________________
SINDHU AND SAUVĪRA
619
with the rule of the Great Satrap in Sindhu-Sauvira at about the same time. He is not oblivious of the difficulty of harmonising this limitation of Rudradāman's power with the known fact of the Great Satrap's campaign against the Yaudheyas in the course of which he claims to have uprooted that powerful tribe "in their country proper which was to the north of Suē Vihār" and, according to the theory advocated by the Professor, "formed part of Kanishka's dominions" at that time. He meets the difficulty by saying that "the pressure of the Kausāna armies from the north had driven the Yaudheyas to the desert of Marwar". Such surmises to explain away inconvenient details, are, to say the least, not convincing, especially in view of the fact that Maru finds separate mention in the inscription of Rudradāman as a territory under the rule of the mighty Satrap.
But is the contention of the Professor that Sindhu-Sauvira did not include the country up to Multān correct ? Alberuni, who based his assertions on the geographical data of the Purūnas and the Brihatsamhitā, made the clear statement that Sauvira was equivalent to Multān and Jahrāvār. 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. Panjāb. 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 hand, Alberuni does not give the slightest hint that what he actually means by the equation "Sauvira, 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 Samhitā of Varāhamihira with his own comments. Far from making Multān a political dependency of Sind he carefully distinguishes "Sauvira, i.e., Multān and Jahrāvār" from "Sindhu” which is mentioned separately.
The view that ancient Sauvira was confined to Southern Sind and that Sindhu and Sauvira together correspond to
1
1. 302
