View source for Refuting Lies About Bhumihars

During the British Raj era, many ridiculously defamatory, unfounded and false notions were propagated against Bhumihars regarding their origins and ethnogenesis. These theories have been refuted, thoroughly debunked and rejected by the colonial era Anthropologists, Ethnologists and Historians themselves. 

* Sir Alexander Cunningham, the founder and first Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India, had himself remarked that defamatory stories about the Bhumihars were actually spread by "their enemies", perhaps out of jealousy. 
* Even D. L. Drake-Brockman, a British-era civil servant and author of several British government gazetteers, rejected the false origin stories about Bhumihars. He wrote that these rumours were generally propagated by the Brahmin and Rajput neighbours of Bhumihars, and stated that he had found no evidence to supporting those fabricated stories made by the Brahmins and Rajputs.

== (1) Written proof against "Bhumihars are a mixed race" ==
According to William Crooke (1907), the uniform physical type of the Bhumihars contradicts the claim that they are a mixed race.<ref>{{cite book |last=Crooke |first=William |title=Natives of Northern India |year=1907}}</ref>

<blockquote>
Quoted from his book – ''“The uniformity of the physical type among them disposes of the suggestion that they are a mixed race”''
</blockquote>

== (2) Written proof against "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly Brahmin" / "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly other castes" ==
This is also incorrect. The colonial-era writer M. A. Sherring wrote in 1872 that he found no trustworthy evidence to support the claim that Bhumihars were half Rajput and half Brahmin, or a mixture of Rajputs and other castes.

<blockquote>
Quoted from his book – ''“Some doubt has been thrown on the purity of their blood as Brahmans. It has been said that they are Kshatriya or Rajpoot Brahmans; or are partly Rajpoots and partly of other castes. I have been unable to obtain any trustworthy evidence for such assertions”''
</blockquote>

In his assessment, doubts about the purity of their Brahmin status were based on assertions for which he could obtain no trustworthy evidence.

== (3) Written proof against "Bhumihars are of mixed Brahmin–Rajput origin" ==
Regarding the claim that Bhumihars were of mixed Rajput and Brahmin origin, D. L. Drake-Brockman, a British civil servant and author of district gazetteers, wrote in 1911 that he found no evidence to support the mixed origin theory. 

He also observed that the allegation was generally made by the Brahmin and Rajput neighbours of Bhumihars, but stated that no evidence existed to prove the claims made by Rajput and Brahmins.<ref>{{cite book |last=Drake-Brockman |first=D. L. |title=Azamgarh: A Gazetteer, being Volume XIX of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh |year=1909}}</ref>

<blockquote>
Quoted from his book – ''“Their Brahman and Rajput neighbours generally insinuate that they are of mixed Brahman and Rajput breed, but there is no evidence in particular to support this view”''
</blockquote>

He noted that such views were rumours rather than conclusions based on evidence.

== (4) Written proof against "They are degraded Brahmins" ==
H. H. Risley also rejected the hypothesis that Bhumihars are degraded Brahmins, arguing that the sections, or exogamous groups, into which the Babhans (Bhumihars) are divided prove strongly against the theory that they are degraded Brahmins. 

According to Risley, these groups are generally the oldest and most enduring elements in the internal organisation of a caste or tribe, making the theory of a later "degraded" offshoot, doubtful and unlikely.<ref>{{cite book |last=Risley |first=H. H. |title=Census of India, 1901, Volume I: India, Ethnographic Appendices |year=1903}}</ref>

<blockquote>
Quoted from his book – ''“An examination of the sections or exogamous groups into which the Babhans are divided appears, however, to tell strongly against the hypothesis that they are degraded Brahmans. These groups are usually the oldest and most durable element in the internal organisation of a caste or tribe.”''
</blockquote>

== (5) Written proof against "They are promoted Aryans" / "They were promoted as Brahmins in King Jarasandha's feast due to shortage of Brahmins" ==
H. H. Risley strongly rejected the theory that Bhumihars are promoted Aryans or they were promoted as Brahmins in King Jarasandha's feast due to shortage of Brahmins.

Rejecting that theory, in his ethnographic study Risley wrote that the appearance and demeanour of the Babhans strongly disproves the belief that they were descended from a group of low-caste men who had been promoted to Brahmin status at a feast organised by Jarasandha.<ref>{{cite book |last=Risley |first=H. H. |title=Census of India, 1901, Volume I: India, Ethnographic Appendices |year=1903}}</ref>

<blockquote>
Quoted from his book – ''“The last theory is at once refuted by the appearance and demeanour of the caste. "They are," says Mr. Beames, "a fine manly race, with the delicate Aryan type of feature in full perfection." This type, I may add, is singularly uniform and persistent among the Babhans, which would not be the case if they were descended from a crowd of low-caste men promoted by the exigencies of a particular occasion”''
</blockquote>

== (6) Written proof against "They were tribals promoted as sham Brahmins at a feast organised by King Jarasandha" ==
William Crooke, writing in 1896, stated that he found no evidence to support the belief that the Babhans (Bhumihars) were originally a low-status group elevated to Brahmin rank by King Jarasandha at a ceremonial feast.<ref>{{cite book |last=Crooke |first=William |title=The Tribes and Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh |volume=II |year=1896}}</ref>

He regarded the account as an unsubstantiated and unproven story rather than a historical fact.

== (7) Written proof against "Bhumihars are formed by an intermixture of Brahmins with some inferior caste" ==
The theory that Bhumihars are formed by an intermixture of Brahmins with lower castes is untenable because MA Sherring states in 1872 that there's no reason given for this erroneous conclusion.

== (8) Written proof against "Bhumihars are a low Aryan race of mixed Brahmin Rajput origin who acquired a pseudo respectability by pretending that they are Brahmins" ==
This theory is outrightly false and has no merit. It was published in the Calcutta Review (1883) that, according to the rules of Hindu society, a mixed caste or a group of low Aryan origin would traditionally hold an inferior status. Therefore, the Bhumihars could not have had such an origin, as they've always enjoyed a very high position among the Hindus and the society in general.

"The theory will not stand criticism. The offspring of a Brahmin girl and Rajput father would be of very inferior caste; and, if the Babhuns were of low Aryan origin, as Mr. Magrath thought they were, they could, by no possibility, have attained to that high position amongst the Hindus which they now undoubtedly occupy"

== References ==
{{reflist}}