In the time of the native dynasties which preceded the Arabs, the capital of Lower Sind was Bráhmanábád.
[The old name of the place, according to Bírúní, was Bahmanu or
Bahmanwá. The Ashkálu-l Bílád calls it Bámíwán (p. 34), but
Ibn Haukal gives the name as “Támírámán” according to Gilde-
Under its immediate government were included Nírún, Debal, the country of the Lohánas, the Lákhas, and the Sammas, and the whole southern coast. Its position, therefore, was one of great importance, and as its ruin is comparatively modern, it is surprising that so much doubt should exist with respect to its locality.
Various positions have been assigned to Bráhmanábád. The Áyín-i Akbarí says the fort had 1400 bastions, and that “to this day there are considerable vestiges of this fortification;”* but it is not said in what direction, or on which side of the river, it lay; but the mention of the bastions would seem to point out that Kalákot was probably indicated. In a passage in the Beg-Lár-náma, mention is made of “a place called Matáhila, near the fortress of Bráhmanábád, twenty kos distant from Nasrpúr” (MS. p. 80). Dr. Vincent says it was within four miles of Thatta, and corresponded with Pattala,* concurring in this with D'Anville and Rennell.
Capt. McMurdo fixes it on the Púrán, afterwards called Lohána Daryá, but it is not quite plain what he means by the Lohána Daryá.* He, at any rate, altogether repudiates Thatta and Kalákot, and we must look for his Bráhmanábád near Nasrpúr. “It was situated on the Lohána Daryá, at a short distance from where it separates from the Púrán.” Again, “On or near the Púrán river, in what was subsequently called the Shahdadpúr Pergana. Báhmana was afterwards called Díbal Kángara.”* Dr. Burnes fixes it at Kalákot,* and so does Sir A. Burnes.* Capt. Postans says Bhambúra, mentioning at the same time native tradition in favour of Khudábád, a little above Haidarábád.*
There seems no reason to conclude that the Bráhmanábád, or
Bahmanábád, of which we are treating, was founded by the Persian
king, Bahman, upon his invasion of Sind. His city is expressly
said to have been built in the province of Budha,*
which never
extended so far as the Indus. Nor is it probable that, had he built
a city on the Indus, he would have done so on the eastern, rather
than on the western, bank of that river. The fact is, that Bahmaná-
Though the Chach-náma does not anywhere expressly point out where Bráhmanábád was situated, we are at any rate assured, from several passages, that it was on the eastern side of the Indus, and this alone is sufficient to show that the speculations which have been raised, respecting the identity of Kalákot and Thatta with that old capital, rest upon no solid foundation.
We may fairly consider, in general terms, that Bráhmanábád, after being intermediately succeeded by the Arab capital Mansúra, is now represented by the modern Haidarábád; and although it may not have been upon the identical spot occupied by the modern capital, it was at least within the island, or peninsula, formed by the Falailí and the main stream of the Indus, from which the former seems to have diverged in old days at a point higher than at present. Matárí, indeed, would seem to be the most probable site of the city, with reference to the quotation given above from the Beg-Lar-náma. To fix it higher up, as at Khudábád or Hála, would take it too far from Mansúra, which we have next to consider.
Biládurí tells us that old Bráhmanábád was about two parasangs
distant from Mansúra, which, in the time of Muhammad Kásim, was
occupied by a forest*
(p. 122). When we consider the space which
is always covered by the sites of old Indian towns, from the straggling
mode of their erection, we are authorized to conclude that a
large portion of Bráhmanábád was included in Mansúra, and that,
in point of fact, the two sites are identical. The position of Haida-
The 'Ajáíbu-l Makhlúkát says that Nasrpúr was built on the site
of Mansúra, and the same opinion is expressed by D'Anville,*
and
accredited by the local information of Capt. McMurdo. Tieffen-
Biládurí tells us that, after Hakim had built Mahfúza on the Indian side of the lake,—or body of water, whatever it may have been,* —his successor 'Amrú built Mansúra on this (the western) side, and established it as the capital. M. Reinaud says, “Mahfúza was built in the neighbourhood of the capital (Bráhmanábád), on the other side of a lake fed by the waters of the Indus.” I do not find on what authority this is stated. Mansúra was, indeed, two parasangs from Bráhmanábád, and M. Reinaud is right in stating that these two latter names were often used the one for the other,* — for they are so combined and converted both by Ibn Haukal and Bírúní;* but beyond the announcement that Mahfúza was on the eastern side of the bahaira (lake, marsh, or inundation of the Indus), and Mansúra on the western, we have nothing which indicates the true position of Mahfúza.