Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c24.7

c24.7

But is the contention of the Professor that Sindhu-Sauvīra did not include the country up to Multān correct? Alberuni, who based his assertions on the geographical data of the *Purāṇas* and the *Bṛihatsaṁhitā*, made the clear statement that Sauvīra was equivalent to Multān and Jahrāvār.¹ Against this Professor Vidyalankar quotes the evidence of Yuan Chwang who says that in his days "Mou-lo-san-pu-lu," *i.e.* Mūla-sthāna-pura or Multān was a dependency of the "Che-ka" or Takka country in the C. Pañjāb. It should be noted, however, that the Chinese pilgrim is referring to political dependence, and not geographical inclusion. India was a dependency of Great Britain. But geographically it was not a part of the British Isles. On the other band, Alberuni does not give the slightest hint that what he actually means by the equation "Sauvīra, *i,e.*, Multān and Jahrāvār" is political subjection of Multān to Sind. His account here is purely geographical, and he is merely giving the names of the countries, as taken from the *Saṁhitā* of Varāhamihira with his own comments. Far from making Multān a political dependency of Sind he carefully distinguishes "Sauvīra, *i.e.*, Multān and Jahrāvār" from "Sindhu" which is mentioned separately.