Rahma or Ruhmí.
[According to Sulaimán, this State is bordered by those of Balhará, Jurz and Táfand, and is constantly at war with the two former. Mas'údí says it stretches along the sea and continent, and is bounded inland by a kingdom called Káman. He adds that Rahma is the title of their kings, and generally their name also. They had great strength in troops, elephants, and horses. Reinaud says it “appears to correspond with the ancient kingdom of Visapour,”361 but it is difficult to fix the locality of this kingdom. The name is probably the Sanskrit Ráma. The use of kaurís for money, the extremely fine cotton fabrics, and the existence of the rhinoceros in the country, would point to a locality on the Bay of Bengal about Dacca and Arracan. If the neighbouring kingdom, which Mas'údí calls Káman, is the same as that which Ibn Khurdádba calls Kámrún and places on the borders of China, there can be no doubt that Kámrúp or Assam is intended, and this identification, which is exceedingly probable, will confirm the locality of Dacca as the probable site of the kingdom of Rahma. The accounts of this kingdom and of Kámrúp were probably gathered by the Arab writers from mariners who had visited the ports in the Bay of Bengal, and their ignorance of the interior of the country, led them to infer that the territories of the Balhará on the western coast were conterminous with those of Rahma on the eastern side.]
Káshbín.
[Tod identifies Káshbín with Kach Bhúj, while Reinaud supposes it to be Mysore.361a All the description given of it is that it is an inland country, so that in the absence of any closely resembling Indian name, its locality is a mere matter of guess.]
Agham.—The Lohánas.
Agham, or Agham-kot, lies about thirty miles south-east from Haidarábád, and though now almost forgotten, it was formerly a place of some consequence. Its position is not very easily identified, and the name is rarely introduced into the maps. In Lt. Burton's it seems to be entered under the name of “Angoomanoo,” and in the Quartermaster-General's map of 1850, under that of “Aghamama.”
The Beg-Lar Náma says it is on the Rain. The Tuhfatu-l Kirám mentions it among the towns on the Sánkra. Capt. McMurdo says it is on the Lohána Daryá; but he strangely fixes its site at Kalákot, seven miles to the west of Thatta, observing erroneously that it is not mentioned till long after the Arab conquest. Its position may be indicated at present as lying between the Gúní and the Rain; but it does not follow that it will answer to that description next year, as the course of these streams is constantly shifting.
It is also called Agham Lohána. In the Chach-náma, we find frequent mention of a chief under that name, who was governor of Brahmanábád in the time of Chach. Lohána is the designation of a powerful tribe, which at that period, under an apparent confusion of terms, is said to have included both the Samma and Lákha clans. It can merely mean that they were then in a position of comparative subordination. Under all the vicissitudes the Lohánas have undergone, they still retain their credit, as well as their religion, and constitute the most influential tribe in Sind, whether regarded as merchants or officials. But, not confined within that narrow province, they have spread their ramifications beyond the western borders of India, and are found dispersed throughout Afghánistán, Buluchistán, and Arabia, exposed to inconveniences, insults, and dangers of no ordinary kind, in pursuit of their darling object of wealth, and final return to their native soil to enjoy the fruits of their industry.
The Lohánas derive their name and origin from Lohanpúr in Multán. The date of their emigration must have been very early, and even their own traditions do not attempt to fix it. Their subdivisions are said to amount at least to fifty, the chief of them being the Khudábádí and Sihwání. They all of them wear the Janeo, or Brahmanical thread. Though, for the most part, they worship the Hindu deities, a few have adopted the faith of Bábá Nának. They are described, by an accurate observer, as eating meat, addicted to spirituous liquors, not objecting to fish and onions, drinking water from the hand of their inferiors as well as superiors in caste, and being neither frequent nor regular in their devotions.
As the town of Agham is mentioned as early as the time of Muhammad Kásim, we may presume that it derived its name from the Lohána chieftain above-mentioned, who was the contemporary and opponent of Chach.363
Alor.
[This name is found in various forms—Mas'údí (p. 23) calls it Al Rúr; Ibn Khurdádba writes Al Daur (p. 14); Istakhrí has Al Rúz (p. 27), and Al Rúr (p. 28). The Ashkalu-l Bilád has Aldúr (p. 34), and Alrúr (p. 37); Gildemeister makes Ibn Haukal's version to be Rúz and Alrúz; Bírúní's spelling is ambiguous (see p. 48); Idrísí has Dúr (p. 79). The Marásidu-l Ittilá' has Al Rúr.] The ruins of the town lie between Bhakkar and Khairpur, and are known by the name of Alor. Lieut. Maclagan says that it is also called Aror and that the band spoken of by Burnes is really an arched bridge. [There can be little doubt of the first syllable being the Arabic al, and the real name Rúr, as it survives in the modern town of Rorí, which stands close by the ruins of Alor.]
Amhal, Fámhal, Kámhal, or Mámhal.
[The name of the border town between Sind and Hind appears in many forms. Istakhrí has Amhal, Fámhal, and Kámhal; the Askálu-l Bilád has Fámhal in the text, but Kámhal in the map. Gildemeister's Ibn Haukal has Kámuhul. Idrísí has Mámhal; Abú-l Fída has Kámhal, but a note states that a MS. of Ibn Haukal gives the name as Fámhal. The Marásidu-l Ittilá' has both Kámhal and Mámhal, giving Biládurí as authority for the latter. Careless writing and the omission of sometimes of one, sometimes of two points, will account for the various readings of Fámhal, Kámhal, and Mámhal, and taking this view of the question, Kámhal would appear to be the best reading. Looking, however, at its reported position, at two-thirds of the distance between Mansúra and Kam-báya, it would appear to answer to Anhalwára, and, if so, Istakhrí's solitary reading “Amhal” is right. Wára is a common noun, signifying “field.”364
Armá-bel.
The name of this place frequently occurs during the early period of Arab connection with Sind; but neither its orthography nor position can be established with certainty. The Chach-náma, in different passages, calls it Armáel, Armaná-bíl, Armapilla, and Armábel (p. 157). The Futúhu-l buldán has Armáíl; which M. Reinaud reads Armâyl, but considers the true reading to be Armâ-byl, for the reason given in the note.364a Ibn Khurdádba and Istakhri write Armábíl (pp. 14, 29); Ibn Haukal according to the Ashkálu-l Bilád has Armáil (p. 34), and Armábíl (p. 38), Gildemeister, his translator, reads it as Armâil, and suggests Armâbil as preferable.364b The Nubian Geographer has Armíyáel and Armáyíl, which his translator gives as Ermaiil (p. 77 note). The translator of Idrísí has the same (pp. 77 and 80). Abú-l Fídá, with his usual pretensions to accuracy, pronounces it Armábíl. The Marásidu-l Ittilá' has Armá-íl. Ouseley prefers Armaiel. An old and rare Persian lexicon writes it as Armábal.364c The Tuhfatu-l Kirám has Armanbíla, Armanpela, or some similar name. It is not entered in any modern map which I have seen, except that in Rees' Cyclopœdia, where it receives the name of Ermajil, evidently derived from the map in the French or Dutch edition of Abbé Prévost's Histoire Générale des Voyages, Vol. xv., where it bears the same name, and is apparently set down from the statement of the Nubian Geographer. It is not in Ouseley's small map, prefixed to his Epitome of the Ancient History of Persia, which, however, includes some other names given only by the Arab geographers.
With respect to its locality, we read of Chach's going to it on his way from the Indus to Makrán, and his finding there a governor on the part of the late ruler of Sind; and we also read of Muhammad Kásim capturing it on his way from Makrán to Debal (pp. 119, 151 and 157). Istakhrí and Ibn Haukal speak of it as being in the province of Makrán, and six days' journey from Kíz, our modern Kedge. The other Arab geographers, as usual, follow these authorities.
Combining all these several names and statements together, I am disposed to consider that Armá-bel is the ancient and correct reading; and that its name is partly preserved in, while its position corresponds with, the modern Bela, the capital of the province of Las. It is placed on a considerable eminence—a strong and rocky site on the northern bank of the Purálí (the Arabis of the ancients); and, though it is now partly surrounded by a sorry mud wall, and contains only about 300 houses, there are old Muhammadan sepulchres and other vestages of antiquity in its neighbourhood, especially about five miles to the westward, which seem to indicate its greater importance at some former period. Coins, trinkets, and funereal jars are occasionally found there; and in the nearest point of the contiguous hills, separating the province of Las from the old town of Jhow, numerous caves and rock-temples exist, ascribed by tradition to Farhád and the fairies, but which have been considered by an observant traveller to be the earthly resting abodes of the former chiefs, or governors, of the province.365
What adds much to the probability of this identification is, that Bela is mentioned in the native histories, not simply as Bela, but as Kárá-Bela; showing that it has been usual to prefix another name, which is now dropped in ordinary converse.
Askalanda.—Uchh.—Alexandria.
The Askalanda, Asal-kanda, and Askalandra of the Chach-náma is the same as the Askaland and 'Askaland-Úsa of the Mujmalu-t Tawáríkh, and the Askandra and Askanda of the Tuhfatu-l Kirám. The close correspondence of name, especially in the last instance, induces us at once to recognise it as identical with the Alexandria built at the confluence of the Acesines with the Indus; but a little examination will show this resemblance to be more specious than real.366
The ancient kingdom of Sind was divided in four Satrapies, of which the third (v. supra, p. 138) comprised the fort of Askalanda and Máíbar,366a “which are also called Talwára and Chachpúr.” It is evident, from the description of the other Satrapies, that this one contained the whole tract north-east of Alor, and south-east of the Panjnad and Ghara; almost precisely the same, in short, as the present Dáúdpútra country. Now Máíbar and Chachpúr still exist, under the modernised names of Mírbar and Cháchar, close together at the very junction of the Acesines and Indus, on the eastern side of the river, opposite to Mittankot; and in them, therefore, we should have to look for Alexandria, if, which is not probable, it was on the left bank of the Indus. Consequently, Askalanda must have been higher up the river, as subsequent passages will show.
In the time of Chach (p. 141), the governor of Pábiya “south of the river Bíás,” fled to Askalanda, which, therefore, was not likely to have been far from, or across, that river. Again, some years after, (pp. 202, 203), we find Muhammad Kásim breaking up his camp at Pábiya,366b “on the southern bank of the Bíás,” to go to Aska-landa. It is not expressly mentioned that he crossed that river, and we may presume, therefore, that he did not. Nowhere else do we find any indication of its position; but, as will be seen in the note upon the Meds, it was the capital when Jayadratha and Dassál ruled in Sind.
Its proximity to the Bíás and its name of Askaland-Úsa366c lead us to regard it as the Úchh of more modern times. That place bears marks of the most undoubted antiquity, and the absence of all mention of it in the Chach-náma where we are, both in the time of Chach and Muhammad Kásim, introduced to many transactions in its neighbourhood, can only be accounted for on the supposition that it is disguised under some other appellation.
It has been supposed, indeed, that the name of the Oxydracæ is derived from this old town of Úchh, but their position, according to Strabo and Arrian, appears rather to have been on the western side of the Acesines; and it is a curious coincidence that, in that direction also, there is another ancient Úchh, now in ruins, near the junction of the Hydaspes with that river, which offers a far more probable identification, and allows us, moreover, to assign to the Ossadii, instead of the Oxydracæ, the Úchh, or Askaland-Úsa, near the junction of the Hyphasis with the Acesines. The name of the Oxydracæ assumes various forms in different authors.—Hydracœ in Strabo, Syracousœ in Diodorus, Scydroi, Scothroi, and Scythroi in Dionysius, Sydraci in Pliny, Sygambri in Justin, and Oxydracœ in Strabo, Arrian, Curtius, Stephanus, and others; but in no author are they confounded with the Ossadii, which constituted a separate tribe, acting entirely independent of the Oxydracœ.
It is certain that neither the upper nor lower Alexandria was built near the present Úchh. So cursorily, indeed, does Arrian notice the confluence near that spot, that Major Rennell and Dr. Vincent carry the Hyphasis direct into the Indus, without bringing it first into the Acesines. Nevertheless, although Alexander may himself have raised no city there, we might still be disposed to admit that the celebrity of his power and conquests may have given rise to the name of Askaland, or Askandra, did we not reflect that, if we are to put any trust in the chronology of the Mujmalu-t Tawáríkh , the name must have preceded the invasion of the Grecian conqueror, and cannot therefore, independent of the other reasons above mentioned, be connected with it.367
Bániya.
[This name occurs in the list of the cities of Sind as given by Istakhrí (p. 27), and the Ashkalu-l Bilád of Ibn Haukal (p. 34), but no description is given of the place. Idrísí says that it is a small but pleasant place, about three days' journey from Mansúra on the road to Mámhal, and so it is laid down in the maps of Istakhrí and the Ashkálu-l Bilád. It is not mentioned by Abu-l Fidá, nor in the Marasidu-l Ittilá'. The Bhátí mentioned by Bírúní at page 61, and the Bátiya in the Chach-náma (p. 174), are probably variant spellings of the same name.]
Bhambúr.—Barbarike.
Bhambúra, or Bhambúr, is not named in our oldest works on Sind; but it is mentioned in a modern native historian as having been captured during the Khalifat of Hárúnu-r Rashíd. It is the scene of many legendary stories of Sind; and, according to one of them, owes its destruction in a single night to the divine wrath which its ruler's sins drew down upon it. Its ruins skirt the water's edge for about a quarter of a mile, and cover a low hill almost surrounded by a plain of sand, a little to the right of the road from Karáchí to Ghára, and about two miles from the latter place. There are evident marks of its having been at one time flourishing and populous; and even now, after heavy rains, coins, ornaments, and broken vessels are found among the debris of the fort.
Coupling these manifest signs of antiquity, with the fact that the natives commonly considered Bhambúr as the oldest port in Sind, and that the legend at page 332, proves its connection with the main stream of the Indus, it may possibly represent the Barbarik Emporium of the Periplus, and the Barbari of Ptolemy; the easy conversion from the native Bhambúr into the more familiar Barbari being a highly probable result of the wanton mispronunciation to which the Greeks were so much addicted. But opposed to this is the statement of Arrian, that Barbarike was on the centre stream of the Delta, which would make Láhorí-bandar its more likely representative. Perhaps in Arrian's time there may have been direct communication between the main channel and Bhambúr.368
Bráhmanábád.—Mansúra.—Mahfúza.
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-meister, and “Mámíwán” according to Major Anderson. Idrísí has Mírmán (p. 78), but this is obviously a blunder. In the Chach-náma, the name is written Báín-wáh, and in the Táríkh-i Táhiri, Páín-wáh. It is probably the Bhámbaráwáh of the Tuhfatu-l Kirám (p. 332). Captain McMurdo writes it Báhmana, and Briggs “Bamunwasy.”369]
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;”369a 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,369b 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.369c 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.”370 Dr. Burnes fixes it at Kalákot,370a and so does Sir A. Burnes.370b Capt. Postans says Bhambúra, mentioning at the same time native tradition in favour of Khudábád, a little above Haidarábád.370c
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,370d 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-bád is a mere abbreviated form of Bráhmanábád; and is still a very common mode of elision throughout Western India and the Dekhin, where Bráhman, in common parlance, is usually converted into Bahman.
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 forest371 (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-rábád, upon a ridge of limestone hills about eighty feet high, must, from the first, have pointed out that site as a commanding one for a capital, and it has probably ever been thus occupied, by successive towns, from the first dawn of Sindian civilization. It is, indeed, on the site of Bráhmanábád that D'Anville would place the earlier Minagara, in which he is followed by Reinaud.371a
The 'Ajáíbu-l Makhlúkát says that Nasrpúr was built on the site of Mansúra, and the same opinion is expressed by D'Anville,371b and accredited by the local information of Capt. McMurdo. Tieffen-thaler, 371c Vincent,371d Rennell,371e Tod,371f and Gildemeister,371g misled by the mistake of Abú-l Fazl,371h fix Mansúra at Bhakkar. M. Reinaud considers the testimony of Biládurí, Mas'údí, Istakhrí, Ibn Haukal, and Al Birúní to bear out D'Anville entirely in his position of Nasrpúr; but the mere fact that all the geographers agree in representing a branch of the Indus as flowing by Mansúra, is quite sufficient to dislodge Nasrpúr, which is twelve miles from the nearest point of the river.
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,371i —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,372 — for they are so combined and converted both by Ibn Haukal and Bírúní;372a 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.
It appears to me that Mahfúza, and not Mansúra, is represented by Nasrpúr. Indeed, independent of the position with reference to the eastern and western side of the stream above mentioned, it is worthy of remark, that the meaning of the two names is the same— both signifying “the protected, the abode of refuge.” The identity, or resemblance of name, therefore, would be as much in favour of Mahfúza as Mansúra.
Nasrpúr, which modern authorities universally spell as Násirpúr, was built, or rather re-constructed, on the river Sánkra, by Amír Nasr, who was detached by Sultán Fíroz Sháh for that purpose, with a thousand cavalry, in 751 A.H., 1350 A.D. Nasrpúr was subsequently the favourite residence of the Tarkháns, and was greatly embellished by them during their brief rule.372b
It being shown above that Mansúra is nearly identical with Bráhmanábád, it remains to prove that both are not far distant from the modern capital of Haidarábád.
Among the reasons for considering Mansúra to be identical with Haidarábád, is the position assigned to it by Istakhri and Ibn Haukal, who describe it as being “a mile long and a mile broad, and surrounded by a branch of the Indus.” This is the mode in which it is also described by Kazwíní. Notwithstanding this, it is laid down in the map of the Ashkálu-l Bilád.372c as being situated on the main stream. Istakhrí's map rightly locates it on the branch, but Ibn Haukals' map, as printed by Major Anderson,372d places it about midway between the two. The island, to be sure, is out of all proportion large, but its position necessarily identifies it with that which is formed by the Falailí and the Indus,—and the space which the town is represented to have occupied is exactly that which constitutes the limestone ridge on which Haidarábád is built.
The distances laid down also by Ibn Haukal are, with one exception sufficiently correct. Thus, from Mansúra to Debal is six days' journey, which is exact,—on the supposition that Debal, as elsewhere shown, is Karáchí. From Mansúra to Túrán is fifteen days' journey, which also agrees well enough with Haidarábád. From Mansúra to Kandábel (Gandáva) is eight days' journey, which also agrees very well.—“He who travels from Mansúra to Budha must go along the banks of the Indus as far as Sihwán,”—which shows Mansúra to be close on the Indus, as, indeed, it is elsewhere expressly declared to be, and not so far removed as Nasrpúr. From Mansúra to Cambay is twelve days' journey. Here the distances are long, but the desert must have made continuous travelling indispensable, as the halting places were necessarily reduced to the smallest possible number.
The widest departure from the ordinary distance is that between Mansúra and Multán, which is set down by Ibn Haukal at only twelve days' journey. This is very rapid, considering that about four hundred miles separate them, requiring an average of thirty-three miles a day. But though the average be high, it is certainly not beyond the means of conveyance where camels are abundant, as in Sind.
Bírúní lays down the distance at fifteen parasangs from Multán to Bhátí, another fifteen from Bhátí to Alor, and twenty from Alor to Mansúra—making the entire distance only fifty parasangs from Multán to Mansúra; while, at the same time, he gives it as thirty parasangs from Mansúra to Loharání Bandar (p. 61). There is here also a surprising abridgment of the former distance, which, may perhaps be accounted for by considering the frontier to be reckoned from in one instance, and the capital in the other. Still, such an error or inconsistency in a space so frequently traversed, is not easily accounted for, occurring as it does in two such trustworthy authorities as Ibn Haukal and Birúní; and it would have been satisfactory to find some more plausible solution. Mas'údí, with a much nearer approach to correctness, gives the distance as seventy-five parasangs between Multán and Mansúra, and his statement may be considered a sufficient corrective of the other geographers (p. 24).
It may be proper to add, that none of these ancient places, mentioned in this and other Notes, have sites assigned to them in any modern maps. Burnes, Wieland, Vivien de St. Martin, Berghaus, Zimmermann, all reject them. D'Avezac enters some, but all erroneously, except Debal,—at least, according to the principles above enunciated. Even Kiepert, in his valuable Karte von Alt-Indien , Berlin, 1853, drawn up for the illustration of Professor Lassen's Indische Alterthumskunde, enters only Bráhmanábád; and that he places on the right bank of the presumed ancient course of the Sindhu, which he has laid down as flowing far to the eastward of the present Indus. As he has admitted other names more modern than these, he should not have ignored them all.
[Since the death of Sir H. Elliot the remains of a buried city, supposed to be the ancient Bráhmanábád, have been discovered and explored by Mr. A. F. Bellasis, of the Bombay Civil Service. The exact position of the ruins is stated to be forty-seven miles northeast of Haidarábád, and if their investigator is right in believing them to be the ruins of Bráhmanábád, the question of the position of that city is put at rest. The identification has presumption in its favour, though it has not yet been satisfactorily proved; and one circumstance is strongly against it:—Large numbers of coins were discovered among the ruins; but the great bulk of these were Muhammadan, and the few Hindu coins that were brought to light “seem to be casual contributions from other provinces, of no very marked uniformity or striking age.” Were the ruins those of an old Hindu city, Hindu coins of a distinct character would probably have been found. The coins discovered were those of Mansúr bin Jamhúr, Abdu-r Rahmán, Muhammad 'Abdu-lláh and Umar (see supra, p. 127).374]
Debal.—Karáchí.—Thatta.—Láhorí Bandar.
It is strange that the site of a port once so noted as Debal should now be left to vague conjecture; but amongst the fluctuating channels of the Sindian Delta we must rest content with mere surmises.
Some of the various opinions entertained upon the question of its locality may be here noticed. Native authorities seem decidedly in favour of considering Thatta to represent Debal, following generally the text of Firishta.375 Mír Ma'súm ignorantly observes that Debal is Thatta and Láhorí Bandar.375a Abú-l Fazl is equally inexact, or rather more so.375b Idrísí (supra, p. 77) and the Arabian geographers having determined that Debal was six stations from the mouth of the Indus, Thatta was necessarily the only site which could be selected.
Modern authors have also for the most part inclined to Thatta, including De la Rochette and Rennell. Capt. McMurdo, while he says that Thatta is still known to the Arabs by the name of Debal alone, shows that the latter must have been a seaport.375c Sir A. Burnes says, also, that Thatta is called by the Arabs Dewal Sindy,375d and himself assigns Kalánkot as its position.375e Lieut. Burton says, we are certain that the modern Thatta occupies the ground of the ancient Dewal, as the Arabs and Persians know it by no other name,—Shál-i Debalí still being used to mean a shawl of Thatta manufacture.375f
D'Anville more correctly establishes it on one of the mouths of the Indus;375g and some others, resigning Thatta, have assigned other localities to Debal. M. Reinaud inclines to the neighbourhood of Karáchí;375h and so does Elphinstone.375i Dr. Burnes says it occupied a site between Karáchí and Thatta, in which he follows Mr. Nathaniel Crow,375j one of the first of our modern enquirers in Sind, who combined much discrimination with ample opportunities of local knowledge.
But there can be no question that Debal was on, or close to, the sea-coast; with which the distant inland position of Thatta is by no means correspondent. For my own part, I entertain little doubt that Karáchí itself represents the site of Debal. The very name of Debal, or rather Dewal, “the temple,” was doubtless acquired from the conspicuous position which that object must have occupied from the sea; where it was calculated to attract the gaze and reverence of the passing mariner, like its fellow shrines of Dwáraka and Somnát; and as there is no other so eligible and commanding a spot along the whole coast of Sind, from Cape Monze to Kotesar, it is highly probable that the promontory on which fort Manora now stands is the identical site occupied by the celebrated temple which gave name to the port of Debal,376 and which, as being the Palladium of its security, was the chief object of attack to the catapults which had been brought round by the sea to effect its destruction.376a
The following may be mentioned amongst the reasons why Debal cannot possibly have been Thatta, and which incline us to view Karáchí with favour:—
The Sarandíp vessels were, in their distress, driven to “the shore of Debal” (p. 118).376b It could not, therefore, have been an inland town like Thatta, fifty miles from the nearest point of the sea, and one hundred miles by any of the tortuous channels of the Delta.
The pirates who attacked them were “dwellers at Debal, of the tribe which they call Tangámara.” Now, these Tangámaras we know to have occupied the sea-coast from Karáchí to Láhorí Bandar, and to be the popular heroes of several local tales—especially their Ráná 'Ubaid, who lived even as late as the year 1000 A.H. (1591 A.D.).376c
Biládurí also speaks of “the Bay of Debal” (p. 116), and of the ships which had been despatched from the Persian Gulf, arriving at Debal with soldiers and mangonels (p. 120). Elphinstone considers this latter fact as decisive against Thatta;376d but too much may be built on this argument, for, subsequently, we find these same mangonels carried by water even to Nairún.
Ibn Haukal says, Debal is a “large port on the shore of the sea, the emporium of this and the neighbouring regions. It lies to the west of the Mihrán,377 and has no large trees or date-palms” (p. 37). It is indeed a place of great sterility, and only occupied on account of its trade. Nothing can be more decisive against the fertile Thatta, and in favour of the barren Karáchí.
Again, from Debal to Mansúra is six stages, which, on the supposition that the latter, as elsewhere shown, is Haidarábád, would not suit Thatta in any respect, but exactly suits Karáchí.
The Marásidu-l Ittilá says Debal [or Daibul, as it writes the name in Arabic fashion] is a celebrated city “on the shore of the sea of Hind, an emporium where the rivers of Lahore and Multán discharge themselves into the salt sea.377a
Further quotations need not be added to show that Debal was on the sea-coast, and could not have been so far inland as Thatta, or even Láhorí Bandar, which, however, is the next most probable site after Karáchí.
Láhorí Bandar, or Lárí Bandar, succeeded Debal as the sea-port of the Indus, and is first named by Bírúní; but Debal had evidently maintained its position down to the time of Jalálu-d dín's incursion into Sind, in 1221 A.D. It will appear, afterwards, from the extracts taken from the Jahán-kusháí, that the Sultán conducted himself with the greatest severity towards the people of that port, for he plundered the country, and as he erected a mosque opposite to a Hindú temple, during his short stay there, it is evident that the place was considered then to be of sufficient consequence to be insulted in the wantonness of his fanaticism.
In Ibn Batúta's time, about a century latter (1333 A.D.), we have no mention of Debal, which seems then to have been superseded entirely by Láhorí Bandar.
Láhorí has itself been taken to be Debal. The Tuhfatu-l kirám, indeed, distinctly asserts that “what is now Bandar Láhorí was in former times called Bandar Debal:”—but its authority is not to be rated high in such matters,377b and while, confessedly, there are some points slightly in favour of its being Debal, there are others which are decisive against it. It is itself fifteen miles from the shore of the sea: it has no bay: and a passage in Bírúní is very conclusive:— where, after saying that the gulf of Túrán (the present bay of Súnmíání) lies between Tíz and Debal, he adds, that beyond the gulf of Túrán are the small and great mouths (of the Indus), the one near the town of Loharáni, the other to the east, on the borders of Kachh. The country (between them) bears the name of Sind Ságara, or the sea of Sind (pp. 49. 65).378 Loharání (Láhorí) is here mentioned as quite distinct from Debal, and was then evidently only just rising into importance,
Ibn Batúta calls the place “Láhiríya” or “Láhari”378a —but it generally goes now by the name of Láhorí, probably from its presumed connection with Lahore. Its ruin and abandonment have now given a greater prominence to the port of Dhárája, which lies a little to the east of Láhorí.
The original name was most likely Lárí, being so called after Lár, the local name of the southern portion of the province of Sind.
The name of Lár had once a very great extension on these southern coasts,—for Ptolemy and the Periplus both mention Guzerát under the name of Larice;378b and Bírúní and Abú-l Fidá place Somnát, and even Tána, in or on the borders of the province of Lár (supra, p. 61).378c The merchant Sulaimán, also, calls the gulf of Cambay and the waters which wash the Malabar coast “the seas of Lár:”378d and Mas'údí says, that “at Saimúr, Subára, Tána and other towns a language called Láriya is spoken,” so that, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that Lárí Bandar was the original form under which this port was first known.378e
Hála-kandí.—The Hellenes.—Pindus.
The ruins of old Hála, or Hála-kandi, on the Indus, thirty miles above Haidarábád, lie to the south-east of the present site. Had its name appeared in the Chach-náma, we might have ascribed its foundation to the Rájá Hál, mentioned in p. 106. Tod names a later prince of the Samma family as the founder.379
It is probable that the designation of the Hála range of mountains has a similar origin, for we nowhere find them mentioned in any early work; but such a very modern attribution would scarcely satisfy a late writer, who sees in them the cradle of the great Hellenic race:—
“The land of Hellas, a name so dear to civilization and the arts, was so called from the magnificent range of heights situated in Beloochistan, styled the ‘Hela’ mountains. * * * The chiefs of this country were called ‘Helaines,’ or the ‘chiefs of the Hela.’”379a
He gives as a motto to this fanciful chapter on the Hellenes, the following lines from the fragments of Hesiod:—
.
Chiefs of the war-car, guards of holy Right,
Dorus and Æolus, and Zuthus' might
From HELLEN sprang.
As he conceives Æolus to represent the Haiya tribe of Rájpúts, it is surprising that he disregards the more obvious resemblance of Dorus and Zuthus to the mighty Dors and the energetic Zats;—the former now nearly extinct, the latter now better known as the wide-spread Jats.
Another mountain range in the same neighbourhood is even still more unduly exalted, in a mode which sets all true relations of time, space, position, and language, at complete defiance.
“I would now direct the reader's attention to the most salient feature in the land of Hellas. The mountain chain of PINDUS, traversing a considerable portion of Greece, and forming the boundary between Thessaly and Epirus, takes its name from the PIND. Its present name is Pind Dadun Khan * * * * whence the Pind or “Salt Range” of Afghanistan was naturally transferred to a corresponding remarkable feature in Greece. It is not a little remarkable, that in the latter country the true Pindus * * * should give nearly the corresponding length of the Pind in Afghanistan, viz., a distance of about sixty miles.”380
This elaborate super-structure is based on an utterly false assumption. The salt range is not, and never was, called the Pind. Pind is a common word in the Upper Panjáb, signifying simply “a village,” and recurs a hundred times over in that locality—as Pind Bhattiyán, Pind Malik Aulyá, Pindí Ghaib, Ráwal Pindi, etc., etc.— and so, Pind Dádan Khán merely means the “village of Dádan Khán,” and one, moreover, of modern erection. The word “Pind,” indeed, has only lately been introduced into the Panjáb—long even after the name of the celebrated Grecian mountain was itself converted into the modern Agrapha.
The whole of this arrogant and dogmatical work is replete with similar absurdities; and yet the only notices it has received from our Reviewers are of a laudatory character. It is to be feared that no English publication of late years will go so far as this to damage our literary reputation in the eyes of continental scholars; and it is therefore to be regretted that it has not yet received the castigation due to its ignorance and presumption.380a
Jandrúd.
[About a mile, or half a parasang, from Multan was the castle or fortified residence of the governor, which Istakhrí calls Jandrúd. The Ashkálu-l Bilad, according to Sir H. Elliot, reads Chandráwar, but the initial ch is at best suspicious in an Arabic work; the map has Jandrúd. Gildemeister's Ibn Haukal has Jandrár, Jandar, and Jandaruz; and Idrísí says Jandúr. Ibn Haukal helps us to the right reading when he says, the Jandarúz is a river, and the city of Jandarúz stands on its banks. Immedíately before this he had been speaking of the river Sandarúz, which is evidently the Sind-rúd, so that we may at once conclude that the final syllable is the Persian rúd (river). Sir H. Elliot, in a subsequent passage, supposes it to derive its first syllable from the Arabic word Jand, a cantonment or military colony,—in which case the name would signify the “cantonment on the river.” But Háfiz Ábrú, in an extract which will appear in Vol. II., informs us that the river Chináb was called “Jamd;” the name of the place, therefore, may have been Jamd-rúd. Multán itself is situated about three miles from the Chináb, so that Jandrúd, or Jamdrúd, must have been its port on that river.]
Kaikánán.—Kaikán.—Kákars.
This name appears under the various aspects of Kaikánán, Kíkán, Kaikán, Kízkánan, Kabarkánán and Kírkáyán,—the first being of most frequent occurrence. Though so often mentioned, we can form but a very general idea of its position.
The Chach-náma tells us that, under the Ráí dynasty, the Sindian territory extended “as far to the north as the mountains of Kirdán381 and Kaikánán” (p. 138). Again, the Arabs “marched in A.H. 38 to Kaikánán, by way of Bahraj and Koh-páya,” where, after some partial successes, their progress was intercepted by the mountaineers in their difficult defiles, and in the end the Arabs sustained a complete defeat. One of the objects of these expeditions to Kaikánán, which lasted for about twenty years, was to obtain horses from that province, as they are represented to have been celebrated for their strength and proportions. The tract of Budh was reached during one of these incursions, and we find one of the Arab armies returning from another incursion by way of Síwistán.381a
Biládurí also mentions these expeditions, with some slight variations in the details; and is the only author who adopts the spelling of the Arabic káf, and omits the last syllable,—representing the name as “Kíkán,” or “Kaikán” (p. 116),—whereas the Chach-náma prefers Kaikánán (p. 138). He says “it forms a portion of Sind in the direction of Khurásán,” and he speaks of “Turks” as its inhabitants. In an important expedition directed against a tract of country lying between Multán and Kábul, in A.H. 44, “Turks are encountered in the country of Kaikán.” In another, 'Abd-ulla sends to Muá'wiya the “horses of Kaikán” (p. 117), which he had taken amongst other spoil. In another, Asad attacks the Meds, after warring against Kaikán (p. 117). In the year 221 H. Biládurí speaks of a portion of Kaikán as occupied by Jats, whom 'Amrán defeated, and then established within their country the military colony of Baizá (p. 128). On this occasion, the country was attacked from the side of Sind, not from Makrán, which will account for the mention of the “Jats,” instead of “Turks.”
It may also be doubted if the Kabákánán (p. 39) or Kízkánán of Ibn Haukal refers to this tract,—and yet it would be more difficult to account for its total omission, if it do not. According to them, Kaikánán was in the district of Túrán, and a city in which the governor of Kusdár resided. This apparent discrepancy can only be reconciled by supposing that there was both a province and town of that name. They give us no further indication of its position, except that the district of Atal is said to lie between Kaikánán and Kandábel,—which, of itself, attributes to it a much greater extension to the north, than if it were a mere portion of Túrán.382
The later Arab geographers follow these authorities, and add nothing further to our information.
Abú-l Fazl Baihakí mentions Kaikahán amongst the other provinces under the authority of Mas'úd, the Ghaznivide; and as Hind, Sind, Nímroz, Zábulistán, Kasdár, Makrán, and Dánistán are noticed separately, it shows that Kaikáhán was then considered a distinct jurisdiction.382a
In Hwen Tsang's travels we have mention of the country of Kikan, situated to the south of Kábul, which is evidently no other than the province of which we are treating.382b
From this time forward, we lose sight of the name, and are left to conjecture where Kaikánán was. Under all the circumstances of the case, we may be justified in considering it so far to the east as to include the Sulaimání range, which had not, up to a comparatively late period, been dignified with that name. As with respect to Asia, and many other names of countries, so with respect to Kaikánán, the boundaries seem to have receded with the progress of discovery; and though, on its first mention, it does not appear to have extended beyond Shál and Mustúng, yet, by the time of the Ghaznivides, we are authorised to conclude that it reached, on the east, to the frontier of Multán, and, on the south, to the hilly tract of Síwistán, above the plains of Sind.
Under the present condition of Afghánistán it may be considered, in general terms, as including the whole of the country occupied by the Kákars. The expedition of A.H. 44 to the country between Multán and Kábul certainly shows that Kaikánán must have comprised the Sulaimání range to the south of the Gúmal; and the celebrity of its horses would appear to point to a tract further to the west, including Saháráwán and Múshkí, where horses, especially those used on the plain of Mangachar, are still in great demand, and whence they are often sent for shipment to the coast.
There is no place extant which recalls the name of the old province, except it be Káhán, which was perhaps included within its south-eastern frontier. It is barely possible, also, that there may be some connection between the name of the Kákars and that of the ancient province which they occupy. It will be observed above, that Baihakí mentions a district of Dánistán, and the order in which it occurs is “Kusdár, and Makrán, and Dánistán, and Kaikáhán.” This implies contiguity between the several places thus named, and it is, therefore, worthy of remark, that Dání is entered in all the genealogical lists of the Afgháns as the eldest son of Gharghasht, the son of their great progenitor, Kais 'Abdu-r Rashíd Pathán; and that Kákar, from whom the powerful tribe of that name is descended, was himself the eldest son of Dání. Names change in the course of ages, especially among people in a low stage of civilization; and it may perhaps be conceded that “Kákarán” and “Kaikáhán” would, under such circumstances, be no very violent and improbable metathesis.
Kajuráha, Capital of Jajáhoti.
1864-5,—Page 68.]
[“The ancient city of Khajuráho, the capital of the Chandel Rajputs, is situated thirty-four miles to the south of Mahoba, twenty-seven miles to the east of Chhatrpur, and twenty-five miles to the north-west of Panna … The earliest mention of this capital is by Abú Ríhán, who accompanied Mahmúd in his campaign against Kalinjar in A.D. 1022. He calls it Kajuráha, the capital of Jajáhoti, and places it at thirty parasangs, or about ninety miles, to the southeast of Kanauj. The true direction, however, is almost due south, and the distance about twice thirty parasangs, or one hundred and eighty miles. The next mention of Khajuráho is by Ibn Batúta, who visited it about A.D. 1335.—He calls it Kajúra … The earliest mention of the province is by Hwen Tsang, in A.D. 641.—He calls it Chi-chi-to, or Jajhoti … From the accounts of Hwen Tsang, and Abú Ríhán, it is evident that the Province of Jajáhoti corresponded with the modern district of Bundelkhand in its widest extent.”]
Kállarí.—Annarí.—and Ballarí.
[Such seems to be the correct spelling of three names, which appear in a great variety of forms.—Istakhrí has Kálwí, Annarí, and Balwí, but the first takes the form of Kaladi or Kalarí in his map. In the printed extract of the Ashkálu-l Bilád the names appear as Falid, Abri, and Balzí; also, as Abri, Labi, and Maildí, some of which divergences may be credited to bad copy and misprints. Gildemeister's Ibn Haukal gives them as Ayará, Válará, and Balrá; Idrisi has Atri and Kálarí; Abú-l Fidá has Kállarí, Annarí, and Ballarí, and these agree with the names as they appear in the map of the Ashkálu-l Bilád. They were three neighbouring towns on the road from Alor to Mansúra, Annarí standing first, Kállarí next, and Ballarí last in Istakhri's map, and in that of the Ashkálu-l Bilád. The termination rí or arí would seem to be a common noun, and the Tuhfatu-l Kirám writes it with the Hindí re. Idrísí says Annarí is four days journey from Alor, and Kállarí two days from Annarí, and Mansúra only one day from Kállarí. Ibn Haukal places Annarí and Kállarí on the east of the Mihran, but Idrísí says, that it stands on the western bank (p. 79); and enters into details which show pretty clearly its relative position to Mansúra. There is a “Bulrey,” marked in Allen's map of Sind, about thirty miles south of Haidarábád, but this position does not correspond with the above description.]
Kandábel.—Túrán.—Budha.—Baizá.
It is essential to a right understanding of ancient Sindian geography to ascertain where Kandábel, of which there is such frequent mention, was situated. We can only do this by implication, and by comparison of the various passages in which the name occurs.
The Chach-náma385 mentions it in three different passages, at least, if Kandhála in the last reference be meant, as seems probable, for that place. If we are to put faith in the first passage (p. 152), there would be no need for further enquiry, as it is distinctly mentioned thus:—“Kandábel, that is, Kandahár.” But it may be shown that this identification cannot possibly be admitted, for Chach reaches the place through the desert of Túrán (a province of which Kusdár was the capital),385a on his return from Armá-bel to Alor. He straitened the garrison by encamping on the river Síní, or Sibí, and compelled them to agree to the payment of one hundred horses from the hill country, and a tribute of 100,000 dirhams. Here the name of the river, and the position, put Kandahár out of the question, and we can only regard the passage as the conjecture of some transcriber, interpolated by mistake from the margin into the text.
The real fact is, that Kandábel385b can scarcely be any other place than the modern Gandáva, and we shall find, with this single exception, that all the other passages where its name occurs sufficiently indicate that as the position. Indeed, it is probable that this very instance lends confirmation to this view, for the Síní river seems to be no other than the Síbí, now called the Nárí, but flowing under the town of Síbí, and, during the floods, joining the Bolán river, into which the hill-streams, which surround and insulate Gandáva, disembogue themselves. The river which runs nearest to Gandáva is now called the Bádra.
The Mujmalu-t Tawáríkh tells us that Kandábel was founded by the Persian king, Bahman, “between the confines of the Hindus and the Turks”386 (p. 106). Biládurí frequently mentions it, and speaks of Kandahár as entirely separate and distinct (pp. 117, 118, 125, 127). He tells us it was situated on a hill or elevated site, and that 'Amrán, after taking the town, transferred the principal inhabitants to Kusdár (p. 128), from which place it was situated at the distance of five parasangs.386a
According to Ibn Haukal, and the corresponding passages in Istakhrí (p. 29), Ouseley's Oriental Geography, and the Ashkálu-l Bilád, Kandábel was the capital of Budha, and a large place of commercial traffic, deficient in the produce of the date-palm, and situated in a desert, eight stages from Mansúra, and ten through the desert from Multán.386b
All these descriptions make Kandábel correspond sufficiently with the modern Gandáva, to leave no doubt of their identity. Later historians speak of it as being on the borders of Kirmán,386c but their notions of that province were very indefinite, and any place on the eastern confines of Sind would equally answer their loose mode of delineation.
Gandáva, which is the capital of the province of Kachh Gandáva, is surrounded by a wall, and is still one of the most important places between Kelát and Shikárpúr, though greatly declined from its former state. Indeed, Bágh is a much larger, as well as more commercial town, but the credit of antiquity cleaves to Gandáva.
Kandábel, it will be observed, is represented as the capital of Budha, which, therefore, next demands our attention, This is evidently the same province as the Búdhpúr, Búdhiya, and Budápúr (p. 145) of the Chach-náma.
Under the Ráí dynasty, the second satrapy of Sind comprised, besides the town of Siwistán, which was the capital,386d “Búdhpúr, and Jankán (Jangár), and the skirts of the hills of Rújhán, as far as the borders of Makrán (p. 138).” Again, “Chach marched towards the fortress of Budápúr and Siwistán.” After crossing the Indus “he went to Búdhiya, the capital of which tract was Nánáráj Kákáráj), and the inhabitants of the place called it Sawís.” … “After taking the fort of the Sawís, he moved towards Siwistán” (p. 145).
When Siwistán was attacked by Muhammad Kásim, the governor fled to Búdhiya, where was “a fortress called Sísam,387 on the banks of the Kumbh,” whither he was pursued by the Arab general, who encamped with a portion of his army at “Nílhán on the Kumbh.” Here, the chiefs of Búdhiya determined to make a night attack upon his camp. These chiefs of Búdhiya, who were of the same family as the ruler of Sísam, are subsequently shown to be Jats;387a whose origin was derived from a place on the banks of the Gang, which they call Áúndhár.”387b After failing in this expedition, they voluntarily surrendered themselves, as they had “found from the books of the Buddhists that Hindústán was destined to be conquered by the army of Islám,” and then turned their arms vigorously against their former comrades. On Muhammad's advancing to Sísam, “some of the idolaters fled to Búdhya, higher up: some to the fort of Bahítlúr, 387c between Sálúj and Kandhábel” (p. 162); and there sued for peace, and after agreeing to pay tribute, sent their hostages to Siwistán.
In the Mujmalu-t Tawáríkh we read that Bahman, the Persian king, “built in the country of Budh a town called Bahmanábád, which according to some is Mansúra” (p. 106).
[Biládurí mentions this tract as the scene of the slaughter of Budail (p. 119), and it is, perhaps, disguised under the name of Basea in p. 123.]
In Istakhrí (p. 29), and in Ibn Haukal, it assumes the form of Budh, or Budha. “The infidel inhabitants within the borders of Sind are called Budha and Mand. They reside in the tract between Túrán, Multán, and Mansúra, on the western bank of the Mihrán. They live in huts made of reeds and grass” (p. 38). Again, “Atal is inhabited by Musulmáns and infidel Budhas.”388 … “From Mansúra to the first borders of Budha is fifteen stages388a (p. 39), and any one who travels that road must go along the banks of the Mihrán until he reaches Sadústán (Sihwán).”
“Nadha,” or “Nudha,” seems to be the reading preferred by Idrísí (p. 83), and the Nubian geographer. Kazwíní describes the country as having a population resembling the Zat, and yielding plenty of rice and cocoa-nuts. It also produces camels with double humps, which being rarely found elsewhere, were in great demand in Khurásán and Persia.388b Ibn Haukal also remarks upon the excellence of its breed of camels. The Marásidu-l Ittilá'388c likewise approves of the initial N, instead of B; but these later authorities are of no value, when arrayed against the repeated instances to the contrary from the Chach-náma, and the great majority of the readings in Ibn Haukal and Istakhrí.388d
From a comparison of all these statements, it would appear that the old tract of Budh, or Búdhiya, very closely corresponds with the modern province of Kachh Gandáva, on all four sides except the northern, where it seems to have acquired a greater extension, of which it is impossible to define the precise limits. It is worthy of remark that, in the very centre of Kachh Gandáva, there is still a place called Budha on the Nárí river, and it is possible that the name is also preserved in the Kákar tract of Borí, or Búra, forming part of the Afghán province of Síwistán.389 In the Ayín-i Akbarí the town of Budhyán is mentioned as being on the northern frontier of Sirkár Thatta, one hundred kos from Bandar Láhorí.
It is impossible to assent to an hypothesis lately started in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, quoted above, that this tract was designated after the present Burohees, or Bráhúís. Their name itself is too modern,—besides being belied by the usual meaning ascribed to it, of “mountaineer;”—and even their partial occupation of this low eastern tract is not yet a century old. From time immemorial it has been held by the Jats, who still constitute the majority of the population, and the Bráhúís are a mere intrusive stock from the provinces of Múshkí and Jhow, and the rugged highlands of Sahá-rawán, which abut Kachh Gandáva on the westward. It has been surmised, also, that these Budhiyas were the Bhodya and Bhoja of the Puránic legends, and even the Bhotyas of Tibet. This is treading upon still more dangerous ground.389a It is far more probable that, if the name had any significant origin at all, it was derived from the possession of the Buddhist religion in its purity by the inhabitants of that remote tract, at the time when Bráhmanism was making its quiet but steady inroads by the more open and accessible course of the river Indus. [See post, Note on the Meds.]
Kannazbúr.
[Omission and misplacing of the dots have caused this name to assume a very varying form in Roman characters. Ibn Khurdádba (p. 14) calls it “Kinnazbún,” and Istakhrí's version (p. 29) may be so read. The Ashkálu-l Bilád (p. 34) has “Kabryún;” Gilde-meister's version of Ibn Haukal makes it “Kannazbúr;” Idrísí writes “Fírabúz,” but “Kírbúz” sometimes occurs. The Marásidu-l Ittilá' has “Kírbún,” but Juynboll, the editor, says this is a false reading for Kannazbúr. Biládurí (p. 119) agrees in this last spelling, and the Chach-náma has “Kannazpúr,” and “Kínarbúr.” The position of the place appears to correspond with that of the modern Punjgoor in Makrán.]
Mandal.—Kíraj.
It is difficult to fix the position of Mandal, one of the places to which Junaid despatched an expedition.
The name of Mandal, or Mandalam, being applied generally to signify “a region,” in Sanskrit, adds to our doubts upon this occasion. Thus we have Tonda-Mandalam, Pándú-Mandalam, Chola-Man-dalam, and many others. [Almost, or entirely, all of them being situated in the South.] The most noted Mandal of the Arab geographers was that whence Mandalí aloe-wood was derived; hence agallochum was frequently called “Mandal;” but no one seems to have known where it was situated. Kazwíní says no one can penetrate to it, because it lies beyond the equinoctial line: but he calls it a city of India, taking that word in its enlarged sense of East Indies. [The Marásidu-l Ittilá' calls it a city of Hind, but gives no indication of its locality. Abú-l Fidá has no notice of it.] Avicenna, in his Kánún, says that, according to some, it is in the middle of the land of Hind. The place here alluded to, is probably the coast of Coromandel, whence the agallochum, brought from the eastern islands, was distributed to the marts and countries of the west.
Avicenna's description might be made to apply to Mandala upon the Nerbadda, which in the second century of our era was the seat of the Haihaya dynasty of Gondwána;390 but this is, of course, too far for any Arab expedition, notwithstanding that M. Reinaud considers Ujjain and Málwa390a to have been attacked at the same period, under the orders of Junaid (p. 126). But Málabár would have been a more probable object of attack than Málwa, in the heart of India. As we proceed, we shall find other expeditions almost all directed to different points in the Guzerát peninsula,—as, indeed, was the case, even from the time of the conquest of Sind, when the inhabitants of Basra were engaged in a warfare with the Meds of Suráshtra.
It is evident that we must seek, also, no very distant site for Mandal. Even Mandal-eswara (Mandlaisar), on the Nerbadda, would be too remote. Mandor in Rájpútána, the ancient capital of the Parihárs, or Mandra in Kachh, or Mandal in Jhaláwár, would be better, or the famous Mandaví, had not its ancient site been known by another name,—Ráen. Altogether, Mandal in Guzerát, better known as Oká-Mandal, offers, from its antiquity and its position as the western district of that peninsula, the most probable site for the Mandal of Junaid.
From the expression of the historian Tabarí, that the Arabs never recovered possession of Kíraj and Mandal, there would seem to be an implication that these places lay beyond the province of Sind, and that they were at no great distance from one another. They are also mentioned together in the passage under consideration. The “Kíraj” of Tabarí and the Futúhu-l Buldán seems to be the same place as the “Kaj” of Birúní. The name occurs again as “Kíraj” and “Kúraj” in the Chach-náma (pp. 189, 197), and was probably situate in, if not named from, Kachh, though the exact site of the town cannot now be established.
The position of Oká-Mandal on the opposite coast is a sufficient reason why it should be mentioned in connection with Kíraj, supposing that place to have been in Kachh; and, in the absence of more certain information, I should, for this, as well as the other reasons above given, feel disposed to consider it as the Mandal noticed by the Arab historians of the Sindian conquest.391
Manjábarí.
[Such appears to be the preferable mode of spelling the name which appears in Istakhrí as Manhánarí (p. 27), in Ibn Haukal as Manhatara, and in Idrísí as Manábarí (p. 77). It is described as being on the west of the river, three days' journey south from Sadusán (Sihwan), and two days short of Debal,—the two maps agree with this account. The route from Mansúra to Debal crosses the river at this place. It has been supposed to be the Minnagara of the ancients.—See the next article “Minnagara.”]
Minnagara.
Vincent thinks that the Minnagara of Ptolemy, and of the Periplus usually ascribed to Arrian, is the Manjábarí of the Arab geographers. D'Anville supposes Minnagara to be the same as Mansúra. C. Ritter says it is Tatta, so does Alex. Burnes, because Tatta is now called Sa-Minagur, and Mannert says, Binagara should be read for Minna-gara. These high authorities place it on the Indus. But although goods were landed at Barbarice, the port of the Indus, and conveyed to Minnagara “by the river,” there is no reason why Minnagara should have been on that river.
The Periplus merely says, “Minnagara is inland.”
Lassen derives the name of this capital of Indo-Scythia from the Sanskrit Nagara, a town, and Min, which he shows from Isidorus Characenus to be the name of a Scythian city. The Sindomana of Arrian may, therefore, owe its origin to this source. C. Ritter says Min is a name of the Sacas; if so, there can be little doubt that we have their representatives in the wild Minas of Rájputána, who have been driven but little to the eastward of their former haunts.
Minnagara is, according to Ptolemy, in Long. 115. 15. Lat. 19. 30, and he places it on the Nerbadda, so that his Minnagara, as well as that of the second quotation from the Periplus, may possibly be the famous Mándúgarh (not far from the river), and the Mánkír which the early Arab Geographers represent as the capital of the Balhará. [See the article “Balhará.”]
The fact appears to be that there were two Minnagaras—one on, or near, the Indus; another on the Nerbadda (Narmada). Ptolemy's assertion cannot be gainsaid, and establishes the existence of the latter on the Nerbadda, [and this must have been the Minnagara of which the Periplus represents Broach to be the port]. The one on, or near, the Indus was the capital of Indo-Scythia, and the Bina-gara, or Agrinagara, of Ptolemy. We learn from the Tuhfatu-l Kirám that in the twelfth century Minagár was one of the cities dependent on Múltán, and was in the possession of a chief, by caste an Agri, descended from Alexander. When we remember that Arrian informs us that Alexander left some of his troops, (including, no doubt, Agrians), as a garrison for the town at the junction of the Indus and Acesines, this affords a highly curious coincidence, which cannot, however, be further dilated upon in this place.393
Narána.
1864-5,—Page 1.]
“In his account of the geography of Northern India, the celebrated Abú Ríhán makes the city of Narain the starting point of three different itineraries to the south, the south-west, and the west. This place has not been identified by M. Reinaud, the learned historian of ancient India, but its true locality has been accurately assigned to the neighbourhood of Jaypur. Its position also puzzled Sir H. Elliot, who says, however, that with one exception “Narwar satisfies all the requisite conditions.” But this position is quite untenable, as will be seen by the proofs which I am now about to bring forward in support of its identification with Náráyan, the capital of Bairát, or Matsya.
According to the Chinese pilgrim, Hwen Tsang, the capital of the kingdom of Po-li-ye-to-lo, which M. Reinaud has identified with Páryátra, or Bairát, was situated at 500 li, or 83 2/3 miles, to the west of Mathura, and about 800 li, or 133 2/3 miles, to the south-west (read south-east) of the kingdom of She-to-tu-lo, that is, of Satadru, on the Sutlej—The bearing and distance from Mathura point unequivocally to Bairát, the ancient capital of Matsya, as the city of Hwen Tsang's narrative; and this being fixed, we may identify the capital of Satadru, or the Sutlej Provinces, with the famous Fort of Hansi, which successfully resisted the arms of Mahmúd of Ghazní. According to the Tabakát-i Násirí, Hansi was the ancient capital of the Province of Siwálik, and up to the time of its capture by Mas'úd had been considered by the Hindus as impregnable.
Abú Ríhán, the contemporary of Mahmúd, places Narána, the
capital of Karzát, at twenty-eight parasangs to the west of Mathura,
which, taking the parasang at three and a half miles, would make
the distance ninety-eight miles, or fourteen miles in excess of the
measurement of Hwen Tsang. But as the narratives of the different
Muhammadan historians leave no doubt of the identity of Narána,
the capital of Kárzát, with Náráyana, the capital of Bairát, this
difference in the recorded distance from Mathura is of little moment.
According to Abú Ríhán, Narána, or Bazána,394
was called Náráyan
According to the other itineraries of Abú Ríhán, Narána was
twenty-five parasangs to the north of Chitor in Mewár, fifty parasangs
to the east of Multán, and sixty parasangs to the north-east of
Anhalwára. The bearings of these places from Bairát are all
sufficiently exact, but the measurements are more than one-half too
short. For the first distance of twenty-five parasangs to Chitor, I
would propose to read sixty-five parasangs, or 227 miles, the actual
distance by the measured routes of the Quarter-Master General
being 217 3/4. As the distance of Chitor is omitted in the extract from
Abú Ríhán, which is given by Rashídu-d Dín,395
it is probable that
there may have been some omission or confusion in the original of
the Táríkh-i Hind from which he copied. The erroneous measurement
of fifty parasangs to Multán is, perhaps, excusable on the
ground that the direct route through the desert being quite impassable
for an army, the distance must have been estimated. The error
in the distance of Anhalwára I would explain by referring the
measurement of sixty parasangs to Chitor, which lies about midway
between Bairát and Anhalwára. From a comparison of all these
different itineraries, I have no hesitation whatever in identifying
Bazána or Narána, the capital of Karzát or Guzrát,395a
with Náráyanpur,
the capital of Bairát or Vairát. In Firishta the name is written
either Kibrát,
* * * * * * *
According to Abú Ríhán the town was destroyed, and the people retired far into the interior. By Firishta this invasion is assigned to the year A.H. 413, or A.D. 1022, when the king (Mahmúd), hearing that the inhabitants of two hilly tracts named Kairát and Nárdin (or Bairát and Naráyan) still continued the worship of idols (or lions in some manuscripts), resolved to compel them to embrace the Muhammadan faith. The place was taken and plundered by Amír 'Alí.”]
Nírún.—Sákúra.—Jarak.
Amongst the many places of which it is difficult to establish the true position in ancient Sind, Nírún or Nairún is one of the most perplexing, for several reasons. Its first syllable, even, is a controverted point, and while all the French authors uniformly write it Byroun, after Abú-l Fidá,396 the English equally persist in following Idrísí396a (p. 78), and writing it Nírún and Nerún. What imparts a presumptive correctness to the French reading is, that it is set down as the birthplace of the celebrated Abú Ríhán al Birúní. But here, in limine, several strong objections may be raised,—that Abú Ríhán was a Khwárizmian, and is so called by the best authorities,—that throughout his descriptive geography of India, he is more deficient in his account of Sind than in any other part,—that he nowhere mentions it as his birthplace,—and that no one ever heard of any Bírún in Sind, though many local traditions speak of a Nírún, and concur in fixing its locality. Abú-l Fidá certainly writes it Bírún, but there is often an assumption of accuracy about him which has been far too readily conceded by the moderns; for he was merely a distant foreigner, who never left Syria except to go to Mecca and Egypt, and he was therefore compelled to copy and rely on the defective information of others. Istakhrí, Ibn Haukal, and the Ashkálu-l Bilád are not quite determinate in their reading, but the Chach-náma and the Tuhfatu-l Kirám never write it in any other form than with the initial N, followed by yá, which leaves us still in doubt whether the word be Nairún, Nírún, or Nerún; but it is certainly neither Birun, nor Bírún, nor Bairún, nor Byroun.
Other considerations with respect to the name of Abú Ríhán, will be found in the Note devoted to that philosopher, in the second volume of this work.
Under the dynasty of the Ráís, Nírún was included within the government of Bráhmanábád (p. 158). The inhabitants of Nírún solicited from the Arabs a cartel of protection, as their city was “on the very road of the Arabs to Sind” (p. 157). After the conquest of Debal, “Md. Kásim directed that the catapults should be sent by boat towards the fort of Nírún (p. 47), and the boats went up the stream called Sindh Ságara,397 while he himself advanced by way of Sisám”397a (p. 157). When Md. Kásim went from Debal “to the fortress of Nírún, which is twenty-five parasangs distant, he marched for six days, and on the seventh arrived at Nírún, where there is a meadow which they call Balhár, situated on the land of Barúzí,397b which the inundations of the Indus had not yet reached (p. 158), and the army consequently complained of being oppressed by thirst. This drought was seasonably relieved through the efficacy of the general's prayers,—“when all the pools and lakes which were round that city were replenished with water.” He then “moved towards Síwistán (Síhwán) by several marches, until he reached Bahraj or Mauj,397c thirty parasangs from Nírún” (p. 158). After his expedition to Síwistán and Búdhiya, he was directed by Hajjáj to return to Nírún, and make preparations for crossing the Indus (p. 163). He accordingly moved back by several difficult marches “to the fort which is on the hill of Nírún,”398 where there was a beautiful lake and charming grove (p. 163). This fort was the nearest point to the capital of the Khalif. After crossing the Indus, a garrison was left at Nírún, to keep open the communications in the rear and protect the convoys (p. 144).
Istakhrí (p. 28) and Ibn Haukal tell us that “Nírún lies between Debal and Mansúra, but nearer to the latter, and that any traveller who wishes to go to Mansúra, must cross the river Indus at Manjá-barí, which is on the western bank, and stands opposite to Mansúra” (p. 37). The subsequent geographers copy these authors, as usual, adding little further information. Idrísí places it distinctly on the western bank (p. 78). Abú-l Fidá says it is fifteen parasangs from Mansúra, and fixes it in latitude 26° 40', on the authority of the Kánún of Birúní.398a
The name of Sákara or Ságara, which is mentioned above, requires a few words of notice. The Chach-náma merely mentions that “the fleet of Md. Kásim came to anchor in the lake of Ságara;” but the Tuhfatu-l Kirám says, “having placed his manjaníks on boats, he sent them to the fort of Nírún, by way of the water of Sakúra, while he himself marched by land.”398b Elsewhere, we are informed in the same work, that “Debal, now called Thatta, was in the land of Sákúra.”398c Again, Tharra, which was a strong fort near Thatta, was “in the land of Sákúra.”398d Again, Dewal, Bhambúr, Bagár, and Tharra were each “excellent cities in the land of Sákúra.”
In the Áyín-i Akbarí Sákúra is entered as a Pergana in Sirkár Thatta; and in the Tárikh-i Táhirí it is also spoken of as a Per-gana, lying under the Makalí hills, in which Thatta itself was included 398e (p. 257). Mas'údí speaks of a Ságara or Shákira (p. 24), two days' journey from the town of Debal; and it is added that both branches of the Indus disembogue into the sea at that place. It does not seem improbable that we have the same word in the Sagapa of Ptolemy and Marcianus Heracleotes, for they call it “the first and most westerly mouth of the river Indus.”399
We may consider the stream of Sákúra to correspond with the prolongation of the Gisrí or Ghárá creek, which at no very distant time must have communicated with the Indus above Thatta. Indeed, Mr. N. Crow, writing in the year 1800, says, “By a strange turn that the river has taken within these five and twenty years, just above Tatta, that city is flung out of the angle of the inferior Delta, in which it formerly stood, on the main land towards the hills of Buluchistán.”399a
The position here assigned to the Sákúra, points out the direction where we are to look for Nírún, to which, by means of that stream, there seems to have been a water communication—at least approximate, if not direct.
It is quite evident that Nírún was on the western bank of the Indus. Not only do we find Muhammad Kásim going there in order to make due preparations for “crossing” that river, not only do we find Dáhir, on receiving the intelligence of the capture of Debal, directing Jaisiya to “cross over” from Nírún to Bráhmaná-bád without delay (MS. p. 102), but it is also so represented both in the text, and on the maps, of Istakhrí and the Ashkálu-l Bilád. Nevertheless, M. D'Avezac, in the map prefixed to the Memoire sur l'Inde, places it on the eastern bank. His authority stands deservedly high, but can be of no value against the positive testimony here adduced to the contrary.
How then it came in modern times to be considered identical with Haidarábád it is impossible to say, but so it is laid down unhesitatingly from the Tuhfatu-l Kirám, down to the latest English tourist.399b Even if it could be accounted for by supposing that the Falailí then constituted the main stream of the Indus, we should nevertheless find that the distances assigned to Nírún from various places named would not make it correspond in position with Haidarábád.
And here it is obvious to remark, that the establishment of its locality depends chiefly upon the sites which are assigned to other disputed cities, more especially to Debal and Mansúra. I have elsewhere stated my reasons for considering Debal to be represented by Karáchí, and Mansúra by Haidarábád. Much also depends on the real value of the farsang,400 which greatly varied in different places, even in neighbouring provinces. As it was probably modified in Sind by the local kos, we may ascribe to it the small standard of two miles and a half, which we know it to have had upon the Tigris, according to the latest and most accurate investigations. Or, without assigning to these roughly estimated distances an accuracy which they were never intended to bear, we may consider the Sindian parasang to vary from two to three miles, so as in no instance to be less than the one, or more than the other. It is usual, and doubtless more correct, to fix the standard at a higher value than even three English miles; but this is evidently quite inapplicable in Sind, and would be even more decisive against the identity of Debal and Thatta, than the present hypothesis.400a
Guided by all these considerations, I am disposed to place Nírún at Heláí, or Heláya, a little below Jarak, on the high road from Thatta to Haidarábád. The correspondences in other respects appear exact, in every instance of comparison.
It has a direct communication by a road over the hills with Bela and would be the first place in the valley of the Indus which the Arabs could reach by land, and therefore nearest to the capital of the Khiláfat.
Lakes abound in the neighbourhood, and are large enough, especially the Kinjar, to have admitted Muhammad Kásim's fleet.
Nírún is represented as twenty-five parasangs from Debal. (The real distance is seventy British statute miles between Heláí and Karáchí.)
Nírún was situated on a hill, which would admit of its being identified with very few other places of note near the Indus. It lay between Debal and Mansúra, but was nearer to the latter. (This position also corresponds with that of Heláí). It was fifteen parasangs from Mansúra. (Thirty-five miles is the distance between Heláí and Haidarábád.)
We need scarcely pursue the comparison farther. We may rest assured that Nírún was, if not at Heláí, at least at no great distance from it, and was certainly not Haidarábád. It is worthy of remark that Heláí itself is a place of undoubted antiquity, and there are two remarkable hills in its neighbourhood covered with ruins, representing perhaps the Hyala of Diodorus.401
Next to Heláí, Jarak offers many points of probability. It is only twelve miles from Heláí, and therefore the distances already laid down, with no great profession of exactness, would answer nearly equally well. Its commanding position, on a ledge of rock overhanging the Indus, necessarily denotes it to have been always a site of importance, and this is confirmed by the evidence afforded by several substantial remains of masonry on the banks of the river, which still arrest the observation of the traveller at that place.
Sadúsán.
The Táríkh-i Alfí, in a passage relating to Sultán Jalálu-d dín's proceedings on the Indus, mentions that Sadúsán was subsequently called Sístán. Though the writer here commits the common error of confounding Sístán with Sihwán, or Siwistán, on the Indus, yet he leaves us in no doubt what correction to apply, and we thus derive from him an interesting piece of information; for the position of Sadúsán, which is so frequently mentioned in the Arab accounts of Sind, has not hitherto been ascertained.
Sámúí.—Tughlikábád.—Kalá-kot.
Sámúí deserves notice from the attempt which has been made to establish it as the celebrated Minnagara of the ancient geographers. It was the capital of the Jáms of the Samma dynasty, and, according to the Tuhfatu-l Kirám, it was founded by Jám Pániya,402 under the Makalí hills, about three miles north-west of Thatta.
Subsequently, the fort of Tughlikábád was built by Jám Taghúr or Tughlik, on the site of the older Kalá-kot, about two miles south of Thatta; but that, as well as its predecessor, was left unfinished by its founder (p. 272). By a strange vicissitude, the name of Tughlikábád is now comparatively forgotten, and that of Kalá-kot erroneously called Kalán-kot (the great fort), though for a time superseded, has restored the just claims of Rájá Kalá, and still attracts the attention of the traveller. Lt. Burton calls it Kallián-kot. I fear to differ from so good a local authority, but believe Kalá-kot to be more strictly correct.
The ruins of Sámúí, Samúiya, or Samma-nagar, “the city of the Sammas,” are to be traced near Thatta; and, under the wrong and deceptive spelling of Sa-minagar, have induced Col. Tod, Sir A. Burnes, and many who have too readily followed them—including even Ritter, who considers the question settled “incontestably,”— to recognise in that name the more ancient and more famous Minna-gara. The easy, but totally unwarrantable, elision of the first and only important syllable has led to this fanciful identification.402a
Sindán, Súbára or Súrabáya, and Saimúr.
[These three towns were all south of Kambáya, and the first two were ports. Saimúr, though a place of trade, is not distinctly said to be a port, but it is laid down on the sea-shore in the map. Abú-l Fidá says that Sindán was also called Sindábúr, but this is hardly in accordance with Al Bírúní and Rashídu-d dín (pp. 66, 68). He also notices the variant forms of Súfára and Súfála for Súbára. The route as given by Istakhrí, Ibn Haukal and Idrísí is—
Kambáya to Surabáya, four days;
Súrabáya to Sindán, five days;
Sindán to Saimúr five days;
And the first two add, Saimúr to Sarandíb, 15 days.
Idrísí also states Broach to be two days from Saimúr. Al Birúní makes the distance from Broach to Sindán fifty parasangs, and from Sindán to Súfára six parasangs. Abú-l Fida says that Sindán was the last city of Guzerát, and the first of Maníbár (Malabár), three days' journey from Tana. It is hardly possible to reconcile all these statements, but there seems to be sufficient evidence for making Sindán the most southerly. It was on a bay or estuary a mile and a-half from the sea, and the modern Damán is probably its present representative. Súbára was similarly situated at the same distance from the sea, and finds a likely successor in Surát. Istakhrí's statement would make Saimúr the most southerly, but this is at variance with Mas'údi and Al Bírúní, who say that it was in Lár (the country round Broach), and with Idrísí's statement of its being at only two days' journey from Broach. But it is not easy to see how it could have been only two days from Broach and yet five from Sindán. Notwithstanding the incongruity of these statements, it must have been a place of considerable size and importance. It is the only one of these three towns that has received notice by Kazwíní. His account of the place is given in page 97 supra, but it supplies no data on which to fix the locality. Abú-l Fidá does not mention it, and the Marásidu-i Ittilá' affords no help, for it merely describes it as a city of Hind, bordering on Sind near to Debal.]
Túr.—Muhatampúr.—Dirak.—Vijeh-kot.
Túr was the ancient capital of the Súmra dynasty, called also by the name of Mehmetúr, and written by the local historians as Muha-tampúr and Muhammad-Túr. It was situated in the Pargana of Dirak, and its destruction has been mentioned in the Extracts from the Táríkh-i Táhirí (p. 256). But its real ruin dates only from 'Aláu-d dín's invasion of Sind.
The ancient Pargana of Dirak is represented by the modern divisions of Cháchagám and Badban on the borders of the Tharr, or sandy desert between Parkar and Wanga Bázár. There is a Pargana of Dirak still included in Thatta, which may be a portion of the older district of that name.
Another capital of the Súmras is said to have been Vijeh-kot, Wageh-kot, or Vigo-gad (for it is spelt in these various forms), five miles to the east of the Púrán river, above the Allah-band.
The site of Túr has been considered to be occupied by the modern Tharri, near Budína, on the Gúngrú river. There are, to be sure, the remains of an old town to the west of that place; nevertheless, the real position of Túr is not to be looked for there, but at Sháka-púr, a populous village about ten miles south of Mírpúr. Near that village, the fort and palace of the last of the Súmras is pointed out, whence bricks are still extracted of very large dimensions, measuring no less than twenty inches by eight.404 Other fine ruins are scattered about the neighbourhood, and carved tomb-stones are very numerous. Fragments of pearls and other precious stones are occasionally picked up, which have all apparently been exposed to the action of fire. The people themseves call this ruined site by the name of Mehmetúr, so that both the name and position serve to verify it, beyond all doubt, as the ancient capital of the Súmras.
The curious combination of Muhammad-Túr, is an infallible indication that “Mehmet” and “Muhatam” are merely corruptions of “Muhammad,” for this name is wretchedly pronounced in Sind. The present mode is Mammet—our own old English word for an image, or puppet, when in our ignorance we believed Mawmetrie, or the religion of the false prophet, to be synonymous with idolatry, and Mahound with the Devil. So Shakespere, in Romeo and Juliet, says—
“A whining mammet, in her fortune's tender.”
And Spenser, in his Faerie Queene—
“And oftentimes by Termagant and Mahound swore.”
The still grosser corruption of Muhammad into “Baphomet,” or “Baffomet,” is not to be laid to the charge of our nation. This was the name of the idol, or head, which the Templars are falsely alleged to have worshipped,—quoddam caput cum barbâ quod adorant et vocant salvatorem suum. Raynouard argues that this word originates from a misprint, or mispronunciation, of Muhammad; but Von Hammer and Michelet lean to a Gnostic origin, which we need not stay to consider, being satisfied that “Baffomet” is only another, and still more extravagant disguise, under which Europeans have exhibited the name of Muhammad.404a
NOTE (B.) — HISTORICAL.
The Ráí Dynasty.
The Chach-náma (p. 138) mentions only the three immediate predecessors of the usurper Chach, and in this it is followed by the Táríkh-i Sind. It states that “Ráí Siharas, the son of Díwáíj (called also Sháhí-Sháhí) was defeated and slain by the army of king Nímroz,405 which entered Kirmán from the direction of Fárs; and that he was succeeded by his son Ráí Sáhasí.” It will be observed from the annexed extract, that the Tuhfátu-l Kirám gives two additional reigns, which are not, however, referred to any specific authority of ancient date.
“Dynasty of the Ráís.—Their capital was the city of Alor, and the boundaries of their country were—on the east, Kashmír and Kanauj; on the west, Makrán and the shore of the sea of 'Umán, that is, the port of Debal; on the south, the port of Súrat (Suráshtra); and on the north, Kandahár, Sístán, the hills of Sulaimán and Kaikánán. As the commencement of this dynasty has not been ascertained, I content myself with mentioning some of the names which are known.
“Ráí Díwáíj. He was a powerful chief, whose absolute rule extended to the limits above mentioned. He formed alliances with most of the rulers of Hind, and throughout all his territories caravans travelled in perfect security. On his death, he was succeeded by his son,
“Ráí Siharas, who followed the steps of his father in maintaining his position in happiness, comfort, and splendour, during a long reign. His celebrated son was
“Ráí Sáhasí, who also swayed the sceptre with great pomp and power. He followed the institutions of his ancestors, and accomplished all his desires.
“Ráí Siharas II. was his son and successor. King Nímroz raised an army for the purpose of attacking him, and the Ráí, having advanced to the borders of Kích to meet it, selected a field of battle. The flame of war blazed from morn to midday, when an arrow pierced the neck of the Ráí, so that he died. King Nímroz, after plundering the camp, returned to his own country. The army of Siharas assembled in a body, and seated his son Sáhasí upon the throne.
“Ráí Sáhasí II. excelled his ancestors in estimable qualities. Having, within a short time, settled affairs within the borders of his kingdom, he enjoyed rest and peace in his capital. He remitted the taxes of his subjects, on condition that they should raise (or repair) the earthwork of six forts: viz., Úchh, Mátela, Seoráí, Mad (or Mau), Alor, and Siwistán. He had a chamberlain named Rám, and a minister mamed Budhíman. One day, Chach, son of Síláij, a Brahman of high caste, came to Rám, the chamberlain, who was so pleased with his society, that he introduced him to the minister.”
The names of these rulers are thus given by Capt. Postans, in two different papers in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and on the authority of the same work, the Tuhfatu-l Kirám:—
No. cxi, 1841, p. 185.—“Rahee Dewahey, Rahee Siheersin, Rahee Sahursee, Rahee Siheersin the 2nd, Rahee Sahee.”
No. clviii. 1845, p. 79.—“Rahi Dawahij, Sahiras, Rahi Sahasi, Rahi Sahiras the 2nd, Rahi Sahasi the 2nd.”
In an earlier number of the same Journal (No. lxxiv. Feb., 1838, p. 93), James Prinsep observed, “Diwaij seems a corruption of dwija ‘the Brahman;’ and Sahurs resembles much the genitive sáhasa of our Saurashtra coins, of whom the first is a swámiputra, or son of a Brahman; but the date seems too recent. See Vol. VI. p. 385.” But it appears from the passage just quoted, that it was a Bráhman dynasty which superseded the family of Díwáij, and there is no reason to suppose that Díwáij was himself a member of that caste.
The same Persian work, from which the above extract is taken, states that the reigns of these five Ráís lasted for the long period of one hundred and thirty-seven years, and that Chach, by his victory over Mahrat, Ráná of Chitor, established himself on the throne about he first year of the Hijra. It will be seen from the following Note, hat as this date must of necessity have been placed too early, the year 10 H. has been preferred, as the era of Chach's accession, and the extinction of the Ráí dynasty.
Pottinger, on the authority of a native work called the Majma'-i Wáridát, states that the dynasty had endured for two thousand years; which, as we know from Ptolemy and the Periplus that the country was subject to frequent revolutions at the early period of our era, and at the time of Alexander was under no single ruler, must be regarded as pure fiction. If we allow that there were really five reigns, there is no great improbability in assuming 137 years, as above mentioned, for the correct period of their duration; and thus we should obtain the Christian year 495 as that in which the dynasty commenced.
It is generally assumed that Khusrú Naushírwán was the king of Persia by whom Siharas II. was slain; but as Naushírwán died in 479 A.D., it would leave, at the very least, 53 years necessary for the reign of Sáhasí II.—even supposing that his predecessor was killed in the very last year of Naushírwán, which we know cannot have been the case, as that potentate had been, for some time previous, employed in the western portion of his large empire. It is therefore quite evident, that king Nímroz407 has been wrongly interpreted to mean that great Persian monarch; and we must therefore use Nímroz in its usual application of Sijistán, and allow the opponent of Siharas to be no more formidable a personage than the governor, or ruler, of that province; or, if we must necessarily have a Persian king—notwithstanding that no one of the name of Nímroz ever sat on the throne—then Khusrú Parvíz (591-628 A.D.) an equally great conqueror, would answer all the requirements better; for we know that the eastern provinces towards the Indus revolted in the reign of Hormuz, his father and predecessor, and his recovery of them seems indicated by his having 960 elephants in his train— which could only have been procured from India.
Doubtless, Naushírwán did invade Sind or its borders,—because the fact is vouched for by unquestionable authority in the best Persian annalists, and is shown by the relations, political, commercial, and literary, which appear then to have arisen between Persia and India; but it must have been during one of the earlier reigns of this dynasty; or if during the reign of Siharas II., it must have preceded the attack which resulted in that monarch's death. That he and Naushírwán were contemporary, during some portion of their reigns, is by no means improbable—for the latter reigned 48 years; and if we allow 40 for the reign of Sáhasí II., and 40 likewise for the reign of Siharas II.—the same period which Chach enjoyed, though his first years were signalized by internal rebellions and foreign invasions—we shall then find the 20 first years of Siharas's correspond with the 20 last years of Naushírwán's reign.408
It would detain us too long to enter upon any speculations respecting the country and race whence this dynasty derived its origin. I will merely remark, that the Scythian barbarians from Sind, who expelled the Gehlotes from Balabhipúra in the beginning of the sixth century,—the Yue-tchi, who re-established themselves on the Indus about the same time,—the Ephthalites, or white Huns, whom Cosmas declares at that period to have ruled upon the banks of that river,—and the Sáh dynasty of Suráshtra,—all offer points of relation, comparison, and contact, to which a separate dissertation might be devoted.408a
The Bráhman Dynasty.
Though we have no reason to complain of any want of detail respecting the political transactions of this dynasty, yet we are left in considerable doubt respecting the chronological adjustment of the few reigns which it comprises, and even the very name of Chach is a subject of some uncertainty. Gladwin has “Juj;”409 Briggs has “Huj;”409a the two Manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Royale have “Hoj;”409b Reinaud spells the name “Tchotch;”409c Renouard leans to “Jaj,” as he considers it a corruption of Yajnya;409d S. de Sacy gives reasons for considering it to be “Hijaj;”409e Pottinger writes “Chach;”409f and he is followed by all English authors. This is certainly in conformity with native usage, and we have several existing instances of the same combination—as Chachpúr, Cháchar, Cháchagám, Chachí, Chachar, and similar names of places in the valley of Indus.
It is to this usurper I am disposed to attribute the introduction of the game of chess to the western world; and this question invites us to some further considerations respecting the correct mode of writing his name. Although Firdúsí informs us, that it was an ambassador of the king of Kanauj who introduced this game at the court of Naushírwán,409g the statement of Ibn Khallikán seems more to be relied on, when he says that Sassa, son of Dáhir,409h invented the game during the reign of the Persian king Sháhrám. It is true that we have to notice here an error in the parentage, as well as a contradiction with himself; for, in another place, he assigns the invention to Balhít, whom he makes a contemporary of Ardashír, son of Bábak, who reigned four centuries before Sháhrám409i —but the main statement seems to be upheld by independent testimony, and it will be seen, from Tabarí's sequence of these Persian reigns, that Chach must necessarily have been contemporary with Sháhrám, or Shahr Írán, or Shahriyár, as he is otherwise called.
The name of “Sassa” assumes the various forms of “Sissa,” “Sahsaha,” “Súsá,” “Sísa,” and “Sa'sa'.” Mr. Bland, in his learned article quoted below, says they are all obviously corruptions of Xerxes, or of a name which has served as its origin—not the Persian king, but a philosopher so named, who is said by Polydore Virgil and others to have flourished in the reign of Evil-Merodach at Babylon. I look upon this as too recondite, and consider that the transposition of the parentage above alluded to, as given by Ibn Khallikán [and Biládurí410], is more than countervailed by the superior authority of Tabarí; who, while he omits all notice of Chach, under that identical name, yet mentions Sassa, (who cannot possibly be meant for any other person than Chach), and speaks of Dáhir, his son, as being his successor.410a Firishta also speaks of Dáhir as the son of Sa'sa', so that we are fully entitled to consider “Sassa,” as the Arabic mode of representing “Chach”—just as we have “Sha-nak” for the Hindí “Chank,” “Shatranj” for “Chatur-anga, “Sín” for “Chín,” “Shásh” for “Chách,” a town on the Jíhún,410b and many other similar conversions in the Arabic—since, there being no palatine letter corresponding with ch in that language, recourse can only be had to the sibilants; as may frequently be observed even in the Persian also, where no such necessity exists.410c
Another preliminary question to settle respecting Chach, relates to his tribe and descent. There could have been no hesitation on this point, had it not been for the Chinese traveller, Hwen Tsang, who states that, at the time of his visit to Sind, the king was of the “Shu-to-lo” race.410d This has been variously interpreted to mean a “Kshattríya,”410e a “Súdra,”410f and a Rájpút of the “Chatur,” or “Chitor,” tribe.411 This latter is on the supposition that it refers to the king who was succeeded by Chach, and who was related to the ruler of Chitor—but this is not admissible, for the Chinese Buddhist did not commence his travels till 628 A.D.,411a and after traversing the whole of Chinese Tartary, Turkistán, Northern Afghánistán, Kash-mír, the valley of the Ganges, the Eastern and Western Coasts of the Peninsula, and Guzerát, could not have reached Sind much before 640, when Chach was fully established upon the throne. If we could introduce the traveller into Sind before Chach's accession, I should prefer “Kshatriya,” or the modernized “Chattrí,” to any other interpretation of “Shu-to-lo,”—but, seeing that not a single Chinese name within, or on the borders of Sind, admits of any positive identification, we need not trouble ourselves about the meaning of this doubtful word. Our Arab and Persian authorities leave us no room to doubt that Chach was a Bráhman—at least by descent, if not also by religious persuasion; and the present Sársut (Sáraswata) Bráhmans of Sind claim him as one of their progenitors.
[According to the Chach-náma, Chach was a Brahman who was introduced to Sáhasí Ráí by his Chamberlain. Being taken into service, he won the confidence of the Ráí, and the more tender regards of the Rání, his wife. He became Chamberlain, and, on the death of the Ráí, he ascended the vacant throne, and married the widow, whose love he had previously rejected. The irregular succession provoked the resentment of Mahrat, chief of Jaipúr (or Chitor), a relation of the deceased Ráí, who marched with his army to destroy the usurper and recover “his inheritance.” In great perplexity Chach conferred with the Rání, who shamed him into resistance by proposing to change garments, and herself to lead the army against the foe. Chach then went forth to battle, and when the forces met, Mahrat came forward and proposed, as the matter was purely a personal one, to settle the dispute by single combat. Chach represented that he was a Brahman, and unaccustomed to fight on horseback. His magnanimous foe then alighted to meet him on equal terms, when Chach treacherously sprung upon his horse and slew his adversary before he could recover from the surprise. After this Chach appears to have felt no Brahmanical repugnance to war and bloodshed.]
With respect to the period of his reign, we learn from the Chach-náma (p. 151) that Chach in or about the year 2 H.—and about the fourth year after his accession412 —advanced to Kirmán, being instigated to that measure by the fact of the Persian throne being then occupied by a woman.
Again, we learn (MS. p. 70) that Chach had been ruler of Sind for thirty-five years, when Mughaira attacked Debal, some time between the years 13 and 16 H.
After Chach had reigned forty years, he was succeeded by his brother Chandar, who died in the eighth year of his reign (p. 152-4).
Chandar was succeeded by his nephew Dáhir, who was slain in the month of Ramazán, 93 H. (p. 170).
The Táríkh-i Sind (MS. pp. 14-30) has briefly abstracted the account in the Chach-náma, but has given no date throughout, and has carelessly omitted all notice of Chandar.
The Tuhfatu-l Kirám gives a far better abstract of the Chach-náma. It represents (MS. p. 6) that Chach, after killing Mahrat, the prince of Chitor, established himself on the throne in the year 1 H.—that he reigned forty years (ib.)—that Chandar, who succeeded him, died in the eighth year of his reign (ib.)—that Dáhir was killed in the year 93 H., after having reigned thirty-three years (MS. p. 15)—and that the whole period of the Bráhman dynasty lasted ninety-two years (ib.)—which, however, is a manifest inconsistency, because in the detail, no more than eighty-one years, at the most, are assigned to the three reigns.
There seems reason to believe that these discrepancies can be reconciled by two very slight corrections in the reading of the Chach-náma.
Instead of “thirty-five years,” in the first quotation, we should read “three or five years,” as the period that Chach had reigned, when Mughaira attacked Debal. The form of expression is very common in denoting an indefinite period; and, as the disjunctive particle or is, in such uses of distributive numerals, always omitted, the difference in the reading becomes scarcely perceptible.
And in the first quotation, instead of “about the year 2 H.,” I would read “about the year 10 H.”—dah for do. The reading of do is quite out of the question, for there certainly was no female reign at so early a period as the second year of the Hijra, and none even before the tenth, if indeed so early. The confusion respecting these ephemeral reigns of the later Sassanians is notorious, and especially respecting the order of the three queens, Túrán-dukht, Azurmi-dukht, and Dukht-zanán—the last of whom is generally altogether omitted, and is perhaps identical with Azurmi-dukht;—but no author attempts to place either of them before 10 A.H. Now, since the Chach-náma represents that the queen mentioned by him was one of the successors of Kisra-bin-Hormuz-bin-Fárs, who had been murdered—alluding, of course, to Khusrú Parvíz—and since we learn from a passage in Tabarí that one of Kisrá's daughters was Dukht-zanán, who succeeded to the Persian throne for a short time in the year 13 H.;—and since the Rauzatu-s Safá assigns the reign of Túrán-dukht, another of his daughters, to the year 14 H.;—we may assume as certain that the expedition of Chach towards Kirmán occurred in one or other of those years.413
These simple emendations bring us close enough to the truth, to satisfy us with respect to the general accuracy of the Chach-náma. Where there is so much room for doubt, and where even Tabarí is not quite consistent with himself, or in conformity with others, even if the Chach-náma should be in error three or four years—and we have no right to assume that such is the case—there would still be no ground for impeaching the veracity of that valuable chronicle; and we are thus enabled with considerable confidence to assign to each event of the Bráhman dynasty of Sind its proper date, according to the Hijra computation.413a
| A.H. | |
| The accession of Chach to the throne of Sind | 10 |
| His expedition to Kirmán, in the fourth year | 14 |
| Mughaira's attack, in the fifth year | 15 |
| Chach's death, after a reign of forty entire years | 51 |
| Chandar's death, in the eighth year of his reign | 59 |
| Dáhir's death, after a reign of thirty-three entire years | 93 |
The advances of the Arabs towards Sind.414
Scarcely had Muhammad expired, when his followers and disciples, issuing from their naked deserts, where they had hitherto robbed their neighbours and quarrelled amongst themselves, hastened to convert their hereditary feuds into the spirit of unanimity and brotherly love. Their energies, at all times impetuous, were now solely concentrated upon executing the injunctions of the “king of fierce countenance, understanding dark sentences,”414a that they should enforce belief at the point of the sword, which was emphatically declared to be “the key of heaven and of hell.”414b Terror and devastation, murder and rapine, accompanied their progress, in fulfilment of the prophetic denunciation of Daniel, that this descendant of Ishmael415 “shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people; and through his policy, also, he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and stand up against the Prince of Princes.”415a
And so it was, that, within twenty years, they made themselves masters of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Persia. The conquest of Persia was a mere prelude to further extension in the east; and though a more difficult and inhospitable country, as well as internal dissensions, checked their progress for some years afterwards, yet it was not in the nature of things to be expected that they should long delay their attacks upon the rich and idolatrous country of India, which offered so tempting a bait to their cupidity and zeal. Accordingly, attention was early directed to this quarter, and it will be our business now, in collecting some of the incidental and scattered notices which betray the settled purpose of the Arabs to obtain a footing in India, to trace the slow but certain progress of their arms, until it issued in the conquest of Sind by Muhammed Kásim.
| Abú Bakr, | A.H. 11-13. | A.D. 632-634. |
| 'Umar, | A.H. 13-23. | A.D. 634-643. |
Under the Khiláfat of 'Umar,—A.H. 15 or 16,—a military expedition set out from 'Umán, to pillage the coasts of India. It appears to have proceeded as far as Tána, in Bombay. As 'Umar had not been consulted on the expedition, he forbad that any more should be undertaken to such distant parts; and to 'Usmán Bin Ásí Sakifí, governor of Bahrain and 'Umán, under whose orders the piratical vessels had been despatched, he signified his displeasure in very marked terms:—“Had our party,” he wrote, “been defeated, be assured that I would have taken from your own tribe as many men as had been killed and put them all to death” (supra p. 116).
About the same time, Hakam, the brother of 'Usmán, who had been placed in charge of Bahrain, sent an expedition against Broach, and despatched his brother, Mughaira Abíu-l 'Ásí, to the bay of Debal, where he encountered and defeated his opponents, according to the Futúhu-l Buldán (supra, p. 116); but the Chach-náma represents that he was slain. That work also mentions that the naval squadron was accompanied by troops, that Debal was occupied by merchants, and that the governor, Sámba, son of Díwáij, had been nominated to that post by Chach, who at that time had ruled thirty-five416 years in Sind (MS. p. 70).416a
Shortly after, Abú Músá Asha'rí, who had been one of the companions of the prophet, and was otherwise conspicuous in the history of that period, was appointed governor of 'Irák (Basra), when Rábi, bin Ziyád Hárisí, one of his officers, was sent to Makrán and Kir-mán. Orders were also despatched to Abú Músa, from the capital of the empire, directing him to afford all the information in his power respecting Hind, and the countries leading to it. As he had lately learnt the disastrous result of Mughaira's expedition, he wrote in reply to say, that “the king of Hind and Sind was powerful and contumacious, following the path of unrighteousness, and that sin dwelt in his heart.” Upon which, he received peremptory orders not by any means to enter upon a holy war with that country.416b
It is notorious that 'Umar had always a particular horror of naval expeditions, and it is probable that it arose from this untoward defeat. This repugnance is usually attributed to a later period, when, upon the conquest of Egypt by 'Amrú bin 'Ásí, the Khalif wrote to his lieutenant for a description of the sea; who replied:— “The sea is a great pool, which some senseless people furrow, looking like worms upon logs of wood.” On receipt of this answer, it is said, 'Umar forbad all navigation amongst the Musulmáns, and transgressors were severely punished. Mu'áwiya was the first Khalif under whom this prohibition was relaxed, and who despatched maritime expeditions against the enemies of his empire. The original cause of the restriction was probably that which has been already indicated, and its continuance may perhaps be ascribed to the unskilfulness of the Arabs upon the element to which the subjects of the Greek empire were accustomed from their birth. Had the Musulmáns along the shores of the Mediterranean been as expert as the Arab navigators of the Indian ocean, there would have been no need to feel alarm at the result of actions upon the high seas.417
In the year 22 H., 'Abdú-lla bin 'Ámar bin Rabí' invaded Kirmán, and took the capital, Kuwáshír,417a so that the aid of “the men of Kúj and Balúj”417b was solicited in vain by the Kirmánís. He then penetrated to Sístán, or Sijistán, and besieged the governor in his capital, who sued for peace when he found that “his city was as a tent without ropes.” After this he advanced towards Makrán. In vain, also, did the chief of that country obtain the aid of the ruler of Sind, for their united armies were surprised and defeated in a night attack. With an ardour augmented by his success, 'Abdu-lla requested leave to cross the Indus; but the Khalif, true to his cautious policy, which restrained his lieutenants both on the northern and western frontiers, opposed this still more distant adventure.417c
The invasions of this year are confirmed by Hasan bin Muhammad Shírází, who is a careful writer; but the names of the generals are differently represented. “In the year 22 H. Sijistán was conquered by 'Amrú bin al Tamímí and 'Abdu-lla bin 'Umar Khattáb. In this year also, Makrán was conquered by 'Abdu-lla bin 'Abdu-lla bin 'Unán, who had moved against that place from Kirmán. The ruler, who in the native language was styled Zanbíl, and was also king of Sind, was killed.”417d
The names are otherwise given in the Habíbu-s Siyar. Kirmán was conquered by Suhail bin Údí and 'Abdu-lla bin Autibán, Sijistán by 'Ásim bin 'Amrú Tamímí, and Makrán by Hakkam bin 'Ámar Saulbí. The conquests are also ascribed to a year later. Shohrug, the lieutenant of Fárs, was forced to yield his province to the victorious Musulmáns; upon which, Mujáshia bin Mas'ud took possession of the cities of Sirján and Jíruft, while 'Usmán bin Abíu-l 'Ásí advanced to Istakhar. In the same quarter, Sauria bin Zanním, employed with a separate division on the route from Istakhar to Kirmán, experienced a more determined resistance. In besieging one of the strongholds into which the natives had thrown themselves, he was suddenly attacked by a sally from the garrison, as well as by a numerous body of Kurds who had advanced to their relief, and was only saved through the aid of a miracle. In the end, however, the Musulmáns were victorious. These are evidently all the same transactions, disguised by change of names,—the “Kurds” of the Habíbu-s Siyar being the “Kúj” of the Guzída.
Dr. Weil, following Tabarí, gives other variations, and remarks upon Abú-l Fidá's and Elmacin's (Al Makín's) omission of the conquest of the Persian provinces in the south. The general's name is 'Abdu-lla bin Attab. “Kufej,” or “Kufess,” is given instead of “Kúj.” The invasion of Makrán is ascribed to 23 H., in which same year, it is said, the conquest of Fárs was brought to a conclusion. The capture of Shíráz is also mentioned, although it is ordinarily supposed not to have been built till seventy years afterwards by Muhammad Kásim.418
| 'Usmán, | A.H. 23-35. | A.D. 643-655. |
'Usmán bin Abíu-l 'Ásí was not very rapid in his conquest of the province of Fárs, for he was repulsed before Istakhar, and it is not till the year 26 H., that we find him taking Kázerún and the still famous Kila'-i sufed, or white fort, between Istakhar and the Persian Gulph.418a The whole province does not seem to have been reduced till 28 H.
In A.H. 30, a formidable insurrection took place at Istakhar, when the Musulmán governor fell a victim to the fury of the people. The fugitive king of Persia, Yazdijird, hastened to the scene, in the hope of retrieving his miserable fortunes; but after being nearly surprised among the ruined columns of the ancient palace, he was defeated with great loss by 'Abdu-lla bin 'Umar and 'Usmán, near that capital, and compelled to fly to Kirmán, and afterwards to Sijistán and Khurásán. The citadel of Istakhar was carried by assault, and many of the ancient Persian nobility, who had sought an asylum within that fortress, were put to the sword.419
During the next year, the pursuit of Yazdijird was followed up into Khurásán under 'Abdu-lla bin 'Ámar, then governor of Basra, after obtaining the permission of the Khalif to advance into that country. The southern provinces of the Caspian not having yet been finally conquered, it was considered the more feasible route to march by way of Fárs and the borders of Kirmán, and so advance through the desert. A rebellion which then existed in the latter province was quelled by a detachment of one thousand horse under Mujáshia. Rabí' bin Ziyád Hárisí was, at the same time, despatched to secure the obedience of Sijistán, in which province he received the submission of the metropolis, Zaranj; and 'Abdu-lla himself, having compelled the city of Tabbas to surrender on capitulation, entered the Kohistán, where he met with a sturdy resistance; but ultimately, with the assistance of Ahnaf bin Kais, he took Hirát, Sarakhs, Tálikán, Balkh, Tukháristán, and Naishápúr, and brought the whole province of Khurásán under subjection.419a
Firishta attributes to the following year a proselyting expedition to the eastward, which is said to have been despatched from Bagh-dád; but as that town was not built for more than a century afterwards, no great value can attach to his sources of information. Baghdád did not become the seat of the Khiláfat till the time of Abú Ja'far Al Mansúr, in 148 A.H. 765 A.D. The three first Khalifs established themselves at Medína. 'Ali, in 36 H., chose Kúfa as his metropolis; and in 41 H., the Ummayides constituted Damascus their capital: and so it continued during the whole period of their dynasty, which expired in 132 H., when Abú-l Abbás seated himself at Anbár, on the Euphrates;420 and his successor, Al Mansúr, after remaining a few years at Háshimíya, in the same neighbourhood, finally established himself at Baghdád, where the seat of the Khilá-fat continued, with occasional transfers to Sámarrá, till its extinction by Hulákú in 656 H.—1258 A.D.
The same kind of error frequently occurs in Persian authors respecting the government of 'Irák, or of the two 'Iráks, 'Arabí and 'Ajamí, in writing of the period treated of in this note. It was seldom that the government of the two 'Iráks, and rarely that the whole of even 'Irák-i 'Arabí, was centred in the same individual. This province, which may be considered to correspond with Babylonia, contained the two chief military cantonments of Kúfa and Basra. The former town was of some antiquity, and the seat of an Arabian prince before the time of Muhammad; but the latter was founded in A.H. 15, chiefly with the view of interrupting the communication with the Persian Gulph, and preventing the flight of the royal family of Persia by the sea route to India.420a
It was not till the time of Mu'áwiya, that these two important places were entrusted to the charge of one person. By him their government was bestowed upon his bastard brother, Ziyád, of whom we shall find frequent mention in the following paragraphs. By the succeeding Khalif they were, after some interval, conferred upon 'Ubaidu-lla bin Ziyád.420b The two governments were once more combined in the person of Hajjáj, who was invested with greater power than any of his predecessors.420c
To revert to the eastern conquests—Dárábgard, which together with Fasá was taken in 23 H., subsequently revolted, and was again taken in 28 H.421
Abdu-lla 'Ámar, who was a cousin of the Khalif, and had succeeded the popular Abú Músá Asha'rí in the government of Basra, thinking the opportunity favourable for extending the Muhammadan conquests in the east, obtained permission to detach Hakím bin Jaballa al 'Abdí to explore Sijistán and Makrán, as well as the countries bordering on the valley of the Indus; but it appears that Hakím reported so unfavourably of the vast regions which he examined, that all idea of conquest in that direction was abandoned.—“Water is scarce, the fruits are poor, and the robbers are bold. If few troops are sent there they will be slain; if many, they will starve” (supra, p. 116). The discord which prevailed among the Musulmáns after the death of 'Usmán, was an additional reason for not prosecuting any adventures in so remote a region; but private adventure does not seem to have been debarred, and was, no doubt, prosecuted under the tacit consent of the Khalif.421a
| 'Alí, | A.H. 35-40. | A.D. 655-660. |
| Hasan, | A.H. 40-41. | A.D. 660-661. |
Under the succeeding reign of 'Alí, it is related, on the authority of 'Ámar bin Háris bin 'Abdu-l Kais, that Tághar bin Dá'ir was appointed to the charge of the frontier of Hind, and an army was placed under his command, comprising a select body of nobles and chiefs. Towards the close of the year 38 H., they marched by way of Bahraj and Koh-Páya, obtaining on the road great booty and many slaves, until they reached the mountains of Kaikán, or Kaikánán, where they met with a stout resistance from the inhabitants, of whom no less than twenty thousand had assembled to intercept their progress through the passes. But when the Arabs shouted out “Alláhu akbar,” and their voices re-echoed from the hills to the right and left, the infidels, hearing these shouts of triumph, were confounded and alarmed. Some came forward and embraced Islám' and the rest took precipitately to flight. From that time to the present, says the credulous author, voices proclaiming that God is great, “Alláhu akbar,” are heard at the same season throughout these mountains. It was upon this occasion that Háris bin Marra, distinguished himself by his bravery. “They were engaged in this victory when they were informed of the martyrdom of 'Alí; and on their return, when they arrived at Makrán, they learnt that Mu'áwiya bin Abí Sufyán, was Khalif.422
This is, no doubt, the same expedition which Biládurí (p. 116) attributes to Harab bin Marra Al 'Abdí,—that is, a man of the ancient and powerful tribe of 'Abdu-l Kais (the Abucœi of Ptolemy), which was established in Bahrain, and devoted itself chiefly to piracies on the high seas. The same country has always been prolific of such enterprises, until they were effectually repressed by the British Government in India. The name of Al 'Abdí shows that the preceding narrative is founded on the authority of a member of that tribe, and 'Ámar, being perhaps a son of the very Háris, the hero of the story, family pride may have suppressed all notice of the defeat. Harab's adventure commenced and ended at the same times which are mentioned in the preceding paragraph, but the result is represented very differently. At the opening of the campaign, he was so successful, that in a single day he divided one thousand captives amongst his adherents. nevertheless, he was in the end completely defeated in the country of Kaikán, and only a few Arabs survived to tell the tale of their disasters.
Col. Tod mentions that the generals of 'Alí made conquests within the kingdom of Sind itself, which were abandoned at that Khalif's death; but he does not give his authority for this improbable statement.422a
DYNASTY OF THE UMMAYIDES.
A.H. 41-132. A.D. 661-750.
| 1. Mu'áwiya, | A.H. 41-60. | A.D. 661-679. |
Under the Khiláfat of Mu'áwiya, the first of the Ummayides, we are informed by a respectable authority, that 'Abdu-r Rahmán conquered Sind in the year 42 H.423 It seems, however, probable that the expedition here alluded to is the one which occurred two years later, under Muhallab, one of 'Abdu-r Rahmán's officers, and which is more fully recorded in a subsequent Note upon the advances of the Arabs on the Kábul frontier.
In A.H. 46, 'Abdu-lla bin Suár, who was about that time entrusted with the command of the Indian frontier on the side of Kaikán, and “who was so generous and hospitable that no other fire but his own was ever lighted in his camp,” enriched himself with the spoil taken from the eastern borders; and when he returned to Mu'áwiya, presented that Khalif with some of the horses of Kaikán. He remained some time with Mu'áwiya, and then returned to Kaikán, where, being attacked by the Turks with all their forces, he was slain in the conflict (p. 117).423a
The Chach-náma adds, amongst other details of this expedition, which need not be here given, that Mu'áwiya appointed 'Abdu-lla bin Sawáriya, at the head of four thousand cavalry, “to the government of Sind,” and said, “in the country of Sind there is a mountain which they call Kaikánán. There the horses stand very high, and are well made in all their proportions. They have before this time been received among the spoils taken from that tract. The inhabitants are treacherous, and are protected by their mountain fastnesses from the effects of their rebellion and enmity.” He sent also 'Ámar bin 'Abdu-lla bin 'Ámar to conquer Armáel. After sustaining a complete defeat from the Kaikánís (called Turks by Biládurí), who swarmed around, and closed their egress by the passes, the remnant of the Arab army returned to Makrán.
This is related on the authority of “Muhlat, who heard it from Hindalí, who reported it on the authority of Kásim, who said, ‘I heard it from Nasr bin Sufyán.’” This Hindalí is frequently mentioned in the Chach-náma as a transmitter of these traditions.423b
The statement of the next incursion is somewhat confused.
Upon the death of 'Abdu-lla, Sinán bin Salma was appointed to succeed him; but Mu'áwiya wrote to Ziyád, the powerful governor of 'Irák, who also held the lieutenancy of Khurásán, Sijistán, Bahrain, and 'Umán, besides Kúfa and Basra, directing him to select a man better suited to command on the marches of India. Accordingly, Sinán was superseded by Ahnaf Kais, “the ablest among the true believers,” who went to Makrán, but was removed after a period of two years and one month. Hindalí is again one of the authorities for this account.424
By Biládurí (p. 117) this is otherwise represented. Ziyád bin Abú Sufyán raised Siná bin Salama to the command of the Indian frontier. He was a man of merit, and feared God, and was the first who obliged soldiers to affix to their oath the penalty of divorce from their wives. On proceeding to assume charge of his functions, he reduced Makrán, and founded cities in that country. He established his residence there, and exacted a rigorous account of the revenues of the province. By Ibn Al Kalbí this conquest is attributed to Hakím, above mentioned.
Ziyád then raised Ráshid bin 'Amrú, of the tribe of Azd, to the command. Ráshid went to Makrán, and thence made a successful inroad upon Kaikán; but was subsequently slain in an attack upon the Meds. He is said to have been succeeded by the Sinán, before noticed, who exercised his functions for two years (p. 117).424a
“Abú-l Hasan heard from Hindalí, who had heard from Bin-i Aswad,” that when Ziyád had suspended the son of Salama from his functions, Ráshid bin 'Umar Al Khizrí, a man of good birth and of noted courage, was summoned to the presence of Mu'áwiya, who seated him by the side of his throne, and entered into long and familiar discourse with him. He pointed out to his officers that Ráshid was an excellent man, to whom their obedience was due, and that they should aid him in the battle, and not leave him alone in the field.
When Ráshid arrived at Makrán, he had an interview with Sinán, respecting whom he asseverated with an oath that he was a great man, well worthy to head an army in the day of battle. Sinán had received orders from Mu'áwiya to meet Ráshid on the road, and to communicate to him full information respecting the state of Hind and Sind. When Ráshid had duly learnt this, he determined on prosecuting his route towards the frontier; and having received the revenue which had been assessed upon Koh-Páya, he went on to Kaikánán, where he collected the tribute due for the current and preceding years, and brought away much plunder and many slaves.
After a stay of one year, he returned by way of Siwistán, and reached the hills of Mandar and Bahraj, where the inhabitants had assembled to the number of fifty thousand to obstruct his passage. The contest raged from morning till evening, when Ráshid was martyred.
Ziyád appointed Sinán to take his place, and bestowed great honours upon him, notwithstanding he had so lately been disgraced, because, as our author says, he had been blessed at the time of his birth by the prophet, who had himself bestowed the name of Sinán upon him. After advancing to Kaikánán, he met with great success, and established his rule in several countries, and at last reached Budha, where he was by some treachery put to death.425
Ziyád then conferred the command of the Indian frontier upon Al Manzar bin al Jarúd al 'Abdí, who was surnamed Al Asha'as. He invaded Núkán (Búdha?) and Kaikán; and the Arabs were enriched with booty,—for the whole country became a prey to their devastations. They seized upon Kusdár, where they made many captives. Al Manzar died in that town (p. 117).425a
| 2. Yazíd I., | A.H. 60-64. | A.D. 679-683. |
| 3. Mu'áwiya II., | A.H. 64. | A.D. 683. |
In the year 61 H., we find mention of another governor of the Indian frontier, of the name of Al Manzar, or Al Munzir; but as the one before mentioned had been appointed by Ziyád, who died in 53 H., and as the second Al Manzar, or Al Munzir, was appointed by 'Ubaidu-lla bin Ziyád, who succeeded his father, after a short interval, in the government of 'Irák, including both Kúfa and Basra, and as, moreover, the parentage is represented as entirely different, we must needs conclude that they are different personages. The one with whom we now have to deal was son of Hár, son of Bashar, who “put on the vesture of government under evil auspices,” for, as he was journeying, his mantle was caught in a splinter of wood, and was rent; and 'Ubaidu-lla bin Ziyád, who had nominated him, predicted, on that account, that he would not return alive from the journey he had undertaken;426 but he had selected him, as no one was his equal in constancy and courage. And true it was, that no sooner had Al Munzar arrived within the borders of Búrání, than he fell sick and died.426a
His son, Hakkam, was in Kirmán, when his father died. He was treated with kindness by 'Ubaidu-lla, who presented him with three hundred thousand dirhams, and appointed him to succeed his father for six months, during which period he is represented to have conducted himself with energy and boldness.426b
One of the commanders appointed to the Indian frontier by 'Ubaidu-lla, was Harri al Báhalí. He engaged with great fervour and success in the border warfare, and acquired immense booty (p. 118).426c
| 4. Marwán I., | A.H. 64-65. | A.D. 683-684. |
| 5. 'Abdu-l Malik, | A.H. 65-86. | A.D. 684-705. |
To the year 65 H. Colonel Tod attributes a Muhammadan invasion of Rájpútána, by way of Sind, in which Mánik Ráí, the prince of Ajmír, and his only son were killed. But the whole story is puerile and fictitious; independent of which, the Arabs had quite enough to do nearer home.426d
When 'Abdu-l Malik, the son of Marwán, ascended the throne, his dominions were circumscribed within the limits of Syria and Palestine, rebellion being rife in the various provinces. The east was especially affected by these internal commotions. Kúfa was in the hands of Muktár and the Shí'ites, who had taken up arms to avenge the death of Husain, the son of 'Alí. The Azárikans, or followers of Náfi' ibn Azrak, had established themselves in the provinces of Fárs, Kirmán, and Ahwáz; and Arabia and Khurásán obeyed 'Abdu-lla ibn Zubair, the rival claimant of the Khiláfat, who was in possession of Mecca. Within eight years after ascending the throne, 'Abdu-l Malik triumphed successively over all his enemies, re-established the authority of the Ummayides over the Muhammadan empire, and began to restore the foreign relations of Islám, which had greatly declined during the early vicissitudes of his reign.
'Ubaidu-lla bin Ziyád, one of the ablest of his generals, invaded the territory of Kúfa, but was defeated and slain, in 67 H., by the army which advanced against him under Muktár. This disaster was not retrieved till four years afterwards, by 'Abdu-l Malik's obtaining possession of Kúfa. Meanwhile, Muhallab had defeated the Azárikans, whom he had pursued into the very heart of Kirmán, and deprived them of their conquests in Fárs and Ahwáz. He then deserted 'Abdu-lla's cause, and submitted to 'Abdu-l Malik. Khurásán was obtained by similar corruption and treachery, and 'Abdu-lla was slain at Mecca by the army commanded by Hajjáj bin Yúsuf Sakifí. Thenceforward, 'Abdu-l Malik had leisure to attend to the extension of the empire towards the east.
To this especial object was directed his nomination of his successful general, Hajjáj, to be governor of 'Irák, who commenced his rule by conferring the charge of Makrán upon Sa'íd bin Aslam Kalábí. Sa'íd, however, had unfortunately to encounter the rivalry of Mu'áwiya and Muhammad, the sons of Haras, surnamed the 'Alláfí, from the title of 'Alláf, which was borne by one of their ancestors (p. 118).
As the 'Alláfís, or 'Allánís as they are styled in the Chach-náma, are conspicuous in the subsequent history of Sind, that work dwells more particularly upon their history. It appears that upon Sa'íd's arrival at Makrán, he put to death a man of the name of Safhúí bin Lám al Hamámí. This man was claimed as a relative and fellow-countrymen of the 'Alláfís, who came from 'Umán, and they determined to seek satisfaction for his death. Accordingly, they attacked Sa'íd, who was then on his return from collecting the revenues of his jurisdiction, killed him in the fray, and took possession of Makrán. Hajjáj then ordered Sulaimán 'Alláfí, one of the leading men of that tribe, to be seized, and sent his head to the family of Sa'íd. At the same time, more vigorous measures were taken to assert the authority of the government, and Mujáa' was directed to proceed to Kirmán. He sent forward 'Abdu-r Rahmán bin Asha's to lead the advance, but he was waylaid by the 'Alláfís, and slain. They did not, however, think proper to engage in further collisions with the government, but fled to Sind in 85 H., where they sought the protection of Dáhir, who received them kindly, and entertained them in his service.428
The 'Alláfís remained in Sind till the arrival of Muhammad Kásim, when they came forward and sued for forgiveness, which was accorded to them, as will be seen in the translated Extracts from the Chach-náma (p. 168).
Sa'íd was succeeded by Mujjá', the son of the Si'r Tamímí, most probably the same Mujjá' above mentioned, who is called in the Chach-náma and the Tuhfatu-l Kirám, the son of Sa'íd, as well as the son of Safar in the former, apparently by error of the transcriber. He despoiled the border districts, and took many prisoners from the territory of Kandábel, the entire conquest of which was not effected till some years afterwards by Muhammad Kásim. Mujjá', after holding his office for the period of only one year, died in Makrán, about the same time as the Khalif 'Abdu-l Malik (p. 118).428a
| 6. Walíd I. | A.H. 86-96. | A.D. 705-715. |
Under this powerful prince the Khiláfat attained the greatest extent of dominion to which it ever reached. A little previous to the accession of Walíd, Muhammad, son of Hárún, was appointed to the Indian frontier, where he was invested with full powers to conduct operations as he thought best.428b
He was directed to search out the 'Alláfís, and to seize them by every means within his power, in order that the blood of Sa'íd might be avenged by their death and destruction. Accordingly, in the beginning of the year 86,428c he secured one of the 'Alláfís, who was put to death by direct orders of the Khalif, and his head was despatched to Hajjáj, with a letter, in which the governor promised, “if his life were spared to him, and his fortune propitious, he would seize all the rest of that obnoxious tribe.” He was engaged, according to one author, for five years, according to another, for five months, in the important occupation of “conquering the rivers and forests.”429
Under the auspices of the cruel tyrant, Hajjáj, who, though nominally governor only of 'Irák, was in fact ruler over all the countries which constituted the former Persian kingdom, the spirit of more extended conquest arose, which had hitherto, during the civil wars, and before the re-establishment of political unity under 'Abdu-l Malik and his son Walíd, confined itself to mere partial efforts on the eastern frontiers of the empire. By his orders, one army under Kutaiba, after the complete subjugation of Khawárazm, crossed the Oxus, and reduced, but not without great difficulty, Bukhára, Khojand, Shásh, Samarkand, and Farghána—some of which places had been visited, though not thoroughly subjected, at previous periods, by the Muhammadan arms. Kutaiba penetrated even to Káshgár, at which place Chinese ambassadors entered into a compact with the marauders.429a Another army had, by Hajjáj's directions, already operated against the king of Kábul, and a third advanced towards the lower course of the Indus, through Makrán.
The cause of this latter expedition was the exaction of vengeance for the plunder, by some pirates of Debal, of eight vessels, which the ruler of Ceylon had despatched, filled with presents, pilgrims, Muhammadan orphans, and Abyssinian slaves, to propitiate the good-will of Hajjáj and the Khalif. The pirates are differently named by the authorities whom we have to follow. The Futúhu-l Buldán says they were “Med.” The Chach-náma says they were “Tankámara.” The Tuhfatu-l Kirám says they were “Nankámara;” but in a subsequent passage gives the name more distinctly as “Nagá-mara.” 'Abdu-lla bin 'Ísa, who wrote a commentary upon the Díwán of the poet Jarír, towards the close of the fourth century of the Hijra, says they were “Kurk,” for which a marginal reading substitutes “Kurd.” Reiske states his inability to comprehend what tribe is meant by this name. Reinaud says, “Kurds” are out of the question;430 but that “Kurks” are mentioned by Ibn Al Asír, under the annals of 151 H., as having made a descent upon Jidda, and that two years afterwards a flotilla was despatched from Basra to make an attack upon the “Kurks,” whom he surmises to be probably natives of Coorg, to the east of Mangalore.430a But these are an inland nation, and cannot possibly have been engaged in maritime expeditions. Whoever they were, they must have been inhabitants of Debal, or its immediate neighbourhood, and though the name be extinct now, the Kurk, Kerk, or Kruk, may possibly represent a tribe which flourished at one time near the mouth of the Indus.430b
The Meds are familiar to us, as being frequently mentioned by Ibn Haukal and the early writers on Sind.430c The name of Tangámara presents great difficulties; but as there is a variation about the first letter, and as the omission of diacritical points would admit of the word being read Sangámara, it may be proper to point out, if that should be the correct reading, the identity of the two first syllables with those of Sangada, which Arrian tells us was the name of the mainland in the neighbourhood of Krokala.430d How far the name extended does not appear, but it is curious that, to our time, it seems to be preserved beyond the eastern mouth of the river, in the celebrated pirate-coast of the Sanganians, or Sangárs, who for centuries have committed their ravages on the shores of Sind and Guzerát, until their total suppression under our government.430e It may be remarked, also, that there is a tribe called Sangúr still dwelling on the coast of Makrán, at Malán and Batt.
It is probable, therefore, that the several authorities may be right in part, and that the different piratical tribes of the mouths of the Indus may have joined in the expedition which gave Hajjáj grounds for demanding reparation from Dáhir, the ruler of Sind.
Upon his declaring his inability to restrain their excesses, Hajjáj earnestly solicited from the Khalif permission to exact due vengeance from Dáhir and his subjects, offering to pay, from his own resources, double what would be exhausted from the public treasury. But the Khalif replied:—“The distance is great, the requisite expenditure will be enormous, and I do not wish to expose the lives of Musul-máns to peril.”431 In the same spirit of caution, or forbearance, Músa was checked in his career of conquest in Spain; and when the remonstance was disregarded, a second envoy, despatched with more peremptory orders, seized the bridle of his horse in the presence of the whole army, and led him away to Damascus to answer for his contumacy.431a
When, at last, the repugnance of the Khalif had been overcome by the urgent remonstrances of Hajjáj, and by his generous offer of double payment, which was at a subsequent period rigorously demanded, 'Ubaidu-lla bin Nabhán, was sent against the sea-port of Debal, where he met with defeat and death (p. 119).431b
Hajjáj then wrote to Budail, of the Bajalí tribe, directing him to advance against Debal. As Budail was at 'Umán, M. Reinaud considers it probable that he proceeded by sea to his destination; but the Chach-náma, though somewhat confused, is fuller than the Futúhu-l Buldán, and tells us that Budail was ordered to proceed to Makrán, that Muhammad Hárún was directed to place three thousand men at his disposal, for the purpose of proceeding to Sind, and that 'Abdu-lla bin Kahtán Aslamí was ordered to join him from 'Umán, which he accordingly did at Nairún. Budail advanced at the head of three hundred men from Makrán, and was joined on the way by the reinforcements from Muhammad Hárún. In the battle which ensued, Budail, after fighting gallantly, was thrown from his horse, surrounded by the enemy, and killed, and many Musulmáns were taken captive. The Futúhu-l Buldán and the Tuhfatu-l Kirám represents the action as having taken place at Debal, but the Chach-náma is not clear upon this point.432
Hajjáj was sorely afflicted at this disastrous result of his expedition, and vowed that he would take ample vengeance for the various indignities which had been heaped upon him. As the people of Nairún dreaded the consequences of Hajjáj's anger, and reflected that their city stood on the very road by which the Arabs would enter Sind, their governor, who was a Samaní, or Buddhist, sent privily some confidential messengers to Hajjáj, promising to remit tribute regularly, and soliciting from him some writing, under which Nairún might be secured from further annoyance at the hand of the Musulmáns. This bond was readily granted, and the Samaní was enjoined to obtain the freedom of the prisoners taken in the late action, with the threat of “putting to the sword of Islám the lives of all infidels as far as the borders of China, if this demand was not complied with.”432a
After this, 'Umar bin 'Abdu-lla requested that the government of Hind might be confided to him, but he was rebuked by Hajjáj, and told that the astrologers, after being consulted, had pronounced that the conquest of that country could be effected only by the hand of Muhammad Kásim.
Muhammad Kásim, as he is universally styled by the Persians, but by Biládurí, “Muhammad bin Kásim Sakifí,” and by Abú-l Fidá, “Muhammad bin Al Kásim,” was in the bloom of youth, being only seventeen years of age, when this important command was conferred upon him. It is probable that, although he is represented to have already administered the province of Fárs with ability, he obtained his appointment less from personal merit, than from family interest, for he was cousin and son-in-law of Hajjáj; but the result showed the wisdom of the selection. His rapid career of conquest along the whole valley of the Indus, from the sea to the mountains, has been fully narrated in the translations from the Futúhu-l Buldán and Chach-náma. From them it is evident, that his successes, like those of his contemporary, Tárik, in Spain, were as much attributable to his temper and policy as to his courage and strategy. There was, though by no means little—as Debal and Multán bear witness—yet much less, wanton sacrifice of life than was freely indulged in by most of the ruthless bigots who have propagated the the same faith elsewhere. The conquest of Sind took place at the very time in which, at the opposite extremes of the known world, the Muhammadan arms were subjugating Spain, and pressing on the southern frontier of France, while they were adding Khwárazm to their already mighty empire. In Sind, as in Spain, where submission was proffered, quarter was readily given; the people of the country were permitted the exercise of their own creeds and laws; and natives were sometimes placed in responsible situations of the government. Much of this unwonted toleration may, in both instances, have arisen from the small number of the invading force, as well as from ignorance of civil institutions; but we must still allow the leaders credit for taking the best means of supplying these deficiencies, and seeking assistance from the quarters most able to afford it.433
The two authorities above-mentioned differ from each other in some particulars, and the Chach-náma, which is the source of the Persian accounts, furnishes a few details, wearing, especially towards the close, the appearance of embellishment; but there is no startling discrepancy in the general history of the conquest, of which the broad features are preserved with fidelity in both naratives.
The Persian authorities, following the Chach-náma, mention that Muhammad Kásim penetrated to Kanauj, which, as the borders of that country then extended nearly to Ajmír, is no improbable circumstance, if we do not construe the expression to signify literally that the city of Kanauj was conquered. But even the possession of that great capital would not have satisfied the ambitious aspirations of Hajjáj; for he had ordered Muhammad to penetrate to China; and with the view of exciting emulation between him and Kutaiba, had promised, that whichever of them arrived there first should be invested with the government of the celestial empire: a fair challenge and a fair start,—for in the self-same year, one was on the Indus, the other on the Jaxartes, in the same longitude, and at the same distance from the eastern goal, which fanaticism and avarice, as well as the desire to secure a safe and remote asylum upon the death of Walíd, had designated to these rival generals as the guerdon of success and victory.434
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
—v. 1088.
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩
↩