaud considers that it was called Bhím-nagar from Srí Bhíma deva, of the Kábul dynasty. The different forms which the name assumes in different authors are shown at p. 34. Elphinstone is mistaken in saying that Nagarkot derived peculiar sanctity from a natural flame which issued from the ground within its precincts. This flame is at Jwálá-mukhí, fifteen miles distant, where carburetted hydrogen issues from the sandstone rocks, and fills the superstitious pilgrim with awe and veneration. These jets of gas are made to burn with increased vigour by the removal of plugs, whenever a distinguished visitor is likely to pay well for this recognition of his superior sanctity.

Dr. Bird, who has given a most critical examination of these invasions, says that the capture of Nagarkot and the previous action beyond the Indus occurred in two different years. He observes: “If we might trust Firishta, Mahmúd at this time (after the battle of Pesháwar) marching into the mountains captured the celebrated fortress of Nagarkot. It was not, however, till the following year, A.H. 400, according to the Tabakát-i Akbarí and Habíbu-s Siyar, that this expedition was undertaken; and as the hostile armies prior to the last battle had consumed three or four months in operations west of the Indus, it is not probable that Mahmúd could have marched into India at the commencement of the rainy season. The Hijra year 399 given for the march to Pesháwar, or the previous year A.D. commenced the 5th September, A.D., 1008; and as the spring season, when he left Ghazní, would not commence till A.D. 1009, he must have spent the summer in Kábul, and set out for Hindústán about October.”

I cannot trace in the Tabakát-i Akbarí and the Habíbu-s Siyar the assertion attributed to them; but let us leave these inferior autho­rities and refer to the Yamíní. There we find that it is in pursuit (of the flying enemy) that Mahmúd went as far as the fort called Bhímnagar.” The campaign, therefore, must have been continuous, and there was no break between the action trans-Indus and the capture of Nagarkot. He has already traversed the same road as far as Sodra on the Chináb, and he would only have had ten or twelve marches over a new line of country.

In these enquiries we must be very cautious how we deal with the word “spring.” Both Bird and Elphinstone speak of the conquerors setting out in the spring of a Christian year, but the spring of a Ghaznivide invader is the autumn of the Christian year. It is the period when the breaking up of the rains admits of warlike opera­tions. It is the Dasahra of the Hindús, and the season of the com­mencement of their campaigns. So, in the first decisive action against Jaipál, we find Mahmúd leaving Ghazní in August, and fighting the action at Pesháwar in November. And so here we find him leaving Ghazni on the last day of Rabí'u-l ákhir, or the end of December, which, though unusually late in the season—so late, indeed, as to render marching in the uplands almost impossible—would still have enabled him to fight his action on the Indus at the beginning of February. He might then have completed his operations at Kángrá before the end of March, and have left India again before the severe heat commenced. The only difficulty about the whole campaign is his leaving Ghazní in the heart of winter; but that the action on the Indus and the one at Nagarkot occurred in the fair weather of the same year, there is no sufficient reason to doubt.