The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians/Note (B).- Historical

From Jatland Wiki
Back to Index of the Book
The full text of this book has been converted into Wiki format by Laxman Burdak
The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians
Sir H. M. Elliot, Edited by John Dowson, 1867, Volume I

Appendix. Note (B).- Historical

The Ráí Dynasty

[p.405]: 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,1 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 Surat (Surashtra); and on the north, Kandahar, Sistan, 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 Nimroz raised an army for the purpose of attacking him, and the Ráí, having

[p.406]: 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,

[p.407]: 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 Nímroz1 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

[p.408]: 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.1

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.2

The Bráhman Dynasty

[p.409]: 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;"1 Briggs has "Huj;"2 the two Manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Royale have "Hoj;"3 Reinaud spells the name "Tchotch;"4 Renouard leans to "Jaj," as he considers it a corruption of Yajnya;5 S. de Sacy gives reasons for considering it to be "Hijaj;"6 Pottinger writes "Chach;"7 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,8 the statement of Ibn Khallikán seems more to be relied on, when he says that Sassa, son of Dáhir,9 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 Sháhrám10 -but the main statement seems to be upheld by independent testimony, and it

[p.410]: 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 Biládurí1, 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.2 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,3 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.4

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.5 This has been variously interpreted to mean a "Kshattriya,"6 a "Súdra,"7 and a Rájpút of the "Chatur," or

[p.411]: "Chitor," tribe.1 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.,2 and after traversing the whole of Chinese Tartary, Turkistan, Northern Afghánistan, Kashmir, 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

[p.412]: 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 accession1 -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

[p.413]: 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 at¬tempts 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.1

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.2


The accession of Chach to the throne of Sind 10 A.H.
His expedition to Kirmán, in the fourth year 14 A.H.
Mughaira's attack, in the fifth year 15 A.H.
Chach's death, after a reign of forty entire years 51 A.H.
Chandar's death, in the eighth year of his reign 59 A.H.
Dáhir's death, after a reign of thirty-three entire years 93 A.H.

The Advances of the Arabs towards Sind1

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,"2 that they should enforce belief at the point of the sword, which was emphatically declared to be "the key of heaven and of hell."3 Terror and devastation, murder and rapine, accompanied their progress, in fulfilment of the prophetic denunciation of Daniel, that this descendant

[p.415]: of Ishmael1 "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."2

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,

[p.416]: 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-five1 years in Sind (MS. p. 70).2

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 Kirmán. 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.3

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

[p.417]: 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.1

In the year 22 H., 'Abdú-lla bin 'Ámar bin Rabí' invaded Kirmán, and took the capital, Kuwáshír,2 so that the aid of "the men of Kúj and Balúj"3 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.4

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."5

[p.418]: 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.1

'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.2 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

[p.419]: 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.1

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 sub-mission 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.2

Firishta attributes to the following year a proselyting expedition to the eastward, which is said to have been despatched from Baghdád; 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

[p.420]: 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;1 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.2

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.3 The two governments were once more combined in the person of Hajjáj, who was invested with greater power than any of his predecessors.*

[p.421]: 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.4

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.1

'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

[p.422]: 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.1

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.2

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

[p.423]: are informed by a respectable authority, that 'Abdu-r Rahmán conquered Sind in the year 42 H.1 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).2

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.3

The statement of the next incursion is somewhat confused. Upon the death of 'Abdu-lla, Sinán bin Salma was appointed to

[p.424]: 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.1

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).2

"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

[p.425]: 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.1

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 devasta¬tions. They seized upon Kusdár, where they made many captives. Al Manzar died in that town (p. 117).2

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,

[p.426]: 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;1 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.2

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.3

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).4

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.5

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

[p.427]: 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

[p.428]: 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.1

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).2

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.3

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 86,4 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,

[p.429]: "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."1

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.2 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

[p.430]: substitutes "Kurd."
Reiske states his inability to comprehend what tribe is meant by this name.
Reinaud says, "Kurds" are out of the question;1 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.2 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.3

The Meds are familiar to us, as being frequently mentioned by Ibn Haukal and the early writers on Sind.4 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.5 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.6 It

[p.431]: 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."1 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.2

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).3

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

[p.432]: 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.1

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."

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 con¬quest along the whole valley of the Indus, from the sea to the moun¬tains, has been fully narrated in the translations from the Futúhu-l Buldán and Chach-náma. From them it is evident, that his suc¬cesses, 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 submis¬sion 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 in¬stances, 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.* 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 cir¬cumstance, 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 chal¬lenge 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.*

The Progress of the Arabs in Sind

From faith in Firishta, who has been followed exclusively by our modern historians, it has been usual to consider that the conquest of Sind was effected by only six thousand men, who, by some misapprehension of the original, are wrongly stated to be Assyrians. The more correct statement, given by our Arab authorities, shows that, independent of an advanced guard under Abú-l Aswad Jaham, which was ordered to join Muhammad Kásim on the borders of Sind, there were six thousand picked cavalry from Syria and 'Irák, six thousand armed camel-riders, thoroughly equipped for military operations, with a baggage train of three thousand Bactrian camels, which, however, Mír Ma'súm converts into three thousand infantry. In Makrán, Muhammad Kásim was joined by the governor, Muhammad Hárún, with other reinforcements; and five catapults, together with the necessary ammunition, were transported by sea to Debal. The number of men conveyed by the naval squadron may be

[p.435]: estimated by the fact, that we find one catapult alone requiring no less than five hundred men to work it. These heavy machines had been used by the Prophet in the siege of Táif, and had done effective service only a few years before at Damascus and Mecca, as well as in the re-conquest of northern Africa; but they were so ponderous that they could be rarely used, except where the means of transport by water existed, or but a short distance by land had to be traversed. Hence Kutaiba, in his campaign beyond the Oxus, was often compelled to regret that a long and tedious land-carriage deprived him of the advantage of these implements, which were nearly indispensable in the operations in which he was engaged.

Besides these Arab troops, we find the Jats and Meds enlisting under Muhammad Kásim's banners, which, independent of its moral effect in dividing national sympathies, and relaxing the unanimity of defence against foreign aggression, must have been of incalculable benefit to him, in his disproportionate excess of cavalry, which could be of but little service in a country intersected by rivers, swamps, and canals.

This desertion of the native princes was doubtless occasioned by the severity with which they had treated the Jats and Lohánas upon the capture of Bráhmanábád. The inhibition of riding on saddles and wearing fine clothes, the baring the head, the accompaniment of a dog, the drawing of and hewing wood for the royal kitchen, were more suited to Musulmán intolerance than the mild sway of Hindúism; and accordingly, after the conqueror's first acquisitions, we find him so indifferent about retaining the good will of his allies, that he imposed the same conditions upon them, which he enforced with even greater stringency than his predecessors.

After the news of Muhammad Kásim's success reached Damascus, he was joined by other troops and adventurers eager for plunder and proselytism; insomuch that when he left Multán, for the purpose of proceeding to Dípálpúr and the north, we find it stated in the Tárikh-i Sind and Tuhfatu-l Kirám, that he had no less than 50,000 men marching under his standard, besides those whom he had left in the forts and garrisons of Sind. Hence we may see, that paucity of numbers was by no means so much against the chance of Muhammad Kásim's success as has hitherto been supposed.1

[p.436]: There is no occasion here to follow this conqueror through all the rapid stages of his successful career. These will be found fully set forth in the translations from the Chach-náma and Futúhu-l Buldán, which furnish details hitherto wanting in the authorities accessible to us. Abú-l Fidá and Abú-l Faraj tell us merely that Hind was conquered by Muhammad Kásim in the year 94 H. Ibn Kutaiba, ascribes the conquest to 93 H., but gives no particulars. Elmacin (Al Makín) only tells us that Hind and Sind were conquered, and that King Dáhir was slain by the Musulmáns, and had his head cut off; and Weil gives the following as the sum of all that the great historian Tabarí has to say upon this theme:

"In the year 90 (?) Muhammad ibn Kásim, whom Hajjáj had appointed to command an army, slew the king of Sind, named Dass ibn Sassa. In the year 94, Muhammad ibn Kásim conquered India. In the year 95, the farthest India was conquered, with exception of Kíraj and Alman-dal." 1

A like complaint has been made of the meagreness of our modern writers with respect to this interesting period of Indian history, but without just cause, for they really had no documents to appeal to.

Though Muhammad left Shíráz in the year 92 H., he does not appear to have reached Debal till the beginning of the following year. The precise date is not mentioned, yet Hajjáj replies to the announcement of its capture, on the 20th Rajab, 93 (1st May, 712 A.D.); so, as news between Sind and the capital is said to have been conveyed in seven days, the fall of Debal may be dated in the beginning of that month.2

After the conquest of the capital Alor, in Ramazán of the same year, the Futúhu-l Buldán carries him no further than Multán, from which place he returns on hearing of Hajjáj's death; but the Chach-náma takes him to the very foot of the Kashmír hills, to the part where the Jhelam debouches from the mountains, and forms the streams and islands which cannot fail to strike the traveller with the minute correctness of Quintus Curtius, in describing (viii. 45) the scene of Alexander's decisive victory over Porus, after passing the Hydaspes. In the Chach-náma, the place is called Panj-máhiát,

[p.437]: or "The Five Waters,"-a miniature Panjáb, in short (supra, p. 144). It was here that Chach fixed the boundary of Sind and Kashmír; and the planting of fir-trees, to mark the site, shows how elevated a spot these conquerors had reached in their northern progress.

The balance of authority is perhaps in favour of Jalálpúr, as the place of Alexander's crossing the Hydaspes: argument and ocular demonstration conclusively decide in favour of the upper passage; but we need not discuss the point further. The literature of the question may be ascertained by consulting the references in the note.1

The Khalif Walíd died six months after Hajjáj, in Jamáda I. A.H. 96-A.D. January, 715; and as Muhammad Kásim's recal was immediately consequent upon that event, he must have remained altogether about three years and a quarter in Sind and the Panjáb.

Muhammad Kásim's death: Our authorities differ respecting the mode of Muhammad Kásim's death; but it must be admitted that there is much more probability in the statement of the Futúhu-l Buldán than in that of the Chach-náma , which is followed by all the later writers. The former states that he was seized, fettered, imprisoned, and tortured to death with the Khalif Sulaiman's sanction; the latter, that the two daughters of Dáhir, who had been sent to the capital for the Khalif's haram, complained that they had already been violated by their father's conqueror,-upon which, Walíd, in a fit of wrath, ordered that he should be sewn up in a raw cow-hide, and so transmitted to Damascus. When his body was exhibited to the girls, they declared that their assertion was untrue, and that they had uttered it merely to be avenged on the destroyer of their family and country. The tale goes on to say, that the capricious tyrant, in an agony of remorse for his hasty conduct, ordered them to be immured alive. Others say they were tied to horses' tails, and so dragged about the city.2

[p.438]: The whole story certainly savours more of romance than reality, but the reason which has been advanced against it-namely, that the

[p.439]: sewing up in a hide was a Tátár mode of punishment, and not Arab-constitutes no valid objection; for, though it undoubtedly was practised by the Tátárs-as when the savage Hulákú murdered the last Khalif of Baghdád-yet an earlier example might have been discovered in the Arab annals. Even before the time of the Sind conquest, we find the adherents of the first Mu'áwiya enclosing the body of the governor of Egypt in the carcass of an ass, and burning both to ashes.1 And as for the general tone of romance which runs through this version of Muhammad Kásim's death, we find a case somewhat parallel in contemporary history; for, when Músa, the conqueror of Spain, was treated with similar indignity by Sulaimán-the same relentless Khalif who persecuted the conqueror of Sind,-and was lingering in misery and exile at Mecca, the head of his son, who had been murdered at Cordova, was thrown down at his father's feet, while the tyrant's messenger taunted him in the midst of his agony and despair.2


7. Sulaimán, A.H. 96-99. A.D. 715-717.

Yazíd, who was appointed to succeed Muhammad Kásim, died eighteen days after his arrival in Sind. Habíb, the son of Muhallab, was then appointed to pursue the war in that country; for, in the interval, the princes in India had revolted, and Jaisiya, the son of Dáhir, had regained possession of Bráhmanábád. The local historians, indeed, tell us that, for two years after the departure of Muhammad Kásim, the natives recovered and maintained possession of the countries which had been conquered from them. Habib encamped on the banks of the Indus, and the inhabitants of Alor submitted to him, after he had defeated a tribe which opposed him in arms (p. 124).

'Ámar bin 'Abdu-lla is also mentioned as one of the Sindian governors during this reign.3

[p.440]: 8.
'Umar II., A.H. 90-101. A.D. 717-720.

The Khalif Sulaimán, who died A.H. 99-A.D. 717, was succeeded by 'Umar bin 'Abdu-l Azíz. 'Umar addressed letters to the native princes, inviting them to embrace Islám, and to swear allegiance; proposing, as the reward of their acquiescence, that they should be allowed participation in the rights and privileges of other Musul-máns. The son of Dáhir, and many princes, assented to these proposals, and took Arab names. 'Amrú bin Muslim al Bahálí was the Khalif's lieutenant on this frontier, and he was successful in the invasion of several Indian provinces (p. 124).*

9. Yazíd II., A.H. 101-105. A.D. 720-724.

Under the reign of Yazíd bin 'Abdu-l Malik, the sons of Muhallab fled to Sind with their families. 'Amrú sent Hálál al Tamímí in pursuit of them, and on his encountering the fugitives at Kandábel, he slew Mudrak, Mufazzal, Ziyád, and all the sons of Muhallab, including Mu'áwiya, who had placed Muhammad Kásim in chains. This happened in the year 101 or 102 H., and forms an episode of some interest in the civil warfare of the Ummayides, which is fully recounted by the Arabic historians of that dynasty.

When Yazíd, the son of Muhallab, had fairly committed himself to a contest with his namesake, the reigning Khalif, he had, in order to extend his power, and procure an asylum in the event of defeat, despatched his agents to obtain possession of the several provinces of Ahwáz, Fárs, Kirmán, and Makrán, as far as the banks of the Indus. Kandábel, "on the remotest frontiers of the empire," he had especially consigned to the charge of Wadda ibn Hamíd al Azdí, in order that he might ensure a safe refuge for his family in case of any disaster. His defeat and death shortly ensued;- upon which, Mufazzal and his other brothers, having equipped at Basra a sufficient number of vessels for the conveyance of themselves and the surviving members of the Muhallabí family, embarked for the coast of Kirmán, whence they proceeded, as originally designed, to Kandábel. There Wadda proved treacherous to his charge, and the whole family, it is commonly said, were extirpated in the action which took place under its walls; but some

[p.441]: members, at least, must have survived; for, besides others of the same family, we read of one Yazíd Muhallabí, fifty years afterwards, as governor of Africa, and his son, Dáúd, as governor of Sind.1 The women and children were sold into slavery, from which they were only redeemed by the humanity of a generous individual, named Jarráh, the son of 'Abdu-lla.2

10. Hashám, A.H. 105-125. A.D. 724-743.

14. Marwán II., A.H. 127-132. A.D. 744-750.

'Amrú was succeeded in the command of the Indian frontier by Junaid, son of 'Abdu-r Rahmán al Marrí, in which appointment, originally made by 'Umar, the governor of 'Irák, he was confirmed by the Khalif Hashám, son of 'Abdu-l Malik. From the mention of the "Sindian frontier," it would appear that the Arabs were still excluded from the province itself; and it is, indeed, said in the passage from the native historian quoted above, that the new converts again apostatized, and revolted against the government. Junaid proceeded to Debal, but upon his reaching the banks of the Indus, the son of Dáhir opposed his passage, on the ground that he himself had been invested by the Khalif 'Umar with the government of his own country, in consequence of having become a Muhammadan. A contest took place between them on the lake of As-sharkí, when, the vessel of the son of Dáhir being quite disabled, he was made prisoner, and subsequently put to death. Sasa, his brother, fled towards 'Irák, to complain of Junaid's conduct; but he also, having been cajoled by the perfidious promises of Junaid, was killed by that Amír.

Junaid sent an expedition against Kíraj, which had revolted. The walls having been demolished by battering rams, the town was taken by assault, and pillaged. He despatched his officers also to various other places, of which it is difficult to determine the names. They may be mentioned as Marmád,3 Mandal,4 Dalmaj, Barús, Uzain,

[p.442]; Máliba, Baharimad, Al Bailáimán,5 and Jurz; but in most instances, it is almost impossible to identify them, with any approach to certainty (p. 126).1 It is sufficient to observe, that these several expeditions are represented to have been rewarded with immense booty, and that about this period the extension of the Arab conquests, both by sea and land, seems to be confirmed by passages in the Hindú, as well as the Chinese, chronicles.3

Junaid was succeeded, about 107 A.H., by Tamím bin Zaid al 'Utbí, who had been previously sent to Sind by Hajjáj. He was found to be feeble and incompetent, but generous and profuse withal, having lavished no less than eighteen millions of tátaríya4 dirhams, which he found in the public treasury of Sind. He died near Debal, "at a place called Buffalo Water, because herdsmen drove their cattle into it, to protect them against the bears (dabáb), which infested the banks of the Mihrán." Under his government the Musulmáns evacuated some Indian provinces, and, "up to this period," says Biládurí, "they have not recovered them all, and their settlements are not so far in advance as they had been previously."

After Támím, the government was entrusted by Khalad, governor of 'Irák, to Hakim al Kalabí. The inhabitants of Hind had relapsed into idolatry, except those of Kassa. Had they also followed the pernicious example, the Arabs would have been deprived of all retreat in case of danger. Hakim built a city on the eastern borders of a lake, which he named Mahfúza, "the guarded."5 He made this a place of refuge for the Musulmáns, established it as the capital, and resided in it. Hakim entrusted 'Amrú bin Muhammad bin Kásim6 with an expedition beyond Mahfúza, from which he returned victorious; and when 'Amrú was, in his turn, nominated

[p.443]: governor, he founded a city "on this side the lake, which he called Mansúra, 'the victorious,' and which is now," adds Biládurí, "the capital, where the governors reside."

Hakim recovered from the enemy some of the territories which had been lost; but, though the people were content with his government, he was murdered during his administration. The governors who succeeded continued the war against the enemy, and reduced to obedience many of the provinces which had revolted. The names of these governors are not mentioned by Biládurí; but the Tuh-fatu-l Kirám says, respecting this period, "Sulaimán, the son of the Khalif Hashám, on being put to flight in his action with Marwán, was appointed to Sind, which he ruled well, and remained there till the accession of the 'Abbásides, when he hastened to pay his respects to Saffáh. Abú-l Khattáb also was appointed to Sind by Marwán."* The Táríkh-i Sind also mentions this latter appointment.2


1. Abú-l'Abbás as Sáffáh. A.H. 132-136. A.D. 750-754.

When the 'Abbásides succeeded to the Khiláfat, Abú Muslim entrusted the government of Sind to 'Abdu-r Rahmán, who went to Sind by way of Tukháristán, and met on the frontier Mansúr bin Jamhúr, the governor on the part of the late Ummayide Khalif.3 'Abdu-r Rahmán was totally defeated, his army put to flight, and he himself slain (supra, p. 127).4

Abú Muslim then conferred the governorship upon Músa bin K'ab ut Tamímí, who, on his arrival in Sind, found the Indus placed between him and Mansúr. The rivals, however, managed to encounter each other, and Mansúr and all his troops, though far superior to their opponents in numbers, were compelled to fly; his brother was slain, and he himself perished of thirst in the sandy desert.5

Músa, when he became master of Sind, repaired Mansúra, enlarged the mosque, and directed several successful expeditions against the infidels. According to the Tuhfatu-l Kirám, it was Dáúd bin 'Alí who expelled the Ummayide governor.


2. Abú Ja'far al Mansúr. A.H. 136-158. A.D. 754-775.

About the year 140 H., the Khalif Al Mansúr appointed Hashám to Sind, who conquered countries which had hitherto resisted the progress of the Muhammadan arms. He despatched 'Amrú bin Jamal with a fleet of barks to the coast of Barada,1 against which point, we are informed by Tabarí and Ibn Asír, another expedition was despatched in 160 H., in which, though the Arabs succeeded in taking the town, sickness swept away a great portion of the troops, while they were stationed in an Indian port, and the rest, on their return, were shipwrecked on the coast of Persia; so that the Khalif Mahdí was deterred from any further attempts upon India.2

A body of troops, at the time when 'Amrú was employed against Barada, penetrated into "the kingdom of Hind, conquered the country of Kashmír, and took many women and children captive."3 The whole province of Multán was also reduced. At Kandábel, there was a party of Arabs, whom Hashám expelled the country. They are suspected, with some reason, to have been adherents of 'Alí.4

[p.445]: About this time, the Sindian Arabs engaged in a naval expedition against Kandahár,1 at which place the idol-temple was destroyed, and a mosque raised upon its ruins. Here, again, we have greatly to reduce the distance within which these operations are supposed to have been conducted. M. Reinaud, in his earlier publication,2 in which he is followed by Dr. Weil,3 considered the place here indicated to be Kandhár, near the Gulf of Cambay; but, in his subsequent one,4 he inclines to the opinion that Gandhára, on the Upper Indus, is meant; of which Waihind was the capital. There is little probability of either being correct, and we need not look any further than the peninsula of Káthíwár, on the north-west angle of which is situated Khandadár, one of the objects of our attack in 1809, when, unlike its neighbour, Mália, it surrendered to Col. Walker's detachment without resistance.

Under Hashám, the supreme authority was enforced with vigour throughout the whole country, and the people are represented to have lived in abundance and content.

The government of Sind was then bestowed upon 'Umar bin Hafs bin 'Usmán, a Súfrian, commonly called Hazármard.5 This must have been previous to 151 H., for in that year we find him transferred to the government of Africa, where he was killed in the year 154 H. He was succeeded in the African government by Yazíd bin Hátim, or bin Mazíd Muhallabí, while Rúh, the brother of Yazíd, became governor of Sind in 154 and 155 H. (771 A.D.). At the time of Rúh's departure for the valley of the Indus, some one observed to the Khalif Mansúr, that the two brothers had little chance of being enclosed in the same tomb. Nevertheless, upon the death of Yazíd, he was succeeded in Africa by his brother Rúh, and the two brothers were actually interred by the side of one another at Kairoán.6

5. Hárúnu-r Rashíd, A.H. 170-193. A.D. 786-809.

We have, during this prosperous period, another instance of transfer between Africa and Sind; for Dáúd bin Yazíd Muhallabí,

who had provisionally succeeded his father in the former province, was appointed to the latter about the year 184 H. (800 A.D.), and died there while holding the office of governor.1 These transfers, no doubt, were designed to prevent governors becoming too powerful and independent, by maturing intrigues, and courting popularity with the inhabitants of any particular province; but they must have also been attended with the salutary effect upon the governors themselves, of removing prejudices, suggesting comparisons, imparting knowledge, and enlarging the general sphere of their observation.

The native historians mention other governors during this reign. One, a celebrated Shaikh, called Abú Turáb, or Hájí Turábí. He took the strong fort of Tharra, in the district of Sákúra, the city of Bagár, Bhambúr, and some other places in western Sind. His tomb, which bears on its dome the early date of 171 H. (787 A.D.), is to be seen about eight miles south-west of Thatta, between Gúja and Korí, and is visited by pilgrims.2

Abú-l 'Abbás was also a governor of Sind during Hárún's Khilá-fat, and remained in that post for a long time. This is all the information which we derive from Mír Ma'súm respecting the Arab governors, though he professes to give us a chapter specially devoted to this subject.3

The vigour which marked this period of the Sindian government may, perhaps, be judged of by the impression which the advances of the Arabs were making upon the native princes on the northern frontier of India. Even the Khákán of Tibet was inspired with alarm at the steady progress of their dominion.4

One interesting synchronism connected with the reign of Hárún should not be omitted in this place. Tabarí mentions that this Khalif despatched, by the Arabian sea, an envoy, accompanied with numerous presents, to some king of India, representing that he was sore afflicted with a cruel malady, and requesting, as he was on the point of travelling on a distant journey into Khurásán, that the famous Indian physician, Kanka or Mánikba, might be sent to attend

[p.447]: him on his tour in that province; promising, on the honour of a prince, that he should be permitted to return to his country immediately on the Khalif's arrival at Balkh. The physician, who was sent in compliance with this request, was so successful in his treatment, that his imperial patient was in a short time sufficiently recovered to proceed to his destination, through the passes of Halwán. Nevertheless, the Khalif died at Tús, before he had accomplished all the purposes of his journey; but, in due time, the Indian physician, according to promise, was allowed to proceed to Balkh, whence he returned in safety to his native country; which, if not Sind itself, was probably no great distance from it, as the embassy of invitation had proceeded by sea. Some authorities, however, represent that the physician, in the first instance, crossed over the Hindú-kush, and returned home by the Persian Gulf.1

7. Al Mámún, A.H. 198-218. A.D. 813-833.

During this Khiláfat, Bashar bin Dáúd, who was invested with the chief authority in Sind, raised the standard of revolt, withheld payment of the revenues, and prepared to resist the Khalif with open force. Ghassán bin Abbád, an inhabitant of Kúfa, and a near relative of the Khalif, who had about ten years previous been governor of Khurásán, Sijistán, and Kirmán, was sent, in 213 H., against the insurgent, who surrendered himself to Ghassán under promise of safe conduct, and accompanied him to Baghdád, where he obtained pardon from the Khalif.2

Ghassán then appointed "to the government of the frontier," Músa, son of the famous Yahya, the Barmekide, and younger brother of Fazl and Ja'far, the ministers of Hárúnu-r Rashíd. Músa captured and slew Bala, king of As-Sharkí (the east), though five hundred thousand dirhams were offered as a ransom (p. 128).

In another work, Músa's appointment is ascribed to Hárún's reign. He was removed, because he squandered the revenues. He was succeeded by 'Alí bin 'Isa bin Hámán.3

There appears some difficulty about this period, with respect to the succession to

[p.448]: the government of Sind. It is asserted that, previous to the arrival of Ghassán, Táhir bin Husain, who had been the main cause of the elevation of Mámún to the Khiláfat, received Sind as a portion of his eastern government, when he was appointed to Khurásán in 205 A.H. (820 A.D.), in which province he died before he had held it two years. Others, again, say that 'Abdu-lla bin Táhir (the Obaid-ulla of Eutychius)1 received the province of Sind, when he succeeded to his father's government in Khurásán. Firishta also tells us, that the Sámánís extended their incursions to Sind and Thatta; but it may reasonably be doubted if either they, or the Táhirís,2 exercised any power in the valley of Indus, any more than did the Suffárides (except perhaps Ya'kúb), or the Búwaihides, whose seats of government were much nearer, and who had many more facilities for establishing their power in that direction. There is a confusion, also, respecting the precise date of the Barmekide governor above alluded to.3

8. Al-Mu'tasim-bi-llah, A.H. 218-227. A.D. 833-841.

Músa, the Barmekide, after acquiring a good reputation, died in the year 221 H., leaving a son, named 'Amrán, who was nominated governor of Sind by Mu'tasim-bi-llah, then Khalif. 'Amrán betook himself to the country of Kaikán, which was in the occupation of the Jats, vanquished them, and founded a city, which he called Al Baizá, "the white," where he established a military colony. He then returned to Mansúra, and thence went to Kandábel, which was in the possession of Muhammad bin Khalíl. The town was taken, and the principal inhabitants were transferred to Kusdár. After that, he sent an expedition against the Meds, killed three thousand of them, and constructed a causeway, which bore the name of "the Med's causeway." Upon encamping near the river Alrúr,4 he summoned the Jats,

[p.449]: who were dependent on his government. "When they obeyed the call, he stamped a seal upon their hands,1 and received from them the capitation tax, directing that when they presented themselves to him, they should each be accompanied by a dog, so that the price of a dog rose as high as fifty dirhams."

The meaning of this strange provision is not very evident, but we have seen above, that it originated with the Bráhman dynasty, and was approved by Muhammad Kásim. It does not appear whether the tribute-dogs were taken away by the Arabs, or whether it was intended to encourage the breed, by making it necessary that every man should have his dog. It is only for one of these two reasons that the price could have been enhanced. In the former case, they must have been taken, either for the purpose of being slaughtered2 by the Arabs, in order to diminish their number, which might have amounted to a nuisance, or they were taken and kept to be used by themselves, as by the Tálpúr princes of later times, in hunting-or in watching flocks, as we see them employed to this day in the Delta, where they allow no stranger to approach a village. For the same reasons they are held in high repute in Bulúchistán.

Had any people but Saracens been rulers in Syria and Mesopotamia, we might have even surmised that these animals were an article of export, for the celebrity of Indian dogs was great among the ancient occupants of the same country, and by them they were largely imported, as they were considered the best for hunting wild beasts, and even lions were readily attacked by them.3 Xerxes, as Herodotus tells us, was followed in his expedition to Greece by Indian dogs, of which "none could mention the number, they were so many" (vii. 187); and Tritæchmes, the satrap of Babylon,

[p.450]: kept such a number of Indian dogs, that four considerable towns in the plains were exempted from all other taxes, and devoted to their maintenance" (i. 192). But, as dogs are held in abomination by Muhammadans, we cannot conceive that these tribute-dogs were disposed of in this fashion. Whatever may have been the cause of this article of the engagement, it is a curious fact, that the effect seems to have survived in the very scene of these operations; for it is notorious, that the rare crime of dog-stealing is practised to the west of Aral and Manchhar, and travellers are obliged to adopt especial precautions in passing through that district.1

After this triumphant affair with the Jats, 'Amrán again attacked the Meds at several different points, having many Jat chiefs under his banners; and he dug a canal, by which the sea-water flowed into their lake, so that the only water which they had to drink became salt.

The spirit of faction which prevailed between the Nizárian and Yamánían Arabs, was the cause of 'Amrán's death, he having been appointed by 'Umar bin 'Abdu-l 'Azíz al Habbárí, who espoused the Nizárian cause, and whose family, in Ibn Haukal's time, was supreme in Mansúra. It was during 'Amrán's government, that the Indians of Sindán2 declared themselves independent; but they respected the mosque, which the Musulmáns of the town visited every Friday, for the purpose of reading the usual offices and praying for the Khalif. Sindán had been originally captured by Fazl bin Máhán, once a slave of the family of Sáma,-the same probably that afterwards made itself master of Multán. He sent an elephant to the Khalif Mámún, and prayed for him in the Jámí' Masjid, which he erected in Sindán. At his death, he was succeeded by his son Muhammad, who fitted out a flotilla of seventy barks against the Meds of Hind, put many of them to the sword, and took Mália.3 In his absence, one of his brothers, named Máhán, treacherously usurped the government of Sindán, and wrote to propitiate the goodwill of Mu'tasim; but the Indians declared against

him, and crucified him, and subsequently, as before stated, pro¬claimed their independence, by renouncing allegiance to the Muhammadans (p. 129).

It was in 'Amrán's time, also, that the country of Al 'Usaifán,1 situated between Kashmír, Kábul, and Multán, was governed by a certain prince of good understanding. His son falling ill, the prince asked the priests of one of the idols worshipped by the inhabitants, to beseech the idol to heal his son. The priests, after absenting themselves a short time, returned, and said the idol had heard their prayers, yet the son died notwithstanding. The prince, exasperated at their fraudulent pretensions, demolished the temple, broke the idol in pieces, and massacred the ministers. He then called before him some Musulmán merchants, who developed to him the proofs of the unity of God, upon which he readily became a convert to the faith (p. 129).

Among the notices of Mu'tasim's reign, we find it mentioned that, in order to reward Ikshín, the Turk, for his seizure of the notorious fanatic Bábek, who had spread great consternation by the effects of his first successes, the Khalif bestowed upon him twenty millions of dirhams from the province of Sind-which was equal to two years' revenue; but it does not appear that Ikshín ever went there to collect it, and it was probably a mere assignment upon the general revenues, which might be paid when convenient, or altogether repudiated. The mention of a particular province is strange, under the circumstances of the time, and would seem to show that but little was received into the general treasury from that source. Ikshín, in short, was entitled to collect that amount, if he could, by rigid extortions in the province itself; just as, at a later period of Indian history, the miserable jágírdár was put off by assignments upon turbulent and rebellious provinces.2 The value of such drafts, even

[p.452]: upon the general treasury, may be estimated by an amusing anecdote related of the Khalif Al Hádí. An eminent Arab poet having once presented to him some of his lucubrations, the prince, who was a good judge of such performances, discovered such beauties in them that he was extremely pleased, and said to him:-"Choose for your recompense, either to receive 30,000 dirhams immediately, or 100,000 after you have gone through the delays and formalities of the Exchequer." The poet replied with great readiness:-"Give me, I pray, the 30,000 now, and the 100,000 hereafter;" which repartee, we are told, was so pleasing to the Khalif, that he ordered the entire sum of 130,000 dirhams to be paid down to him on the spot, without any deduction.1

15. Al Mu'tamad-'alà-llah, A.H. 256-279. A.D. 870-892.

18. Al Muktadar-bi-llah, A.H. 295-320. A.D. 908-932.

During the nine reigns which occupied the period between Al Mu'tasim and Al Muktadar, the power of the Khalifs had been gradually on the decline. The Turkish guard had become more and more outrageous and arbitrary; independent dynasties, such as the Táhirides and Suffárides, after having shorn the kingdom of some of its fairest provinces, had themselves expired; eunuchs, and even women,2 had sat upon the judgment seat and dispensed patronage, while corruption and venality openly prevailed; and now, at a later period-notwithstanding that literature flourished, and the personal dignity of the Khalif was maintained in the highest splendour - yet, not only had the Sámánís conquered the whole of Máwaráu-n nahr and Khurásán, not only had the Dailamites penetrated to the borders of 'Irák, and all northern Africa, except Egypt, had been lost for ever to the Khiláfat,

[p.453]: but, as if to crown the measure of its misfortunes, the Karmatian heretics, having plundered Kúfa, Basra, and Sámarra, had possessed themselves of Mecca during the very time of pilgrimage, had mas¬sacred the pilgrims, and even carried off the sacred black stone itself, the principal and universal object of Muhammadan veneration.

Under such circumstances, the most distant provinces necessarily partook of the decline from which the heart of the empire was suffering; and Sind, neglected by the imperial government, came to be divided among several petty princes, who, though they transmitted no revenue and rendered no political allegiance to the Khalif, were, like other more powerful chiefs, who had assumed independence, glad to fortify their position by acknowledging his spiritual supremacy, and flattering him by the occasional presentation of some rarity from the kingdoms which they had usurped. Among these ostentatious displays of empty fealty in which revolted governors were wont to indulge,-comprising, in the words of Gibbon, "an elephant, a cast of hawks, a suit of silk-hangings, or some pounds of musk and amber,"1 we may specially mention two loyal and characteristic offerings from India,-"a cart-load of four-armed idols,"2 and "the largest and longest teak-tree which had ever been seen"* (p. 129).

The virtual renunciation of political control in Sind may be dated from the year 257 H., when the Khalif Mu'tamad, in order to divert the Suffárides from their hostile designs against 'Irák, conferred upon Ya'kúb ibn Lais the government of Sind, as well as of Balkh and Tukháristán, in addition to that of Sijistán and Kirmán, with which he had been already invested.4

[p.454]: The two principal kingdoms which were established in Sind a few years after this event, were those of Multán and Mansúra, both of which attained a high degree of power and prosperity. It is probable that the independence of those states commenced upon Ya'kúb ibn Lais' death in 265 H. (879 A.D.), for his successors were comparatively powerless, and the Sámánís, at the commencement of their rule, had little leisure to attend to so remote a province as Sind.

Mas'údi, who visited the valley of the Indus in the year 303-4 H. -915-6 A.D., and completed his "Meadows of Gold" in 332 H.- 943-4 A.D., furnishes a brilliant account of the state of Islám in that country. The Amír of Multán was an Arab of the noble tribe of Kuraish,1 named Abú-l Dalhat al Munabba, son of Assad as Sámí, and the kingdom of Multán is represented to have been hereditary in his family for a long time, "nearly from the beginning of Islám," -meaning, probably, its introduction into Sind; and Kanauj, he asserts, was then a province of Multán, "the greatest of the countries which form a frontier against unbelieving nations."

He was descended from Sáma, son of Lawí, son of Ghálib, who had established himself on the shores of 'Umán before the birth of Muhammad. The Amír had an army in his pay, and there were reckoned to be 120,000 hamlets around the capital. His dominion extended to the frontier of Khurásán. The temple of the Sun was still an object of native pilgrimage, to which people resorted from the most distant parts of the continent, to make their offerings of money, pearls, aloe-wood and other perfumes. It was from this source that the greater part of the revenue of the Amír was derived. Mas'údí remarks, as does Ibn Haukal, that the threat of injuring or mutilating the idol was sufficient to deter the native princes from engaging in hostilities with the Amír.

Mansúra was governed by another Kuraishí, whose name was Abú-l Mundar 'Umar bin 'Abdu-lla. He was descended from Habbár bin Aswad, who was celebrated for his opposition to Muhammad, and on the return of the prophet to Mecca in triumph, was among the few who were excepted from the terms of the amnesty which was at that time proclaimed. He subsequently became a convert, and towards the year 111 A.H., one of his descendants came to the

[p.455]: valley of the Indus to seek his fortune. Some time after, his family, taking advantage of the anarchy which prevailed in the country, made themselves masters of the lower Indus, and established themselves at Mansúra. Our voyager states, that he was kindly received by the Amír, as well as his minister. While he was there, he found some descendants of the Khalif 'Alí, whom persecution had compelled to seek a refuge in that distant country.

The principality of Mansúra extended from the sea to Alor, where that of Multán commenced. It was said to contain 300,000 villages, which is, of course, a ridiculous exaggeration; but the whole country was well cultivated, and covered with trees and fields. Nevertheless, the inhabitants were obliged continually to protect themselves against the aggressions of the Meds and other savage tribes of the desert.

The chief of Mansúra had eighty elephants of war. Their trunks were armed with a kind of curved sword, called kartal, and were covered with armour to protect them in fight.1 The entire body of the animal was similarly protected, and each was attended by a detachment of five hundred infantry. Other elephants, not used in war service, were employed to carry burdens and draw chariots.2

23. Al Muti'-li-llah, A.H. 334-363. A.D. 945-974.

25. Al Kádir-bi-llah, A.H. 381-422. A.D. 991-1031.

A few years after Mas'údí, the valley of the Indus was visited by Istakhrí, and by Ibn Haukal, who has included nearly the whole of Istakhrí's relation in his own, and has entered into some further detail.

The account of Sind by Ibn Haukal, who wrote his work after the year 366 H. (976 A.D.), when he was for a second time in India, has been given in the preceding pages, and need not be repeated here. With respect to the condition of the country at the time of his visit, he observes that Multán was not so large as Mansúra, and was defended by a citadel; that the territory was fertile and produce cheap, but that its fertility was inferior to that of Mansúra, and its --- [p.456]: soil was not cultivated with the same care. The Amír1 lived outside the town, and never entered it, except for the purpose of going to the mosque, on Fridays, mounted on an elephant. There appears to have been no native coinage, but the money in circulation was chiefly Kandahárian and Tátaríyan dirhams. The dress of the Sindians was like that of the people of 'Irák, but the Amírs habited themselves like the native princes. Some persons wore their hair long, and their dresses loose, with waistbands, on account of the heat, and there was no difference between the garb of the faithful and idolaters.

The Amírs of Multán and Mansúra were independent of one another; but both deferred to the spiritual authority of the Khalif of Baghdád. The former was still a descendant of Sáma bin Lawí, and the latter a descendant of the Habbárí family. Alor, the ancient Hindú capital, was nearly as large as Multán, surrounded by a double wall, and was a dependency of Mansúra. Its territory was fertile and rich, and it was the seat of considerable commerce. Ráhúk (or Dahúk) also, on the borders of Makrán, and to the west of the Hála range, was included in Mansúra.

There were other principalities to the west, besides these two in the valley of the Indus:-such as

Túrán; which was under the authority of a native of Basra, named Abú-l Kassam, "tax-gatherer, administrator, judge, and general, who could not distinguish between three and ten:"-and
Kusdár; which was governed by an Arab, residing in Kaikánán, named Mu'ín bin Ahmad, who admitted the name of the 'Abbáside Khalif into the public prayers:-and :Makrán; the ruler of which was 'Ísa bin Ma'dán, who had established his residence in the city of Kíz, about the size of half of Multán:-and
Mushkí, on the borders of Kirmán; which was presided over by Matahar bin Rijá, who had an independent jurisdiction extending through three days' journey, but used the Khalif's name in the public services of religion.2

Ibn Haukal observes, that at Mansúra and Multán, and in the rest

[p.457]: of the province, the people spoke the Arabic and Sindian languages; in Makrán, Makránian and Persian.

With respect to those other parts of India to which the Musulmáns resorted, such as the maritime towns in the jurisdiction of the Balhará, between Cambay and Saimúr, Ibn Haukal observes that they were covered with towns and villages. The inhabitants were idolaters, but the Musulmáns were treated with great consideration by the native princes. They were governed by men of their own faith, as the traveller informs us was the case with Musulmáns in other infidel dominions, as among the Khazars of the Volga, the Alans of the Caucasus, and in Ghána and Kaugha in Central Africa. They had the privilege of living under their own laws, and no one could give testimony against them, unless he professed the Muhammadan faith. "I have seen," says Ibn Haukal, "Musulmáns of this country invoke against other Musulmáns the testimony of natives of probity who did not profess the Muhammadan creed; but it was necessary that the adverse party should first give his consent." They had erected their mosques in these infidel cities, and were allowed to summon their congregations by the usual mode of proclaiming the times of prayer.

Such privileges could only have been conceded to men whose favour was worth gaining, and it is to be regretted that they were indisposed to show to others in similar circumstances the indulgences so readily allowed to themselves. In the Middle Ages, it was only the power and political influence of the Amalfitans, Venetians, Pisans, and Genoese, that were sometimes able to extort from the reluctant Musulmáns those immunities, which were willingly granted by the more easy and indifferent Crusaders and Greeks,-comprising the security of their changes, magazines, and churches, the recognition of their Bailos, the privilege of being tried by their own laws, and by judges of their own appointment. These republics must then have occupied in Egypt and Constantinople the same kind of position as the Arabs on the coast of India, excepting that the tenure of the former was more precarious, and more subject to the caprices of despotism, the fluctuations of trade, and the ascending or waning influence of the principal carriers.

The commercial establishments in the peninsula of India do not

[p.458]: seem to have excited any religious scruples in the minds of the Khalifs, or even of those casuistical divines who guided the consciences of these "Vicars of God" and their subjects. Trade was openly prosecuted in that land of infidels by Arab merchants, without any fulminations from these spiritual authorities, and probably with their encouragement. In this respect, there was a singular contrast between the sentiments that animated Muhammadans and Christians: for to Christians, on the contrary, whether merchants or princes, the permission of their "Vicar of God" was necessary, before they could traffic with infidels; as only he, in his infallibility, could authorize a departure from the most sacred injunctions of Holy Writ. Even as late as the year 1454, the dispensing power to trade with Muhammadans was exercised in favour of Prince Henry of Portugal by Pope Nicholas V., in a famous Bull, which refers to similar concessions from his immediate predecessors, Martin V. and Eugenius IV., to Kings of that country.

This intercourse with the Saracens was not merely subject to these formal, and perhaps interested, restrictions, but was strongly and honestly reprobated by many sincere believers: and not without reason, when we reflect, that some of these traders, especially the Venetians, disgraced their honour and their faith by supplying the Egyptian market with Circassian slaves, and even rendered their mercenary assistance in driving the Crusaders from Acre, the last and only stronghold left to them in Palestine:-

E non con Saracin, nè con Giudei,
Che ciascun suo nemico era Cristiano,
E nessuno era state a vincere Acri,
Nè mercantante in terra di Soldano.1

The revenues, which the Arab princes of Sind derived from their several provinces, are pronounced to have been very small,-barely more than sufficient to provide food and clothing and the means of maintaining their position with credit and decency; and, as a

[p.459]: necessary consequence, only a few years elapsed before they were driven from their kingdoms, and compelled to yield their power to more enterprising and energetic assailants.

The Karmatians of India are nowhere alluded to by Ibn Haukal;1 but it could not have been long after his visit, that these heretics, who probably contained within their ranks many converted natives and foreigners as well as Arabs, began to spread in the valley of the Indus. Abú-l Fidá dates the commencement of their decline from 326 H. (938 A.D.). This was accelerated by two ignominious defeats in Egypt in 360 and 363, and their overflow was completed in 'Irák in 375 (985 A.D.). It must have been about this latter year that, finding their power expiring in the original seat of their conquests, they sought new settlements in a distant land, and tried their success in Sind. There the weakness of the petty local governments favoured their progress, and led to their early occupation both of Mansúra and Multán,-from which latter place history records their expulsion by the overwhelming power of Mahmúd the Ghaznivide.

It appears from local histories, as well as the Kámilu-t Tawáríkh, that Mahmúd also effected conquests in Sind. Though this matter is not commonly recorded by his historians, there is every likelihood of its truth; for, being in possession of Kusdár and Multán, the country was at all times open to his invasions. As it is well established that, after the fall of Somnát, he marched for some days along the course of the Indus, we can readily concur with the Kámilu-t Tawárikh in ascribing his capture of Mansúra to the year 416 H., on his return from that expedition: and, as it is expressly stated that he then placed a Muhammadan prince on the throne, we may safely infer that the previous occupant had rejected that faith, and was therefore a Karmatian, who, having usurped the government from the Habbárí dynasty, had thus, after a duration of three centuries, effected the extinction of the Arab dominion in Sind.2

Sind under the Arabs

[p.460]: Having in the previous Note exhausted all the scanty materials which history has left us respecting the political progress of the Arabs in Sind, we may now proceed to consider some of the questions connected with the maintenance of their power in that province.

The internal administration of the country was necessarily left in the hand of the natives; as the Arabs, upon their first acquisition of territory, had brought with them no men capable of exercising civil functions. Indeed, wherever we follow the steps of these fanatics, we find them ignorant of the first principles of public economy, and compelled, by the exigencies of their position, to rely upon native assistance in the management of the finances and accounts of their subject provinces. So, indeed, in a certain measure, do the English in India; but with this essential difference, that they direct and control the ministerial officers, both of collection and record, introduce their own systems, modify or abrogate the old ones as occasion arises, and initiate all proceedings connected with the several departments of the exchequer: but the Arabs, either through indolence, pride, or ignorance, left themselves at the mercy of their subordinates, and were unable to fathom the depths of the chaotic accounts kept by their native financiers, who practised the most ingenious devices of flattery, falsehood, cajolery, and self-interest-rendered more acute by religious hatred-in order to blind their credulous dupes as to the actual resources of the countries which they governed. The rack and the threat of circumcision would sometimes extort the illicit ac¬cumulations of past years; but, in the long run, the pliant and plausible officials were the gainers; and compromises, in a little ready cash, were gladly accepted, in lieu of closer scrutiny and more accurately balanced ledgers.

Hence those charges so readily brought, and so eagerly listened to, by Khalifs as well as Amírs, of defalcations and embezzlements: hence those demands for indefinite sums from refractory servants: hence those extortionate fines, levied according to mere surmises and conjectures, since no means existed of ascertaining the real amount of revenue and expenditure. Brought up in their native deserts, with no greater knowledge of schemes of administration than was to

[p.461]: be obtained by studying the phylarchies of the Bedouins, and in¬vested suddenly with dominions which they were not competent to manage, however easily they might overrun and subdue them, the Arabs were compelled to seek in the political institutions of their subjects the means of realizing the exactions which, as victors, they felt it their right to demand. The maintenance, therefore, of native officials (who were styled Bráhmans in the case of Sind) was a matter of necessity rather than choice, at least at this early period of their sway; for the guide-books mentioned by Ibn Haukal, which indicate some knowledge of statistics and finance, were the products of a much later age.

The first show of independence of such aid, even at the capital itself, was not exhibited till the reign of 'Abdu-l Malik, when he adopted an Arab currency, in supersession of the Greek and Persian money, with which trade had been hitherto carried on: though the old denominations of denarius and drachma were still retained, under the slight metamorphoses of dínár and dirham. Walíd next abolished the Greek language and character from the public offices of finance, and substituted the Arabic,-thus still further freeing the Arabs from the trammels which these foreign systems had interposed. The land-tenures and personal taxes, being based upon principles intro-duced by the victorious Moslems, retained their Arab nomenclature.1

The original conquerors of Sind received there, as elsewhere under similar circumstances, large possessions in land (iktá'át or katáya'), which, as beneficiary grants for public services, were exempt from all taxes, except the alms (sadaka) defined by law. They were, of course, held on the condition of continued military service, and as long as this was rendered, they never reverted to the fisc. According to the regulations promulgated by 'Umar, soldiers were not allowed to devote themselves to agriculture or any other profession, and therefore the lands of these grantees continued to be cultivated by the former possessors, now reduced to the condition of villeins and serfs.2 Other soldiers, not so beneficed, received stipends from the public revenue, to which they themselves contributed nothing in the shape of taxes. Four-fifths of the prize-money was invariably

[p.462]: distributed among them, and, indeed, at first, formed their sole remuneration, insomuch that a man who received pay was entitled neither to plunder nor the honour of martyrdom. One-fifth of the spoil was reserved to the Khalif for religious and charitable purposes, according to the injunctions of the Kurán. The man "who went down to the battle, and he who tarried by the stuff," received equal shares, and the horseman was entitled to a double portion. Had the Khalif attempted to augment his share, the hardy warriors would have resisted his claim, with the same freedom as the fierce and sturdy Gaul, when he raised his battle-axe, and reminded Clovis that the famous vase of Soissons was public spoil.1

Much also of the conquered land was, during the whole course of Arab occupation, liberally bestowed upon sacred edifices and institutions, as wakf, or mortmain; of which some remnant, dating from that early period, is to be found even to this day in Sind,2 which notoriously swarms with sanctified beggars and similar impostors, and contains, according to the current saying, no less than 100,000 tombs of saints and martyrs, besides ecclesiastical establishments, which, under the Tálpúrs, absorbed one-third of the entire revenue of the State.

That the whole valley, however, was not occupied or assigned by the victors is evident, not only from the large amount of the land-tax-which, had that been the case, would have yielded no revenue to the government-but from the fact of many native chiefs being able to maintain their independence, amidst all the wars and turmoils which raged around them. This is manifest from the story of 'Abdu-lla bin Muhammad, the 'Alite, which has been related in the preceding note. There we find a native potentate, "only one amongst other Sindian kings," possessing much land and many subjects, to whom 'Abdu-lla was recommended to fly for protection, and who was represented as holding the name of the prophet in respect, though he continued to worship his own idols.

[p.463]: The conquerors, taking up their abode chiefly in cities of their own construction, cultivated no friendly intercourse with the natives, whom they contemned as a subject race, and abhorred as idolaters. They remained, therefore, isolated from their neighbours, and when their turn came to be driven out from their possessions, they left a void which was soon filled up, and their expulsion, or extermination, was easily accomplished, and nowhere regretted.

In no place do we find any allusion to Arab women accompanying Sindian camps, or-as often occurred in other fields-stimulating the soldiers to action, when they evinced any disposition to yield to their enemy,1 The battle of the Yermouk, which decided the fate of Syria, was gained as much by the exhortations, reproaches, and even blows of the women, as by the valour of the men; for thrice were the faithful repulsed by the steady advance of the Grecian phalanx; thrice were they checked in their retreat, and driven back to battle by the women,-Abú Sufyán himself being struck over the face with a tent-pole by one of those viragos, as he fled before the enemy. In the remotest east, again, we find, as early as the time of 'Ubaidu-lla, his brother's wife mentioned as the first Arabian woman who crossed the Oxus,-on which occasion, unfortunately, she disgraced the credit of her sex, no less than her exalted rank, by stealing the jewels and crown of the queen of the Sogdians. Not many years after, the sanguinary battle of Bukhára, fought in the year 90 H., between Ibn Kutaiba and the Tátárs, was, in like manner with that of the Yermouk, restored by the tears and reproaches of the women who accompanied the Arab camp.2 These, soldiers, therefore, were prepared for immediate colonization and settlement, and must have consisted of the surplus emigrant population already settled in Khurásán. Accordingly, we find in this instance, that Baikand was converted into a fortress, and that part of the army was located in its neighbourhood, and composed several hundred military stations.

Sind, on the contrary, on account of the distance and difficulty of

[p.464]: communication, and the absence of intermediate Arab colonies, was invaded by men prepared for military operations alone; and who could not possess the means of carrying their families with them, when only one baggage-camel was allowed to every four men, for the transport of their food, tents, and other necessary equipments, and when supplies ran short even before the Indus was crossed.

Subsequently, when the road was more open and free, these agreeable additions to their society may have poured in, along with the later adventurers who flocked to the new conquest; but we nowhere meet with even any incidental allusion to the circumstance, but with much that militates against its probability: so that there was, perhaps, among the descendants of the Sindian colonists, less infusion of the real blood of Arabs than in any other province subjected to their dominion.

When Muhammad Kásim, upon passing the Indus, gave to any of his soldiers so disposed leave to retire to their homes, only three came forward to claim their discharge; and of these, two did so, because they had to provide for the female members of their family, who had, with the rest, been left behind in their native country with no one to protect them. Nor were the consolations of a speedy restoration to their deserted homes held out to the first conquerors. To them the return was even more difficult than the advance, as we may learn from a passage in Tabarí, where he tells that, on the accession of the Khalif Sulaimán, he wrote to those ill-used men- the companions of the gallant hero whom he had tortured to death- in these harsh and cruel terms:-"Sow and sweat, wherever you may find yourselves on receipt of this mandate, for there is no more Syria for you." Here, then, these exiles must have remained during the ten years of his reign at least; and as they were not likely to have returned in any numbers after his death, we may conceive them congregated into several military colonies, seeking solace for their lost homes in the arms of the native women of the country, and leaving their lands and plunder to be inherited by their Sindo-Arab descendants.

These military colonies, which formed a peculiar feature of Arab settlement were styled junúd and amsár,-"armies" and "cities,"- the latter appellation implying settled abodes, contrasted with the

[p.465]: previous migrations to which the tribes had been habituated. In many instances they rose into important cities, as in the case of Basra, Kúfa, and Damascus, and early became the principal centres of Arab learning, law, grammar, and theology, as well as of tumult, violence, perfidy, and intrigue. The principal seats of these cantonments in Sind appear to have been Mansúra, Kuzdár, Kandábel. Baizá, Mahfúza, and Multán; and indeed, the military camp near the latter town,-whether the real name be "Jandaram" or "Jundrúz" (Gildemeister), "Jundráwár" (Ashkálu-l Bilád), "Jun-dáwar" (Abú-l Fidá) or "Jandúr" (Nubian Geographer), seems to derive its first syllable from jand, the singular number of junúd, above mentioned.1

The local troops, which were enlisted in the country, dispersed to their own homes as soon as the necessity was satisfied for which they were raised; but there were some which assumed a more permanent character, and were employed on foreign service, with little chance of return.

That Sindian troops were levied, and sent to fight the battles of the Arabs in distant quarters, we have undoubted proof. I speak not here of the numerous Jats of 'Irak, Syria, and Mesopotamia, who-as I hope to be able to show in another place-were, ere long, transformed into the Jatano, or Gitano,-the Gypsies of modern Europe. These had been too long in their settlements to be called "Sindians" by a contemporary historian, like Dionysius Telmarensis, to whom the terms "Jat," "Asáwira," and "Sabábija," were more familiar. This author, in his Syrian Chronicle, distinctly mentions "Sindian" cohorts as forming a portion of the motley army of Alans, Khazars, Medes, Persians, Turks, Arabs, etc., which made an irruption into the Byzantine territory in 150 A.H.-767 A.D.2 Four years afterwards, we find a body of Sindians and Khazars-said to be slaves-attempting to seize upon the imperial treasury in Harrán. Most probably, they also composed part of these foreign levies.

In admitting these provincials into their armies, the Arabs merely

[p.466]: imitated the policy of the Romans, who did the same from motives of expediency-hoping to find employment for turbulent spirits, and to neutralize the elements of rebellion, by sending foreign mercenaries into provinces remote from their native soil.1 Thus we find Slavones and Berbers, Syrians and Copts, Babylonians and Persians, and even Christians and Jews, Magians and Idolaters, in the early period of the Khiláfat, extending the Arab conquests among distant nations; just as, in the days of its decline, the Khalifs had Africans, Farghánians, Turks, Alans, etc., acting as their Prætorian guards, both in protecting them against their own subjects, and deposing their employers at their own will and pleasure:2 -the difference only consisted in this, that the former constituted auxiliary corps, into which, when any foreigner was enlisted, he was adopted by some Arab tribe as a member, and being called maulá, or client, of that tribe, he had the same rights and privileges as if he had been born in it; whereas, Mu'tasim, when he enrolled his foreign body¬guard, made the Arabian troops subordinate to his mercenaries, whom, in order to elude the law, he called his own clients-an evasive practice which was continued by his successors.3

When the profession of faith in God and his Prophet was no longer the symbol which united these furious zealots; when literature, science, philosophy, poetry, and other objects of intellectual culture, ceased to be regarded as criminal pursuits;4 when opulence, luxury, and the arts which refine and embellish social life, had converted roaming and rugged soldiers into indolent and effeminate voluptuaries,-the necessity of recruiting their ranks from extraneous sources, led to a modification of their military institutions, and to the abandonment of those exclusive sentiments, which had once bound the Arabs by a common tie of fraternity in rapine and propagandism. Some of these foreign recruits were, no doubt, obtained by the hopes of ready participation in the spoils which were the invariable concomitant of Arab conquests; but most of them were

[p.467]: very unwilling soldiers, raised by an arbitrary conscription, and only reconciled to their fate, after long experience of their new profession, and when their distant homes had been forgotten. That the power of levying troops for foreign service was generally felt as a sore grievance by the unfortunate provincials, is evidenced by the terms for which the people of Tabaristán held out, when they capitulated to their victors; for while they agreed to become tributary in the annual sum of five hundred thousand dirhams, they stipulated that the Moslims should at no time levy any troops in their country.1

Commercial activity, also, succeeded to the zeal for war, which offered no longer the same inducements of honour and profit that had been realized by the early conquerors. A new stimulus was thus found for the spirit of adventure which still survived, in the perils and excitements of trading speculations, both by land and sea,-prosecuted at a distance and duration, which at that time it is surprising to contemplate. Sind was not backward in this season of enterprise, for she appears to have kept up a regular commercial communication with the rest of the Muhammadan empire. Caravans were often passing and repassing between that country and Khurasán, most commonly by the route of Kábul and Bámián. She also held communication with Zábulistán and Sijistán, by way of Ghazní and Kandahár. Zábulistán was, at the period of Mas'údí's visit, a large country, known by the name of the kingdom of Fíroz, and contained fortresses of great strength. The people were of divers languages and races, and different opinions were even then entertained respecting their origin. In Sijistán, which has greatly deteriorated since that period, the banks of the Hendmand were studded with gardens and cultivated fields; its stream was covered with boats; and irrigation was carried on extensively by means of windmills.2

[p.468]: With respect to the routes from the North to India, Bírúní observes:-

"We reach Sind from our country (Turkistán) by going through the country of Nímroz, that is to say, Sijistán, and we reach Hind through Kábul. I do not mean to say that is the only route, for one can arrive there from all directions when the passes are open." (See p. 54.)

We learn from notices in other authors, that there was commercial traffic by sea-board also. Much of the merchandize which was carried through Sind to Turkistán and Khurásán,-and thence even so far as Constantinople,1 by the resumption of a route which had been much frequented at an earlier period2 -was the product of China and the ports of Ceylon, 'Umán, and Malabar; from which latter province was derived, as at the present day, all the timber used in the construction of the boats which plied on the river. From Arabia, horses were frequently imported into Sind; and armies and munitions of war were sent up the mouths of the Indus, as we have already noticed with respect to the expeditions of Muhammad Kásim and some of his predecessors.3 The whole coast of Kirmán and Makrán was, doubtless, studded with Arab settlements of the Azdís, who were the chief mercantile carriers from Obolla and 'Umán, and who had many brethren settled in Sind; and so it has remained, indeed, from the time of Alexander to the present Imám of Maskát, for the names of Arabis, Arabius, Arabitæ, etc., of Nearchus and the ancient geographers, were most probably derived from the opposite peninsula in the west, and are still represented by the Arabú of the coast of Makrán, like as the neighbouring Oritæ, or Horitæ, seem to survive in the modern Hor-mára and Haur.4

The toleration which the native Sindians enjoyed in the practice

[p.469]: of their religion, was greater than what was usually conceded in other countries; but it was dictated less by any principle of justice or humanity, than the impossibility of suppressing the native religion by the small number of Arab invaders.1 When time had fully shown the necessity of some relaxation in the stern code of Moslim conquest, it was directed, that the natives might rebuild their temples and perform their worship, and that the three per cent., which had been allowed to the priests under the former government, should not be withheld by the laity for whom they officiated. Dáhir's prime minister was also retained in office, in order to protect the rights of the people, and to maintain the native institutions; while Bráhmans were distributed throughout the provinces to collect the taxes which had been fixed. But, where power had, for a short time, enabled the Moslims to usurp the mastery, the usual bigotry and cruelty were displayed.

At Debal, the temples were demolished, and mosques founded; a general massacre endured for three whole days; prisoners were taken captive; plunder was amassed; and an apostate was left in charge of the government, exercising co-ordinate jurisdiction with an Arab chief.

At Nairún, the idols were broken, and mosques founded, notwithstanding its voluntary surrender.

At Alor, though the lives of the inhabitants were spared, a heavy tribute was imposed; and though the temples were treated like "churches of the Christians, or synagogues of the Jews," yet that was no great indulgence, if we may judge from the proceedings at Jerusalem and Damascus-where the ringing of bells and building of chapels were prohibited; where the free admission of Musulmáns was at all times compulsory; where the forcible conversion of churches into mosques was insisted on, without the offer of compensation; and where they were sometimes devoted to the meaner uses of cow-houses and stables.

At Ráwar, and 'Askalanda, all the men in arms were put to the sword, and the women and children carried away captive.

At Multán, all men capable of bearing arms were massacred; six thousand ministers of the temple were made captive, besides all the women and children; and a mosque was erected in the town.

Among the chief objects of idolatry at Multán, the Bhavishya Purána and Hwen-Tsang mention a golden statue of the Sun; but

[p.470]: the Arabic writers speak of the principal idol as being composed of no other more valuable substance than wood, representing that it was covered with a red skin, and adorned with two rubies for eyes. Muhammád Kasim, ascertaining that large offerings were made to this idol, and wishing to add to his resources by those means, left it uninjured; but in order to show his horror of Indian superstition, he attached a piece of cow's flesh to its neck, by which he was able to gratify his avarice and malignity at the same time. Biládurí says it was considered to represent the prophet Job, which appears an Arab misreading of Áditya, as it is correctly styled by Bírúní, for without the vowel points, there is no great difference in the original. This idol was allowed to maintain its position during the whole period of the supremacy of the Khalifs; but Bírúní informs us, that when the Karmatians became masters of Multán, they did not show themselves equally tolerant or provident respecting the valuable resources of the shrine; for their leader, Jalam, the son of Shaibán, had the idol broken in pieces, and the attendant priests massacred; and the temple, which was situated on an eminence, was converted into the Jámi' Masjid, in lieu of the one which existed before. That was closed in order to evince their hatred of the Ummayide Khalifs, under whom it had been constructed; but when Sultán Mahmúd took Multán, and subdued the Karmatians, he re-opened the ancient mosque, upon which the new one was abandoned, and became "as a plain destined to vulgar uses."

The same idol was subsequently set up, and received the offerings of the people. How long it maintained its ancient credit is not known for certain; but at Multán, the Sun is no longer the object of worship, having yielded to the temple of Prahládpúrí, now itself in ruins, but occupying, doubtless, the same lofty eminence in the citadel which was formerly consecrated to Áditya.

On counting up the cost of the Sindian expedition, Hajjáj found that he had expended 60,000,000, and had received 120,000,000 dirhams.1 As that could only have been the Khalif's usual share of

[p.471]: one-fifth, the total value of the plunder obtained must have been 600,000,000 dirhams. Now, as one million of dirhams, at fivepence-halfpenny each, is equivalent to about £23,000 of our money, and as the relative value of money was ten times greater then than now, we may conceive the amount to be largely exaggerated; since the country could not by any possibility have yielded such a booty, even with the exercise of the utmost Arab violence and extortion to enforce its collection. Even if we take Hajjáj's calculation to represent the whole sum, and not merely one-fifth, we should still find it difficult to believe, either that Sind and Multán together could at that time have yielded two millions and three-quarters sterling, or that one-half of that sum could have been expended in their conquest by such a frugal and abstemious race as the Arabs, who had no need of a modern commissariat, at once extravagant and cumbersome, to follow their agile movements.1

The consideration of this question naturally introduces the subject of the public revenue of Sind. From the statements of Ibn Khur-dádba, Ibn Khaldún, and Ibn Haukal, we derive some valuable notices of the revenue of the 'Abbásides, with more especial reference to the period of Mámún's reign. Ibn Khaldún's table has been given by Von Hammer, in his Länderverwaltung, and to this additions have been made by Dr. Sprenger, from the very rare manuscripts of the other authors, both preserved in the Bodleian library. From these authorities combined, we are able to deduce some useful inferences respecting the comparative revenue of the different provinces of the Khiláfat. Thus, we find that the province of Sind yielded annually a sum of 11,500,000 dirhams, and 150 pounds of aloe-wood, Multán being, most probably, included, as it is not mentioned among the other provinces. Of the neighbouring provinces, Makrán is set down at 400,000 dirhams; Sijistán at 4,600,000 dirhams, 300 variegated robes, and 20,000 pounds of sweetmeats;2 Kirmán at

[p.472]: 4,200,000 dirhams, 500 precious garments, 20,000 pounds of dates, and 1,000 pounds of caraway seeds;1 Tukháristán at 106,000 dirhams; Kábul at 1,500,000 dirhams, and 1,000 head of cattle, amounting to 700,000 dirhams more; Fárs at 27,000,000 dirhams, 30,000 bottles of rose-water, and 20,000 bottles of black currants;2 Khutlan, in Hyátila, bordering on Balkh, at 1,733,000 dirhams; Bámián at 5,000 dirhams; and Bust at 90,000 dirhams.

These amounts are to be considered merely approximate, because the revenues, unless where they were assessed at a fixed sum, varied every year according to the abundance, or scarcity, of the crop.

It may, at first, admit of doubt, whether these sums represent land-tax merely, or all the taxes in the aggregate. Ibn Khurdádba and Ibn Haukal specially say "land-tax." Ibn Khaldún uses the term "revenue." This is the more remarkable, as it will be ob-served from the notes, that his statements contain the lowest sums. The two accounts, of course, refer to different epochs, and frequently to different limits, which were arbitrary and fluctuating, just as our Domesday Book, having been compiled by different sets of com¬missioners, represents a different status in different passages, though the names of persons, classes, and tenures may be in every other respect identical. As an instance, in our Arabic record of these variations, we find it stated, under Fárs, that "Amrán bin Músa, the Barmekide, added Sind to this province, so the revenue amounted, after defraying all expenses, to 10,000,000 dirhams." The re¬mark in itself is not particularly intelligible, but its very obscurity makes it serve the better as an illustration. It is probable that, in so large an empire, the limits of the provinces were frequently subject to alteration, to suit the views and interest of favoured governors; and that they were also, without any such personal bias, sometimes fixed on an ethnical, sometimes on a geographical, basis. Another cause of variation has been suggested-namely, that the greatest part of what had been delivered in kind in the time of Márwán, to which Ibn Khaldún refers, was paid in money in the

[p.473]: time of Ibn Khurdádba. This is probable, and is the natural course of fiscal transition all over the world.

But, after giving due weight to all these considerations, the sums set down against some of the provinces are so large-whether we take the higher or lower amount, or the earlier or later date-that we must conceive them to embrace the entire collections of every kind, and must be allowed the liberty of construing kharáj in its enlarged sense of 'tribute,' rather than its limited one of 'land-tax, -just, indeed, as it is so considered at the present day in Turkey.1 The assessment upon Sind and Multán,-being 11,500,000 dirhams, or about £270,000,-must be considered moderate, if it is intended to comprise the land-tax, the poll-tax, the customs duties, and all miscellaneous items into the bargain; but it is not an improbable amount, when we contemplate the liberal alienations and reserves, which have been alluded to at the commencement of this Note, as well as the change in the value of money. Under the Tálpúrs, notwithstanding that many large and productive tracts were afforested by them, Sind is said to have occasionally yielded £400,000; and under the Kalhoras, tradition represents the revenue at the exaggerated amount of £800,000. At present, with security on all its borders, and tranquillity within them, it does not pay to the British Government more than £300,000, and the expenses have been hitherto more than double that sum. This deficiency, how¬ever, cannot last long, for its cultivation and commerce are rapidly on the increase.

The Arab governors may be considered in the light of farmers-general, for they usually bound themselves to pay to the Khalif the sums at which the various provinces,-after allowance made for ordinary expenses,-were set down in the public register. Where the disbursements were left to their discretion, and where the revenues were not fixed, but dependant upon the seasons, we may presume that, on the plea of frontier wars, local services, and internal tumults, very little was ever remitted to the capital from the remote provinces of the empire; for the governors themselves were the judges of these necessities-the declaration of peace or war being left to their arbitrary determination and pleasure.

[p.474]: The ordinary revenue, which they were entitled to collect from the provinces committed to them, was derived from the land-tax, and from the capitation-tax upon those who had not embraced the Muhammadan religion; but there were many miscellaneous cesses besides, which, in the aggregate, yielded large returns, and con-tributed to swell their profits. The land-tax was usually rated at two-fifths of the produce of wheat and barley, if the fields were watered by public canals; three-tenths, if irrigated by wheels or other artificial means; and one-fourth, if altogether unirrigated. If arable land were left uncul¬tivated, it seems to have paid one dirham per jaríb, and one-tenth of the probable produce, but the statement is not clear upon this point. Of dates, grapes, and garden produce, one-third was taken, either in kind or money; and one-fifth (khums) of the yield of wines, fishing, pearls, and generally of any product not derived from cultivation, was to be delivered in kind, or paid in value, even before the ex¬penses had been defrayed. One-fifth of the value of slaves and booty was reserved for the Khalif. The customs and transit dues, for which unbelievers had to pay a double rate, and the taxes on trades and manufactures, and handicrafts, were also important sources of public revenue.1

These taxes were according to the original institutes of 'Umar, when he assessed the Sawád, or cultivated lands of 'Irák; but, in course of time, they were everywhere greatly enhanced, even to one-half of the produce of the land, or rather according to the ability of the people to pay. In short, the rates above-mentioned were merely a nominal value put upon the land: for the collection of the revenues was, in many instances, left to rapacious farmers, who covered their contracts and benefitted themselves besides, at the expense of the cultivators. The same course of proceeding was observed by the agents of the Tálpúrs to the latest period of their

[p.475]: rule in Sind, and was one of the chief causes which contributed to the impoverishment of the country.1

Moreover, the absence of an accurate measurement must have rendered all such assessments nugatory and fictitious; for it was only in the Sawád, above referred to, which was the small tract lying immediately around the future capital of the Khalifs, that there was any¬thing like a detailed survey; and of that the merits were more due to their predecessors than themselves. Gibbon says, "the adminis¬tration of Persia was regulated by an actual survey of the people, the cattle, and the fruits of the earth; and this monument, which attests the vigour of the caliphs, might have instructed the philosophers of every age." In this, he is by no means borne out by the passage whlch he quotes as his authority from the Chorographia of Theophanes; and, moreover, an extended sense has been given to "Persia," which really applies only to a remote corner of that large empire.1

Besides this ordinary land-tax, we read, in the Chach-náma, of other burdens laid upon Sindian cultivators, which seem to have been independent of the former: such as the báj, and the 'usharí.3 Other extraordinary conditions were occasionally imposed on some of the tribes.

[p.476]: We have seen above, under Mu'tasim, that the Jats dwelling beyond the river Aral were compelled to bring a dog on each occasion of paying their respects, besides being branded upon the hand. The Bhatia, Lohána, Sihta, Jandar, Máchí, and Goreja tribes had also peculiar duties devolving upon them.

Sumptuary laws, moreover, were established, and enforced with great stringency. Certain tribes were prohibited from wearing fine linen, from riding on horses, and from covering their heads and feet. If they committed theft, their women and children were burnt to death. Others had to protect caravans, and to furnish guides to Muhammadans.1

The natives were also enjoined, in conformity with an old law of 'Umar's, to feed every Muhammadan traveller for three days and nights. It must be confessed, however, that many of these laws were already established under the Bráhman rulers; unless, as seems not improbable, the Muhammadan aspect about these ancient institutions derives its hue from the prejudices of the historian who records them.

But whatever were the peculiar features of some of the local imposts, all the unconverted tribes were, without exception, liable to the capitation-tax (jizya), which, as it was a religious as well as a political duty to collect, was always exacted with rigour and punctuality, and frequently with insult.2

The levy of this impost in Sind from those who had not embraced Islám, was considered so important at the very earliest period, that we find Hajjáj sending another person into the province to collect it, even during Muhammad Kásim's government. "Abu Khufas Kutaiba bin Muslim came on the part of Hajjáj, and returned to Khurásán, after leaving his agents to collect the poll-tax from the infidels; and, after a time, Tamím bin Zaid came from Hajjáj on the same errand."3

[p.477]: According to the original ordinance of 'Umar, those persons who were of any persuasion non-Muhammadan, were called Zimmís, or those under protection, and were assessed with a toleration, or poll-tax, at the following rates. A person in easy circumstances had to pay 48 dirhams a year, one of moderate means 24 dirhams, and one in an inferior station, or who derived his subsistence from manual labour, 12 dirhams. Women, children, and persons unable to work paid nothing. But a century had not elapsed, when 'Umar the Second, considering these rates too moderate, calculated what a man could gain during the year, and what he could subsist on, and claimed all the rest, amounting to four or five dínárs, about two pounds, a year.

As the tax ceased upon any one's becoming a Moslim-when he was enfranchised from his dependence, and was invested with the privileges of a citizen and companion-its severe enforcement was often found more efficacious than argument or persuasion, in inducing the victims to offer themselves as converts to the faith. For the professing Muhammadan had but to pay the tithe for alms, and the import and export duties of one in forty, or two and a-half per cent.,1 and he was free from all other imposts; but, when the original principles of the government began to be departed from, when the once vigorous administration became feeble and degenerate, and the Khalifs appropriated to themselves a large proportion of the revenues which the Kurán had assigned to God, the Prophet, and his relations, then the Muhammadans themselves also became sub¬ject, as well as the protected people, to new tallages and cesses; insomuch that the severity of the pressure occasioned general discontent, and often resulted in revolution and bloodshed.

Hence we find Ibn Khaldún, the most philosophic of all the Arabian writers upon history and social economy, thus speaking of the effect of these exactions upon the government which introduced them:-

"With the progress of luxury the wants of government and its servants increased, and their zeal diminished; so that it became requisite to employ more people, and to give them higher pay. Consequently, the taxes were gradually increased, till the pro-

[p.478]: prietors and working classes were unable to pay them, which led to continual changes in the government."

This increased employment of officials had no reference to those maintained for the distribution of justice to the people. In a country like Sind, where the mass of the nation professed their ancient religion, there were no tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating suits between members of that despised and depressed race. The power of life and death was exercised by every chief who could maintain the slightest show of independence, as well as by the Amírs; but, under the latter, legal formalities were more rigorously, if not justly observed. The Kází, who was appointed to the judgment-seat by their orders, professed, in controversies between Muhammadans, to decide according to the precepts of the Kurán; while even between Hindús and Muhammadans the same unerring guide was appealed to, under which, of course, the former obtained a very small modicum of justice. Public and political offences, whether by one party or the other, were tried by the same standard; but in all suits for debts, contracts, adultery, inheritance, the rights of property, and the like, the Hindús-being left without any form of law or any established judicatory to appeal to-had to accommodate their own differences, and, therefore, maintained their pancháyats , or arbitration committees, in full efficiency. It was fortunate, under these circumstances, that the public opinion of the caste, as expressed in these domestic and self-constituted fora, operated more strongly upon their minds, sentiments, and actions, than rewards and punishments derived from higher and holier sanctions.

To the Hindus, indeed, the public tribunals were only the means of extortion and forcible conversion, as they have proved themselves to be to the very latest period of Muhammadan dominion in Sind, under which, there were judicial penalties for riding on horseback, especially with a saddle; under which, the wearing of beards, and the adoption of Muhammadan costume were compulsory; and under which, religious processions, and even music, were altogether prohibited.1 Hence there was, and could be, no sympathy between

[p.479]: the conquerors and the conquered, arising from confidence in the purity of justice,-for the primary obligations, inseparably connected with the institutions of political society, were utterly ignored by the Arab rulers of Sind, and no regard was had to that, which Milton calls-The solid rule of civil government;

* * * *
In which is plainest taught, and earliest learnt
What makes a nation happy and keeps it so,
What ruins kingdoms, and lays cities flat.

It is expedient that these matters should be often brought back to remembrance and pondered on; for the inhabitants of modern India, as well as our clamorous demagogues at home, are very apt to forget the very depth of degradation from which the great mass of the people have been raised, under the protection of British supremacy.

In reflecting on the causes which accelerated the downfall of the Khalif's dominion in Sind, one of the most obvious and powerful accessories which offers itself to our view, as conspiring towards that end, is the diversity of interests and feelings among the several tribes which achieved and confirmed the conquest. No long time elapsed, after the first glow of enthusiasm had died away, and given place to more sober sentiments, when the Arabs showed themselves as utterly incapable, as the shifting sands of their own desert, of coalescing into a system of concord and subordination. The passions which agitated these hordes in their ancient abodes, the hereditary feuds and blood-revenges, which had even formed the dates of eras amonng their Bedouin ancestors, and which could be revived in all their bitterness by the recital of a ballad, a lampoon, or a proverb, were not allayed, but fostered, by transplantation from their original soil.* And so it was in Spain; crowds of adventurers poured in who preferred a distant fortune to poverty at home. Emigrants from Damascus occupied Granada and Cordova; Seville and Malaga were planted by settlers from Emesa and Palestine; the natives of

[p.480]: Yemen and Persia were scattered about Toledo; and the fertile valleys of the South were partitioned among 10,000 horsemen from Syria and 'Irák. These, as in Sind, all became so many rival factions eager in the pursuit of power, mutually rancorous and hostile, and cherishing, in the pride and petulance of their hearts, the most invidious distinctions of races and precedence.1

Even as early as the deposition and recall of Muhammad Kásim, we find him alluding to the clannish feud between the Sakifís and Sakásaks. "Had he chosen to appeal to the sword," he exclaims, "no cavaliers of the tribes of Sakásak or 'Akk could have wrested from him the country he had conquered, or laid violent hands upon his person." These were both Yamánían tribes; the first was descended from Saksak bin Ashrab, and the second was an offshoot of the great tribe of Azd, which, under Muhallab, was the first to carry the Arab arms into India, and which rendered itself so conspicuous in the conquest of Khurásán.2 The Sakifí tribe, to which Muhammad Kásim belonged, was originally from Táif, about fifty miles southeast of Mecca. It continues a powerful people to this day, possessing the some fertile region on the eastern declivity of the Hijjáz chain of mountains. In the wars of the Wahábís, they defended their ancient stronghold of Táif with a spirit worthy of their ancestors.

We have seen above, under the Khiláfat of Mu'tasim, that the rancour, which prevailed between the Yamánían and Nizárian tribes, again broke out into open hostility in Sind. It was not, however, in Sind only, but wherever the Muhammadan standard was displayed, that these two great divisions were arrayed against each other; and as this feeling operated as one of the main causes of the success of the 'Abbásides against the Ummayides, its original malignity could not fail to be aggravated in every Moslim country, as long as the remembrance of that change of dynasty survived.

What imparted additional acerbity to these feuds in Sind, was

[p.481]: the persecution of the adherents of 'Alí, which, though with some intermissions, especially about Mámún's time, was maintained with considerably rigour during the period of Arab occupation. We have in the preceding note seen some instances of these religious quarrels, and they must have been of frequent occurrence in Sind; for its position on the remote eastern frontier of the Empire, and the difficulty of access to it over mountains and barren sands, must have offered a promising asylum to political refugees, of which we have ample evidence that they readily availed themselves. Hence heterodoxy, during the period of the Khiláfat, flourished with unusual vigour in Sind and Makrán; and hence such schismatics as Khárijís, Zindíks, Khwájas, Sháríites, and the like, as well as Muláhida, or atheists of various denominations, throve, and propagated;* more especially the Karmatians, who, after being first introduced through this kingdom, maintained their hold in Western and Northern India long after they were suppressed in other provinces of the Empire.

The 'Alite refugees have preserved many traces of their resort to Sind, to which we may refer the unusual proportion of Saiyid families to this day resident in that country, the names of such places as Lakk-'alaví and Mut-'alaví,2 founded and still inhabited by 'Alites, and the many Saiyids of even Eastern India, who trace their first settlements to Thatta, Bhakkar, and other places in the valley of the Indus.

These vague reminiscences, indeed, may be considered to comprise one of the most enduring monuments of Arab dominion in Sind. They were almost the only legacy the Arabs left behind them; affording a peculiar contrast in this respect to the Romans, after they had held Britain for the same period of three centuries. Notwithstanding that their possession was partial and unstable, our native soil teems with their buildings, camps, roads, coins, and utensils, in a manner to show how completely they were the master-spirits of that remote province.3 But with regard to the Arab dominion in Sind, it is impossible for the traveller to wander

[p.482]: through that land, without being struck with the absence of all record of their occupation. In language, architecture, arts, traditions, customs, and manners, they have left but little impress upon the country or the people. We trace them, like the savage Sikhs, only in the ruins of their predecessors; and while Mahfúza, Baizá, and Mansúra have so utterly vanished, that "etiam periêre ruinæ," the older sites of Bhambúr, Alor, Multán, and Sihwán still survive to proclaim the barbarism and cruelty of their destroyers. It has, indeed, been observed, as a circumstance worthy of remark, that no people ever constructed so many edifices as the Arabs, who extracted fewer materials from the quarry: the buildings of their first settlers being everywhere raised from the wrecks of cities, castles, and fortresses which they had themselves destroyed.1

With respect to the descendants of the early Arab conquerors, we find it stated, by two local historians, that when 'Abdu-r Razzák, Wazír of Sultán Mahmúd, and the first Ghaznivide governor of Sind, was in the year 415 H. (1024 A.D.) directed to proceed to that country from Multán,2 and that when, after having captured Bhakkar, and established his power upon a firm basis, he proceeded in 417 to Siwistán and Thatta, he found in those places, among the descendants of old Arab settlers, "only a very few, who had remained bound, as it were, to the country by family ties and encumbrances; and who, being men of learning and ability, were at that time holding posts of honour, and in the enjoyment of certain religious endowments."3

Eighteen Sindian families, or tribes, are said to have sprung from these ancestors:-the Sakifí,4 Tamím, Mughairide, 'Abbásí, Sadíkí, Fárúkí, 'Usmání, Pahanwar,5 Mankí,6 Chabria, Bin-i Asad, 'Utba,

[p.483]: Bin-i Abí Sufyán,1 Bájaride,2 and the Bin-i Jaríma Ansárí, who were the progenitors of the tribe of Sapya, the lords of Siwistán. To these are to be added the Jats and Bulúchís, descendants of Hárún Makrání. It will be observed that, although the families are said to be eighteen, the enumeration extends to only seventeen, unless the Sapya and the descendants of Jaríma Ansárí are reckoned as two.

The same authority mentions, that some of the tribes now in Sind, and who appear from their names and occupations to have been originally Hindú, are in reality descendants of the Arabs. Thus, the Thím were originally Tamím; the Morya are pronounced to be descendants from Mughaira; and the Súmra are likewise held to be the offspring of adventurers from Sámarra, who accompanied the Tamím in great numbers. All these affiliations are gratuitous guesses, and about as probable as the one mentioned in the preceding paragraph, of the descent of the Jats and Bulúchís from Hárún Makrání. But that some of the inferior tribes are descendants of the Arabs is by no means opposed to reason or probability, and this more especially among those now classed as Bulúchís. The Rind, for instance, when they assert that they came originally from Aleppo and Damascus, may have truth on their side; but we should be cautious in admitting nominal resemblances or ambitious genealogies; especially where, as in the case of the Súmras, Sammas, Dáúdputras, and Kalhoras, there has been a political purpose to serve, and sycophants ready at all times to pander to a despot's aspirations.

The Sumra Dynasty

[p.483]: The assignment of this dynasty to its veritable lineage and proper period among the rulers of Sind, is one of the most difficult problems with which we have to deal in the history of Muhammadan India; and the obscurities and inconsistencies of the native accounts have by no means been cleared by the European comments which have been made upon them.

Our first informant is Mír Ma'súm, whose account has been given

[p.484]: at length in the Extracts from his history. He tells us (supra. p. 215,) that in the time of 'Abdu-r Rashíd, Sultán Mas'úd, 443 A.H., 1051 A.D., the men of the Súmra tribe revolted from the rule of Ghazni, and placed on the throne of Sind a man of the name of Súmra. He closes his unsatisfactory account by saying:-"If any of my friends know more on this subject, let them publish it; I have said all I can upon the matter."

Abú-l Fazl gives us no information in the Ayín-i Akbarí (Vol. II. p. 120), beyond the announcement that there were thirty-six Súmra princes, who reigned 500 years.

Firishta seems afraid of venturing on this difficult and doubtful ground. He merely observes (Vol. IV. p. 411,) that, on the death of Muhammad Kásim, a tribe, tracing their origin from the Ansárís, established their government in Sind; after which, the Súmra Zamíndárs reigned for 500 years;1 but he adds, "neither the names nor the history of these princes are at present extant, since I have failed in my endeavour to procure them. In the course of years (although we have no account of the precise period) the dynasty was subverted by that of the Sammas,2 whose chief assumed the title of Jám. During the reigns of these dynasties, the Muhammadan kings of Ghazní, Ghor, and Dehlí invaded Sind, and seizing many of the towns, appointed Muhammadan governors over them."

The Táríkh-i Táhirí (MS. p. 25,) says their dominion lasted for only 143 years, from 700 to 843 H., that they were Hindús, that Alor was within their dominions, and that their capital was Muhammad-Túr, in the Pargana of Dirak. Dúdá is made contem-porary of 'Aláu-d Dín, and the popular stories relating to Dalú Ráí and 'Umar Súmra are given at length.

The Beg-Lár-náma (MS. p. 8) merely observes that, after the Muhammadan conquest, men of the Tamím tribe governed Sind, and after some time, the Súmras succeeded them, occupying the seat of government for 505 years; their capital being Muhatampúr.

[p.485]: Muhammad Yúsuf says in his Muntakhabu-t Tawáríkh that when Sultán 'Abdu-r Rashíd, son of Sultán Mahmúd, inherited the kingdom of Ghazní, the people of Sind, finding him an indolent and weak-minded monarch, began to be refractory and contumacious, and in A.H. 445 (1053 A.D.), the men of the tribe of Súmra, having assembled around Tharrí, seated a man named Súmra on the cushion of government. He ruled independently for a length of time, and left as successor a son, Bhúngar, born to him by a daughter of a Zamíndár named Sád. Bhúngar, after ruling 15 years, departed to the world of eternity in A.H. 461, and left a son named Dúdá, who after a rule of 24 years, died A.H. 485;1 then Sanghar reigned for 15 years; Hafíf, 33 years; 'Umar, 40 years; Dúdá II. 14 years; Pahtú, 33 years; Genhra, 16 years; Muhammad Túr, 15 years; Genhra II. several years; Dúdá III. 14 years; Tái, 24 years; Chanesar, 18 years; Bhúngar II. 15 years; Hafíf II. 18 years; Dúdá IV. 25 years; 'Umar Súmra, 35 years; Bhúngar III. 10 years. Then the government fell to Hamír, who was deposed by the tribe of Samma, on account of his tyranny.2

The latest native authority is the Tuhfatu-l Kirám (MS. pp. 21, 26, 126), which, in one passage, says that the Súmra tribe sprang from the Arabs of Samira, who arrived in Sind in the second century of the Hijra, accompanying the Tamím family, who became governors of Sind under the 'Abbásides; that the whole term of their sway may be reckoned at 550 years, as they were mere nominal tributaries during the last two centuries of the 'Abbáside government, and enjoyed full independence when the greater part of Sind was held by the officers of the Ghaznivide and Ghorí kings.

In another passage we are informed that they were invited to Sind by Chhota Amrání, who being grieved at the injustice of his brother, the famous Dalú Ráí, repaired to Baghdád, and obtained from the Khalif one hundred Arabs of Sámira, whom he brought to Sind, together with Saiyid 'Alí Musaví, who married Dalú Ráí's daughter, and left descendants, now inhabiting the town of Mut'alaví.

When Ghází Malik, in the year 720 H. (1320 A.D.), marched towards

[p.486] Dehlí with an army collected from Multán and Sind, overthrew Khusrú Khán, and assumed the title of Ghíásu-d dín Tughlik Sháh, the tribe of Súmra took advantage of his being occupied with the affairs of those distant parts, and collecting together from the neighbourhood of Tharrí, chose a person named Súmra as their ruler. He established perfect tranquillity throughout the country, and married a daughter of a Zamíndár, named Sád, who made pretensions to independence. His wife bore him a son named Bhúngar by whom he was succeeded. His son Dúdá succeeded him, and acquired possession of the country as far as Nasrpúr. He left an infant son, named Singhár. Tárí, daughter of Dúdá, assumed the reins of government till Singhár became of age. He, when installed in power, marched towards Kachh, and extended his territory as far as Náng-nai. As he died childless, his wife Hímú appointed her own brothers to the governorship of the cities of Túr and Tharrí. A short time after this, another Dúdá, a Súmra, governor of the Fort of Dhak, assembled his kinsmen from the neighbourhood, and destroyed Hímú's brothers. While this was going on, Pahtú, a son of Dúdá, raised an insurrection, and held authority for a short time; after which, a man named Khairá obtained the principality. Then Armil undertook the burden of governmeut, but as he proved to be a tyrant, the tribe of Samma rose against him, and slew him in A.H. 752 (1351 A.D.). So far the "confusion worse confounded" of the Tuhfatu-l Kirám.1

The attempts of European authors to explain these discrepancies are not successful.

Pottinger informs us that "Hakims were regularly sent from court (Ghazní) to this province, until the reign of Musaood, the son of Muhmood, when a great tribe, called Soomruh, appeared in arms and expelled all the partizans of the king; but their chief, whose name was Sunghar, immediately making an apology for this outrage, and offering to pay tribute to the amount of the revenues before collected, he was pardoned, and appointed governor, in the the stead of the person he had deposed. The tribute was paid with great regularity for one hundred and fifty years after this arrange¬ment, when the Empire of Ghuznee was overturned by the Ghoorian

[p.487]: dynasty; on which the Soomruhs, in whose tribe the government of Sinde had gradually been allowed to become hereditary, declared them¬selves in a state of independence, and although they were repeatedly worsted in the wars that followed this declaration, yet they managed to preserve their liberty till the final extinction of the race, or at least the princes of it, in the person of Duhooda, who died without children, in the year of the Hijree, 694, about 335 years from the time his ancestors had first made themselves so conspicuous.

"On the demise of Duhooda, numerous candidates for the vacant government started up, and it was a continual struggle for nearly a century who should succeed to it. Among the last of them, two brothers, called Kheeramull and Urukmull successively held it for a time, but at length the tyranny of the latter became insupportable, and the head of the tribe of Sumuh went to his palace, accompanied by the ministers of the country, and put him to death. The populace with one accord elected this chief, who had relieved them from so dreadful a scourge, their king, and he was accordingly placed on their throne, with the title of Jam, or leader, which he was said to have adopted from his family being descended from the celebrated Jamshed, king of Persia."1

Dr. Bird, relying on some Persian authorities, including the Táríkh-i Sind, tells us that the Súmras, who became first known in the Indian history in the reign of Mahmúd of Ghazní, were originally Muhammadans descended from Aboulahil, an uncle of the Prophet, and that one of the tribe who, in the beginning of the eleventh century of our era, obtained power in Sind, married into the family of Samma, and had a son named Bhaonagar. The chief who had been thus placed at the head of the tribe was named Hallah, the son of Chotah, a descendant of Omar Sumra, first of the family mentioned in their history. Contemporary with Chotah was Deva Ráí, sometimes called Dilu Ráí, the ruler of Alore. "The son born to Hallah had for his descendants Dodar, Singhar, Hanif, and others, who appear to have originally possessed the Dangah pergunnah in the Registan, or sandy desert, from whence they extended themselves into the pergunnahs of Thurr, Sammawati, Rupah, and

[p.488]: Nasirpur." Dr. Bird adds, that nothing satisfactory regarding them is to be found in any Indian author, except the statement of their descent from the family of the Prophet, in which, therefore, he seems to concur. "They derive their name," he continues, "from the city of Saumrah, on the Tigris; and appear to have sprung from the followers of Tamim Ansari, mixed with the Arab tribes of Tamim and Kureish." * * * "In Masudi's time, many chiefs of the Arabs descended from Hamzah, the uncle of the prophet, and Ali, his cousin, were then subject (to the chief of Mansúra.). To these ancestors we may trace the Saiyids of Sinde, and the family of the Sumrahs."1

The difficulty of solving this question is shown by so confused a statement written by a well-informed author.

Elphinstone observes that, "Kásim's conquests were made over to his successor Temím, in the hands of whose family they remained for thirty-six years, till the downfall of the Ummayides, when, by some insurrection, of which we do not know the particulars, they were expelled by the Súmras, and all their Indian conquests were restored to the Hindús; part of the expelled Arabs, according to Firishta, having found a settlement among the Afghans." And, again, that "after the expulsion of the Arabs in 750 A.D., Sind, from Bhakkar to the sea, was ruled by the Súmra Rájpúts, until the end of the twelfth century; that it is uncertain when they first paid tribute to the Muhammadans, probably, the beginning of that century, under Shahábu-d dín, or his immediate successor." Here, the whole period of the 'Abbáside governors, and of the independent rulers of Multán and Mansúra and the Karmatians, is entirely neglected. So important an omission by such a writer teaches us, as in the pre¬ceding paragraph, how obscure are the annals with which we have to deal.2

In calling the Súmras Rájpúts, Elphinstone is without doubt correct, for notwithstanding the assertions of the local writers, the real fact must be admitted, that the Súmras are not of Arab descent at all, and that this fictitious genealogy was assumed by them,

[p.489]: when the majority of the tribe were converted to Islám; and that, as the name of Sámarra offered a sufficiently specious resemblance, that town was adopted as the probable seat of their origin, though it was not built till after the supposed period of their emigration.1

That the Súmras were not Moslims during at least the early period of their sway, seems to be proved by their names, though this argument is not quite decisive, for down to modern times in Sind, Muhammadan converts have been occasionally allowed to retain their Hindú names. Still, reasoning generally, the retention of Hindú names points, primâ facie, to the probability of the retention of the native religion. Now, when we come to examine the Bhúngars and Dúdás among the Súmras, we find that even to the latest period, with one, or at most two, doubtful exceptions, they are all of native Indian origin. The fact of their being called "Hamír," in Sindian ballads (a probable corruption of "Amír") scarcely militates against this, as it was, both in ancient and modern times, a distinctive appellation of the rulers of Sind, and was only superseded where, as in the case of the Jáms, there was a more familiar title of local origin. The ascription of so honourable an address and so high a lineage, is easily accounted for by the natural tendency to aggrandisement which has actuated all bards and minstrels, from Demodocus and Tyrtæus to the last prizeman of the Cambrian Eisteddfodd. That many of the tribe still continue Hindús, roaming as shepherds through the thals of Jesalmír and the Upper Dhat country to the east of Sind, we know from personal communication. Even if it might be admitted that, in the present day, they had forgotten their Arab origin, and lapsed into Hindúism from their former creed; still, that could not have occurred at the very earliest period of their history, within a century or two of their emigration, and before their high and holy origin could possible have been forgotten.

The Súmras of the desert are one of the subdivisions of the Pramára Rájpúts, and from frequently combining with their brethren the 'Umars, gave name to a large tract of country, which is even still recognized as 'Umra-Súmra, and within which Alor is situated.

[p.490]: Renouard surmises that they may be "Som-Ráí," that is, of the Lunar race, but, being without question of the Pramára stock, they are necessarily Agni-kulas. Their successors and opponents, the Sammas, were of the Lunar race.

It is not improbable that the Lúmrís, or Númarís, of Bulúchistán may be of the same stock, who, when they derive their lineage from Samar, the founder of Samarkand, may have been originally nothing but Súmras. This, however, would not be admissible, if they really have that consanguinity with the Bhátís which they profess, and which would throw them also into the Lunar family.1

It is not only from passages which professedly treat of the Súmras that we know them to be Hindús, but from an incidental notice in foreign historians, such as the authors of the Jahán-kushá and the Jámi'u-t Tawáríkh; where, in writing of the expedition of Jalálu-d dín to Sind, in 621 A.H. (1221 A.D.), they mention that, when he was approaching Debal, the ruler of that country, Hasrar, took to flight, and embarked on a boat, leaving the Sultán to enter the place without a contest, and erect mosques on the sites of the Hindú temples which he destroyed. This Hasrar is, in Firishta's account of the same expedition, named Jaisí, which, if it be correctly written, is more probably a titular than a personal designation; for we learn it was the name borne by the son of Dáhir, who ruled in the same province, and was so called from the Sindí word jai, "victory." It seems, however, not improbable that the name is neither Hasrar, nor Jaisí, nor Jaisar, but Chanesar, the popular hero of some of the Sindian legends respecting the Súmra family. Neither of the three other names is to be found amongst those of the Súmra rulers, and written without the diacritical points, they all vary but little from one another. Admitting this to be the case, we obtain an useful synchronism in the Súmra dynasty, notwithstanding that the local ballad of Dodo and Chanesar makes them contemporaries of 'Aláu-d dín, a name more familiar to native ears than Shamsu-d dín, the actual ruler of Dehlí at that period, and his predecessor by nearly a whole century.

[p.491]: There is, however, one very curious passage in an author, whom we should have little expected to afford any illustration to the history of Sind, which would seem to prove that, before they apostatized from their ancestral faith to Islám, the Súmras had inter-mediately adopted the tenets of the Karmatian heresy. In the sacred books of the Druses, we find an epistle of Muktana Baháu-d dín, the chief apostle of Hamza, and the principal compiler of the Druse writings, addressed in the year 423 H. (1032 A.D.), to the Unitarians of Multán and Hindústán in general, and to Shaikh Ibn Súmar Rájá Bal in particular.1 Here the name is purely Indian, and the patronymic can be no other than our Súmra. That some of that tribe, including the chiefs, had affiliated themselves to the Karmatians is more probable than the other alternative, suggested by M. Reinaud,2 that certain Arabs had adopted indigenous denominations. It seems quite evident from this curious coincidence of names, that the party particularly addressed was a Súmra; that this Súmra was a Karmatian, successor of a member of the same schism, who bore in the time of Mahmúd a Muhammadan name (Abú-l Fath Dáúd), and whose son was probably the younger Dáúd mentioned in the letter; and that the Karmatians of the valley of the Indus were in relation and correspondence, not only with those of Persia and Arabia, but with the Druses, who adored Hákim, the Fátimide Khalif of Egypt, as a God.

That the Karmatians obtained many converts to their infidel opinions is rendered highly probable by the difficulty of accounting for their rapid conquest of Sind by any other supposition. Being merely refugees from Bahrein and Al Hassa after their successive defeats, mentioned in another note, and their subsequent persecution in Arabia, they could scarcely have traversed an inhospitable country, or undertaken a long sea voyage, in sufficient numbers, to appear

[p.492]: suddenly with renovated power in Sind. Many Hindú converts doubtless readily joined them, both in the hope of expelling their present masters, and in the expectation of receiving a portion of their ancient patrimony for themselves, after the long exclusion under which they had groaned. One of the Bulúch clans, indeed, still preserves the memory of its heresy, or that of its progenitor, in retaining its present title of Karmatí.

Independent of the general dissemination of Shía' sentiments in the valley of the Indus, which favoured notions of the incorporation of the Godhead in Man, the old occupants of the soil must, from other causes, have been ready to acquiesce in the wild doctrines of the heretics, who now offered themselves for spiritual teachers, as well as political leaders. Their cursing of Muhammad; their incarnations of the deity; their types and allegories; their philosophy divided into exoteric and esoteric; their religious re¬ticence; their regard for particular numbers, particularly seven and twelve; the various stages of initiation; their abstruse allusions; their mystical interpretations; their pantheistic theosophy, were so much in conformity with sentiments already prevalent amongst these willing disciples, that little persuasion could have been required to induce them to embrace so con¬genial a system of metaphysical divinity, of which the final de¬gree of initiation, however cautiously and gradually the development was concealed, undoubtedly introduced the disciple into the regions of the most unalloyed atheism. So susceptible, indeed, must the native mind have been of these insidious doctrines, that Hammer-Purgstall and others, who have devoted much attention to these topics, have very reasonably concluded that the doctrines of these secret societies,-such as the Karmatians, Isma'ílians or Assas¬sins, Druses, Bátinís, and sundry others, which at various periods have devastated the Muhammadan world, and frequently threat¬ened the extinction of that faith,-though originally based upon the errors of the Gnostics, were yet largely indebted to the mystical philosophy and theology of Eastern nations, and especially of India, where the tenets of transmigration and of absorption into the Deity were even more familiar both to Buddhists and Bráhmans than they were to these miserable schismatics.

[p.493]: The Hindú population, therefore, though they had much to dread from them, if it continued obstinately in the path of idolatry, was likely to offer a rich field of proselytism to such zealous fanatics as the Karmatians, or "people of the veil," whose creed could not have been less attractive to an ignorant and superstitious multitude, from its eluding in many instances the grasp of human apprehension, and from its founder being announced, in profane and incomprehensible jargon, to be "the Guide! the Director! the Invitation! the Word! the Holy Ghost! the Demonstration! the Herald! the Camel!"

Assuming, then, that this Ibn Súmar, the ruler of Multán in 423 H. (1032 A.D.), was in reality a Súmra, we must date the com¬mencement of the Súmra dynasty at least as early as that period, and most probably even before Mahmúd's death, in the lower course of the Indus; for it has already been observed, on the authority of Ibn Asír, that Mahmúd on his return from Sommát, in 416 H., (1025 A.D.), placed a Muhammadan chief in possession of Mansúra; for that the incumbent had abjured Islámism. So that the expelled ruler must necessarily have been a Karmatian, or a Hindú; and, in either case, doubtless a Súmra, who, in the distractions of the Ghaznivide Empire, would have allowed no long time to elapse before he recovered the dominions from which he had been expelled.

This re-establishment might have been delayed during the reign of Mas'úd, who is expressly mentioned by Baihakí as comprising all Sind within his dominions. The Súmras, indeed, may possibly have allowed a titular sovereignty to the Ghaznivides, even down to the time of 'Abdu-r Rashíd in 443 H. (1051 A.D.); or paid tribute as an acknowledgment of fealty; but after that time, the advance of the Saljúks on the northern frontier of the empire, and the internal disorders of the government, must have offered too favourable a conjuncture for them to profess any longer an even nominal sub¬ordination to distant monarchs unable to enforce it.

The Súmra power could at no time have been extensive and absolute in Sind; and the passage translated above at p. 340, from the Tuhfatu-l Kirám, showing seven tributary chiefs in Sind in the time of Násiru-d dín, represents perhaps the true state of the country during a great portion of the so-called Súmra period. Moreover, this unfortunate province was subject to perpetual incursions from the

[p.494]: Ghorian, Khiljí, and Tughlik dynasties of Dehlí and the Panjáb, as well as the still more ruinous devastations of the Moghals. The retreats in their native deserts offered temporary asylums to the Sindians during these visitations, till it pleased the stronger power to retire, after ravaging the crops and securing their plunder: but, beyond the personal security which such inhospitable tracts offered, the Súmras could have enjoyed little freedom and independence, and can only claim to rank as a dynasty, from the absence of any other predominant tribe, or power, to assert better pretensions to that distinction.1

The Samma Dynasty

Being Improved

The Samma Dynasty.

In considering the annals of this race, we are relieved from many of the perplexities which attend us during the preceding period. After expelling the Súmras in 752 A.H. (1351 A.D.), the Sammas retained their power, till they were themselves displaced by the Arghúns in 927 A.H. (1521 A.D.). Some authorities assign an earlier, as well as later, date for the commencement of their rule. The Beg Lár-náma says 734 A.H. (1334 A.D.), making the dynasty last 193 years. The Tárikh-i Táhirí says 843 A.H. (1439 A.D.), giving it no more than 84 years. The Tuhfatu-l Kirám says 927 H., which gives 175 years.

The Táríkh-i Táhirí is obviously wrong, because when Sultán Fíroz Tughlik invaded Sind in 762 A.H. (1361 A.D.), he was opposed by a Prince whose title was Jám, one borne by Sammas only, not by Súmras,-and this we learn from a contemporary author, Shams-i Siráj, whose father himself commanded a fleet of 1000, out of 5000, boats employed upon the expedition. The power of the Jám may be judged of by his being able to bring a force of 40,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry to oppose the Sultán of Dehlí, whom he kept

[p.495]: at bay for two years and a-half. Ten years previous, we also know from contemporary history that, upon Muhammad Tughlik's invasion, the chief of Thatta was a Súmra, and not a Samma. We may, therefore, safely concur with the Tuhfatu-l Kírám in taking the year 752 H. as that of the accession of the Sammas, which was, indeed, coincident with that of Sultán Fíroz, for his reign commenced while he was yet in Sind, and this change of dynasty was probably in some measure contingent upon his success in that pro¬vince, before he advanced upon Dehlí.

All these authors concur in fixing the extinction of the Samma dynasty in 927 H. (1521 A.D.).

Native writers have done their best to render the origin of this tribe obscure, in their endeavours to disguise and embellish the truth. The extracts from the Tuhfatu-l Kirám will show the propensity of the Sindian mind to wander into the region of fable and romance. Nothing can be made out of such arrant nonsense. In another passage the author throws discredit on the Arab descent, and inclines to that of Jamshíd. The Arabic origin from Abí Jahl has been assigned, in order to do honour to the converts from Hinduism, The Jhárejas of Kachh, who are of Samma extraction, prefer claiming the distant connection of Shám, or Syria. The descent from Sám, the son of the prophet Núh, has been assigned, partly for the same reason of nobilitation, partly that a fit eponymos might be found for Samma; and Jamshíd, or Jam (for he is known under both forms indiscriminately), has been hit upon, in order that a suitable etymology might be obtained for the titular designation of Jám.

Tod derives the word Jám from Samma, but the correctness of this etymology may be doubted, for it was not the designation of the family generally, but merely of the chiefs. Indeed, Jám is a title still borne by many native rulers in these parts-such as the Jám of Bela, the Jám of Nawánagar, in Suráshtra, the Jám of Kej, the Jám of the Jokyas, a Samma tribe, and others-and has no necessary connection with Persian descent, much less with such a fabulous monarch and legislator as Jamshíd. In the same manner, it has been attempted to engraft the genealogy of Cyrus on the ancient Median stock, by detecting the identity between Achæmenes and


[p.496]: Jamshíd;1 but here, again, notwithstanding that the hypothesis is supported by the respectable name of Heeren, we are compelled to withhold our assent, and are sorely tempted to exclaim-

Alfana vient d'equus, sans doute;
Mais il faut avouer aussi,
Qu'en venant de la jusqu' ici
Il a bien changé sur la route.

What the Sammas really were is shown in an interesting passage of the Chach-náma, where we find them, on the banks of the lower Indus, coming out with trumpets and shawms to proffer their allegiance to Muhammad Kásim. Sámba, the governor of Debal, on the part of Chach, may be considered the representative of the family at an earlier period.2

They were then either Buddhists or Hindus, and were received into favour in consideration of their prompt and early submission. They form a branch of the great stock of the Yadavas, and their pedigree is derived from Samba, the son of Krishna, who is himself known by the epithet of "Syáma," indicative of his dark complexion. Sammanagar, on the Indus, was their original capital, which has been supposed by some to be the Minagara of the Greek geographers, and is probably represented by the modern Sihwán. Sihwán itself, which has been subject to various changes of name, may, perhaps, derive that particular designation (if it be not a corruption of Sindo-mana), from the Sihta, themselves a branch of the Sammas, mentioned in the Chach-náma, and also noticed at a later period of Sindian history, as will appear from some of the preceding Extracts. The name is also still preserved amongst the Jhárejas of Kachh. The more modern capital of the Sammas, during part of the period under review, and before its transfer to Thatta, was Sámúí, mentioned in another Note. Since the Sammas became proselytes to Islám, which occurred not earlier than 793 H. (1391 A.D.), their name, though it still comprises several large erratic and pastoral com-munities, is less known than that of their brethren, or descendants, the Samejas, and the demi-Hindú Jhárejas, of Kachh, who do



honour to their extraction by their martial qualities, however notoriously they may be deficient in other virtues.

It being admitted that the Sammas are unquestionably Rájpúts of the great Yadava stock, and that they have occupied the banks of the lower Indus within known historical periods, there seems nothing fanciful in the supposition that their ancestors may be traced in the Sambastæ and Sambus of Alexander's historians. The name of Sambastæ, who are represented as a republican confederacy, is doubtful, being read Abastani in Arrian, and Sabarcae in Quintus Curtius; but Sambus, of whose subjects no less than 80,000 (let us hope Diodorus was more correct in saying 8,000) were wantonly slain by that mighty destroyer-

"That made such waste in brief mortality."

and whose capital was the Sindonalia, Sindimona, or Sindomana above named, appears under the same aspect in all three authors, with the closer variation of Samus in some copies,* and may fairly claim to have represented an earlier Samma dynasty in Sind than that which forms the subject of this Note.2

The Arghún Dynasty

The family of the Arghúns derive their name, as stated at p. 303, from Arghún Khán Tarkhán, the grandson of Hulákú, the grandson of Changíz Khán. Amír Basrí is there said, in general terms, to be one of the descendants of Arghún Khán. The descent more accurately traced, is as follows:-

Arghún Khán.
Uljáitú Sultán Muhammad Khudábanda.
Amír Elchí.
Amír Ekú Tímúr.
Amír Shakal Beg



Bartak Beg.
Mír Shekhú Beg.
Mahmúd Beg.
Yár Beg.
Mír Farrukh Beg.
Míram Beg.
Ahmad Walí.
Farrukh Beg.
Amír Basrí.

The Arghún dynasty of Sind consisted of only two individuals- Shujá', or Sháh, Beg, and his son Mirzá Sháh Husain, with whom the family became extinct. The relations of the former with the Emperor Bábar, when possession of the province of Kandahar was contested between them, and of the latter with the Emperor Humá-yún, when that unfortunate monarch took refuge in Sind for nearly three years, constitute their reigns as of some importance in the general history of India, especially when we consider that the memoirs of Bábar are defective in the period alluded to.

The duration of their rule is variously stated at 35, 36, and 41 years. The last period is correct only if we date from 921 H. (1515 A.D.), when, according to the Táríkh-i Táhirí,1 Sháh Beg invaded and occupied a portion of Upper Sind: but as the final conquest of Lower, as well as Upper Sind was not effected from the Sammas till 927 H. (1521 A.D.), it is more correct to assume 35 years as the period.

All authorities concur in representing that the Arghún dynasty- Sháh Husain having died childless-closed in 962 A.H. (1554-5 A.D.)*

The Tarkhán Dynasty

[p.498]: When Áúng, Khán of the Keraite Mongols, and celebrated in Europe under the name of Prester John, had, at the instigation of the jealous enemies of Changíz Khán, at last resolved to destroy that obnoxious favourite; two youths, named Ba'ta and Kashlak, who had overheard the discussion of the measures which were determined upon for execution on the following day, instantly flew to the camp of Changíz Khán, and disclosed to him the circumstances of the premeditated attack and his critical position. Being thus

[p.499]: forwarned, he was able to defeat the scheme, and after defending himself against great disparity of numbers, escaped the danger which impended over him. Upon proceeding to reward his gallant companions in the conflict, Changíz Khán conferred upon the two youths, to whose information he was indebted for his life, the title of Tarkhán, expressly ordaining that their posterity for nine gene¬rations should be exempted from all question for their offences, that they should be free from taxes and imposts, and permitted to enjoy all the plunder they should acquire in war, without being obliged to resign any part of it to the Khán. From these are said to be de¬scended the Tarkháns of Khurasan and Turkistan.

Another set of Tarkháns were so denominated by Tímúr. When Tuktamish Khán was advancing against that potentate, he was gallantly opposed by Ekú Tímúr, who fell in the unequal conflict; but his surviving relatives, whose gallantry and devotion had been witnessed by Tímúr, were honoured by him with the title of Tar-khán, and it was enjoined, amongst other privileges, that the royal servitors should at no time prohibit their access to his presence, and that no criminal offence committed by them should be subject to punishment, until nine times repeated. From these are said to be descended the Tarkháns of Sind. Others say, Tímúr bestowed the title upon a set of men who gave him shelter in his youth, when he lost his way in a hunting ex¬pedition.

Another origin is ascribed to this name, which is evidently fanciful, namely, that it is a corrupt mode of pronouncing "tar-khún," quasi, "wet with the blood (of enemies)."

Though it is probable that the Tarkháns of Sind may, as the local histories assert, be able to trace their origin to Ekú Tímúr, who, as we have seen in the preceding Note, was the great grandson of Arghún Khán, and who was the member of the Imperial family from whom the Arghúns also were descended,-yet the Tarkháns of Khurásán and Turkistán cannot all be descended from the family of Ba'ta and Kashlak, because Arghún Khán was himself a Tar-khán, and we find the title borne by others who could have had no connection with those favoured youths. Thus, Tarkhán, prince of Farghána, hospitably entertained the last monarch of Persia; and

[p.500]: thus, among the events of 105 H. (723 A.D.), Tabarí makes frequent mention of the Tarkháns as officers under the Khákán of the Kha-zars, to the west of the Caspian sea. Bábu-l Abwáb was garrisoned by a thousand Tarkhánís, the flower of the Tátár tribes. One chief's name was Hazár-Tarkhání; and other instances might easily be adduced of the antiquity of the title.

We find the name descending to a late period of the annals of India, and scions of this family still reside at Nasrpúr and Thatta; but the dynasty of the Tarkháns of Sind may be considered to have expired in the year 1000 H., when Mirza Jání Beg resigned his in¬dependence into the hands of Akbar's general, the Khán-i Khánán, after the kingdom had remained with the Tarkháns for a period of 38 years.

The Táríkh-i Táhirí extends their rule even to 1022 H., or rather, it should have been 1021 H., when Ghází Beg Tarkhán died at Kandahár; but he was only an imperial officer, having no independ¬ent jurisdiction, and entitled merely a Jágírdár. Even then, it is impossible to make, as that authority does, the Tarkhán period reach to 53 years; so that, as before mentioned, we must date the ex¬tinction of Sind as an independent kingdom, from 1000 A.H. (1591-2 A.H.), and thenceforward the consideration of its affairs merges in the general history of the Tímúrian empire.1

Shah Beg's Capture of Thatta

The Tarkhán-náma states, that when Sháh Beg advanced to the capture of Thatta, the river, meaning the main stream of the Indus, ran to the north of that city. If this statement be correct, it shows that a most important deviation must have occurred since that period in the course of the river. But I believe that the assertion arises from a mere mis-translation of the Táríkh-i Sind, of Mír Ma'súm, which is generally followed verbatim in the Tarkhán-náma.


[p.501]: Mír Ma'súm says (p. 138), that "Sháh Beg advanced by daily marches towards Thatta, by way of the Lakhí pass, and encamped on the banks of the Khánwáh, from which Thatta lies three kos to the south. At that time the river generally flowed by Thatta; therefore he was in doubt how he should cross." Now this is not very plain, and we should even more correctly interpret the original, if we were to say that, "Thatta lies three kos to the north of the Khánwáh." We know that this could not have not been meant, but the statement, as it stands, is puzzling, and the author of the Tarkhán-náma, in the endeavour to be exact, has complicated matters still further. The Tuhfatu-l Kirám, (p. 41) says that the subsequent action took place "on the stream called 'Alíján, which flows below Thatta," but does not mention whether this was the same stream near which Sháh Beg encamped, though from the con¬text we may be allowed to presume that it was. The Táríkh-i Táhirí is more specific, and states (p. 48) that "he encamped on the bank of the Khánwáh, that is, the canal of water which Daryá Khán had dug, for the purpose of populating the Pargana of Sámkúrá and other lands at the foot of the hills, and the environs of the city."

It is evident, therefore, that Sháh Beg pitched his camp, not on the main stream, but on one of the canals, or little effluents, from the Indus. The Ghizrí, or Ghara creek, is too far to the westward, though it is represented in some maps as running up as far as the Indus itself, and joining it above Thatta. Indeed, there still exist traces of its having been met by a stream from the river at no very remote period, and, during the inundations, the city is even now sometimes insulated from this cause. In the absence of any more precise identification, we may safely look to this deserted bed as corresponding with the ancient 'Alíján, and suiting best the position indicated.

Authorities differ about the date of Sháh Beg's crossing this river, and capturing Thatta, by which an end was put to the dynasty of the Jáms, or Sammas. The Táríkh-i Sind says it occurred in the month of Muharram, 926. The Táríkh-i Táhirí is silent. The Tarkhán-náma says Muharram, 927 (corresponding with December, 1520); differing only in the day of the month from the Tuhfatu-l


[p.502]: Kirám, where the correctness of this latter date is established by an appropriate chronogram:-

"Kharábí Sind.-The Downfall of Sind."

The Táríkh-i Táhirí (p. 51) refers this chronogram to the period when Sháh Husain plundered Thatta, on the ground of extravagant joy having been evinced by its inhabitants upon the death of his father, Sháh Beg; but this is evidently a mistake, and is adopted merely to accommodate his false chronology.

The Death of Sháh Beg Arghún

Authorities differ greatly respecting the time and place of Sháh Beg's death. The Tarkhán-náma states that it occurred in Sha'bán, 926 H., not far from Chandúka, said in the Tárikh-i Sind (MS. p. 196) to be thirty kos west of Bhakkar, and that the accession of Mirzá Sháh Husain was celebrated where Sháh Beg died.

Fírishta says he died in 930 H., but mentions no place. Mir Ma'súm (MS. p. 154) says, he died after leaving Bhakkar, on his way to Guzerát,-in the same page Agham is the particular spot implied-and that the words Shahr-Sha'bán ("month of Sha'bán") represent the date of his death, i.e., 928 H. (1522 A.D.). That very night, he adds, Sháh Husain was proclaimed his successor, and, three years afterwards, Sháh Beg's coffin was conveyed to Mecca, where a lofty tomb was erected over it. He mentions (MS. p. 171) that Sháh Husain's succession took place at Nasrpúr, though he has previously led us to suppose it was Agham.

The Táríkh-i Táhirí (MS. p. 49) says that his death took place in 924 H.-"some say it occurred in Multán, some in Kandahár."

The Tuhfatu-l Kirám (MS. p. 42) states that he died at Agham on the 23rd of Sha'bán, 928 H. It is mentioned in that work also, that this month represents the date of his death. The author gives satis¬factory reasons why the reports just quoted from the Táríkh-i Táhirí must necessarily be both incorrect. Under these conflicting evidences, we may rest assurred that the chronogram is correct, and that Sháh Beg Arghún, the conqueror of Sind, died at Agham, on the 23rd of the month Sha'bán, 928 A.H. (18th July, 1522 A.D.).