Refuting Lies About Bhumihars - Revision history

Babhanwiki at 15:55, 25 July 2026

2026-07-25T15:55:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:55, 25 July 2026
Line 4:		Line 4:
	* 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.		* 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" ===		== (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>		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>

Line 11:		Line 11:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	=== (2) Written proof against "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly Brahmin" / "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly other castes" ===		== (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.		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.

Line 20:		Line 20:
	In his assessment, doubts about the purity of their Brahmin status were based on assertions for which he could obtain no trustworthy evidence.		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" ===		== (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.		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.

Line 31:		Line 31:
	He noted that such views were rumours rather than conclusions based on evidence.		He noted that such views were rumours rather than conclusions based on evidence.

	=== (4) Written proof against "They are degraded Brahmins" ===		== (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.		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.

Line 40:		Line 40:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	=== (5) Written proof against "They are promoted Aryans" / "They were promoted as Brahmins in King Jarasandha's feast due to shortage of Brahmins" ===		== (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.		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.

Line 49:		Line 49:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	=== (6) Written proof against "They were tribals promoted as sham Brahmins at a feast organised by King Jarasandha" ===		== (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>		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.		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 ==		== References ==
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist}}

Babhanwiki at 12:06, 25 July 2026

2026-07-25T12:06:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:06, 25 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~== Countering misconceptions ==~~		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.
	~~Regarding~~ the ~~origins and ethnogenesis of the [[Bhumihar]]s~~, many ~~unsubstantiated~~, ~~defamatory~~ and ~~scandalous theories~~ were propagated by their ~~enemies with the intent of slandering them~~ and ~~tarnishing their reputation~~. ~~This assertion is based not only on the patently silly~~ and ~~unscientific nature of those slanders, but also on~~ the ~~observations of Sir [[Alexander Cunningham]]~~, ~~the founder~~ and ~~first Director-General of the [[Archaeological Survey of India]], who remarked that defamatory stories about the Bhumihars were spread by "their enemies~~."

	~~Below are those theories~~, ~~together with~~ their ~~rebuttals/refutations drawn from~~ the ~~very same books :~~		* 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) "Bhumihars are a mixed race" ===		=== (1) Written proof against "Bhumihars are a mixed race" ===
	~~This is incorrect. [[~~William Crooke~~]] wrote in~~ 1907 ~~that~~ the uniform physical type of the Bhumihars ~~rules out~~ the ~~idea~~ that they are a mixed race~~, noting that their consistent physical characteristics completely invalidates such a defamatory claim~~.<ref>{{cite book \|last=Crooke \|first=William \|title=Natives of Northern India \|year=1907}}</ref>		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>		<blockquote>
	Quoted from his book – “The uniformity of the physical type among them disposes of the suggestion that they are a mixed race”		Quoted from his book – ''“The uniformity of the physical type among them disposes of the suggestion that they are a mixed race”''
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	=== (2) "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly Brahmin" / "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly other castes" ===		=== (2) Written proof against "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly Brahmin" / "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly other castes" ===
	This is also ~~false~~. ~~Another~~ colonial-era writer~~, [[~~M. A. Sherring~~]],~~ wrote in 1872 that he found ~~absolutely~~ no ~~reliable~~ evidence to support the ~~scandalous~~ claim that Bhumihars ~~are partly~~ Rajput and ~~partly~~ Brahmin, or a mixture of Rajputs and other castes.~~<ref>{{cite book \|last=Sherring \|first=M. A. \|title=Hindu Tribes and Castes \|volume=I \|year=1872}}</ref>~~		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>		<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”		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>		</blockquote>

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

	=== (3) "Bhumihars are of mixed Brahmin–Rajput origin" ===		=== (3) Written proof against "Bhumihars are of mixed Brahmin–Rajput origin" ===
	~~With regard to~~ the claim that Bhumihars ~~are part~~ Rajput and ~~part~~ Brahmin, [[D. L. Drake-Brockman]], a British civil ~~services officer who wrote~~ district gazetteers, ~~stated~~ in 1911 that he found no ~~concrete~~ evidence to support ~~this defamatory~~ theory. ~~Instead, he recorded~~ that it was generally ~~their Hindu~~ Rajput ~~and Brahmin~~ neighbours ~~who propagated~~ the ~~slander that Bhumihars were of mixed Brahmin–Rajput descent~~.<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>		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>		<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 ~~varticular~~ to support this view”		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>		</blockquote>

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

	=== (4) "They are degraded Brahmins" ===		=== (4) Written proof against "They are degraded Brahmins" ===
	~~This is again contradicted by the evidence. [[Herbert Hope Risley\|~~H. H. Risley~~]] argued~~ that ~~a close examination of~~ the sections or exogamous groups into which the Babhans (Bhumihars) are divided strongly ~~undermines~~ the ~~hypothesis~~ that they are degraded Brahmins. According to ~~him~~, these ~~internal~~ groups are ~~usually~~ the oldest and most enduring elements in the organisation of a caste or tribe, ~~which is inconsistent with~~ the ~~idea~~ of a later "degraded" offshoot.<ref>{{cite book \|last=Risley \|first=H. H. \|title=Census of India, 1901, Volume I: India, Ethnographic Appendices \|year=1903}}</ref>		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>		<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.”		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>		</blockquote>

	=== (5) "They are promoted Aryans" / "They were promoted as Brahmins in King Jarasandha's ~~feat~~ due to shortage of Brahmins" ===		=== (5) Written proof against "They are promoted Aryans" / "They were promoted as Brahmins in King Jarasandha's feast due to shortage of Brahmins" ===
	~~This~~ theory ~~is again rejected by HH Risley~~ in his ~~ethnography, which notes~~ that the appearance and demeanour of the Babhans ~~are inconsistent with~~ the ~~idea~~ that they were ~~suddenly promoted~~ from low-caste status at a ~~single~~ feast ~~of [[~~Jarasandha]].<ref>{{cite book \|last=Risley \|first=H. H. \|title=Census of India, 1901, Volume I: India, Ethnographic Appendices \|year=1903}}</ref>		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>		<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”		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>		</blockquote>

	=== (6) "They were tribals promoted as sham Brahmins at a feast organised by King Jarasandha" ===		=== (6) Written proof against "They were tribals promoted as sham Brahmins at a feast organised by King Jarasandha" ===
	~~This is yet another baseless story.~~ William Crooke, writing in 1896, stated that ~~there is~~ no evidence to support the ~~popular hearsay~~ that Babhans/Bhumihars were originally a ~~lowly~~ group ~~raised~~ to Brahmin rank by King Jarasandha at ~~some~~ ceremonial feast.		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 treated this tale as unsubstantiated legend rather than a historical fact~~.<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.

	== References ==		== References ==
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist}}

Babhanwiki at 05:51, 25 July 2026

2026-07-25T05:51:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:51, 25 July 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	This is incorrect. [[William Crooke]] wrote in 1907 that the uniform physical type of the Bhumihars rules out the idea that they are a mixed race, noting that their consistent physical characteristics completely invalidates such a defamatory claim.<ref>{{cite book \|last=Crooke \|first=William \|title=Natives of Northern India \|year=1907}}</ref>		This is incorrect. [[William Crooke]] wrote in 1907 that the uniform physical type of the Bhumihars rules out the idea that they are a mixed race, noting that their consistent physical characteristics completely invalidates such a defamatory claim.<ref>{{cite book \|last=Crooke \|first=William \|title=Natives of Northern India \|year=1907}}</ref>

	~~{{quote \|text=The~~ uniformity of the physical type among them disposes of the suggestion that they are a mixed ~~race \|sign=Quoted from his book}}~~		<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) "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly Brahmin" / "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly other castes" ===		=== (2) "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly Brahmin" / "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly other castes" ===
	This is also false. Another colonial-era writer, [[M. A. Sherring]], wrote in 1872 that he found absolutely no reliable evidence to support the scandalous claim that Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly Brahmin, or a mixture of Rajputs and other castes.<ref>{{cite book \|last=Sherring \|first=M. A. \|title=Hindu Tribes and Castes \|volume=I \|year=1872}}</ref>		This is also false. Another colonial-era writer, [[M. A. Sherring]], wrote in 1872 that he found absolutely no reliable evidence to support the scandalous claim that Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly Brahmin, or a mixture of Rajputs and other castes.<ref>{{cite book \|last=Sherring \|first=M. A. \|title=Hindu Tribes and Castes \|volume=I \|year=1872}}</ref>

	~~{{quote \|text=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 \|sign=Quoted from his book}}~~		<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.		In his assessment, doubts about the purity of their Brahmin status were based on assertions for which he could obtain no trustworthy evidence.
Line 19:		Line 23:
	With regard to the claim that Bhumihars are part Rajput and part Brahmin, [[D. L. Drake-Brockman]], a British civil services officer who wrote district gazetteers, stated in 1911 that he found no concrete evidence to support this defamatory theory. Instead, he recorded that it was generally their Hindu Rajput and Brahmin neighbours who propagated the slander that Bhumihars were of mixed Brahmin–Rajput descent.<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>		With regard to the claim that Bhumihars are part Rajput and part Brahmin, [[D. L. Drake-Brockman]], a British civil services officer who wrote district gazetteers, stated in 1911 that he found no concrete evidence to support this defamatory theory. Instead, he recorded that it was generally their Hindu Rajput and Brahmin neighbours who propagated the slander that Bhumihars were of mixed Brahmin–Rajput descent.<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>

	~~{{quote \|text=Their~~ Brahman and Rajput neighbours generally insinuate that they are of mixed Brahman and Rajput breed, but there is no evidence in varticular to support this ~~view \|sign=Quoted from his book}}~~		<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 varticular to support this view”
			</blockquote>

	He noted that such views were rumours rather than conclusions based on evidence.		He noted that such views were rumours rather than conclusions based on evidence.
Line 26:		Line 32:
	This is again contradicted by the evidence. [[Herbert Hope Risley\|H. H. Risley]] argued that a close examination of the sections or exogamous groups into which the Babhans (Bhumihars) are divided strongly undermines the hypothesis that they are degraded Brahmins. According to him, these internal groups are usually the oldest and most enduring elements in the organisation of a caste or tribe, which is inconsistent with the idea of a later "degraded" offshoot.<ref>{{cite book \|last=Risley \|first=H. H. \|title=Census of India, 1901, Volume I: India, Ethnographic Appendices \|year=1903}}</ref>		This is again contradicted by the evidence. [[Herbert Hope Risley\|H. H. Risley]] argued that a close examination of the sections or exogamous groups into which the Babhans (Bhumihars) are divided strongly undermines the hypothesis that they are degraded Brahmins. According to him, these internal groups are usually the oldest and most enduring elements in the organisation of a caste or tribe, which is inconsistent with the idea of a later "degraded" offshoot.<ref>{{cite book \|last=Risley \|first=H. H. \|title=Census of India, 1901, Volume I: India, Ethnographic Appendices \|year=1903}}</ref>

	~~{{quote \|text=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. ~~\|sign=Quoted from his book}}~~		<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) "They are promoted Aryans" / "They were promoted as Brahmins in King Jarasandha's feat due to shortage of Brahmins" ===		=== (5) "They are promoted Aryans" / "They were promoted as Brahmins in King Jarasandha's feat due to shortage of Brahmins" ===
	This theory is again rejected by HH Risley in his ethnography, which notes that the appearance and demeanour of the Babhans are inconsistent with the idea that they were suddenly promoted from low-caste status at a single feast of [[Jarasandha]].<ref>{{cite book \|last=Risley \|first=H. H. \|title=Census of India, 1901, Volume I: India, Ethnographic Appendices \|year=1903}}</ref>		This theory is again rejected by HH Risley in his ethnography, which notes that the appearance and demeanour of the Babhans are inconsistent with the idea that they were suddenly promoted from low-caste status at a single feast of [[Jarasandha]].<ref>{{cite book \|last=Risley \|first=H. H. \|title=Census of India, 1901, Volume I: India, Ethnographic Appendices \|year=1903}}</ref>

	~~{{quote \|text=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 \|sign=Quoted from his book}}~~		<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) "They were tribals promoted as sham Brahmins at a feast organised by King Jarasandha" ===		=== (6) "They were tribals promoted as sham Brahmins at a feast organised by King Jarasandha" ===

Babhanwiki at 05:49, 25 July 2026

2026-07-25T05:49:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:49, 25 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Regarding the origins and ethnogenesis of the ~~Bhumihars~~, many unsubstantiated, defamatory and scandalous theories were propagated by their enemies with the intent of slandering them and tarnishing their reputation. This assertion is based not only on the patently silly and unscientific nature of those slanders, but also on the observations of Sir Alexander Cunningham, the founder and first Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India, who remarked that defamatory stories about the Bhumihars were spread by ~~“their~~ enemies.”		== Countering misconceptions ==
			Regarding the origins and ethnogenesis of the [[Bhumihar]]s, many unsubstantiated, defamatory and scandalous theories were propagated by their enemies with the intent of slandering them and tarnishing their reputation. This assertion is based not only on the patently silly and unscientific nature of those slanders, but also on the observations of Sir [[Alexander Cunningham]], the founder and first Director-General of the [[Archaeological Survey of India]], who remarked that defamatory stories about the Bhumihars were spread by "their enemies."

	Below are those theories, together with their rebuttals/refutations drawn from the very same books :		Below are those theories, together with their rebuttals/refutations drawn from the very same books :

	== ~~“Bhumihars~~ are a mixed ~~race”~~ ==		=== (1) "Bhumihars are a mixed race" ===
			This is incorrect. [[William Crooke]] wrote in 1907 that the uniform physical type of the Bhumihars rules out the idea that they are a mixed race, noting that their consistent physical characteristics completely invalidates such a defamatory claim.<ref>{{cite book \|last=Crooke \|first=William \|title=Natives of Northern India \|year=1907}}</ref>

	=~~= “Bhumihars~~ are ~~partly Rajput and partly Brahmin” / “Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly other castes” =~~=		{{quote \|text=The uniformity of the physical type among them disposes of the suggestion that they are a mixed race \|sign=Quoted from his book}}

	== ~~“Bhumihars~~ are of ~~mixed Brahmin–Rajput origin”~~ ==		=== (2) "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly Brahmin" / "Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly other castes" ===
			This is also false. Another colonial-era writer, [[M. A. Sherring]], wrote in 1872 that he found absolutely no reliable evidence to support the scandalous claim that Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly Brahmin, or a mixture of Rajputs and other castes.<ref>{{cite book \|last=Sherring \|first=M. A. \|title=Hindu Tribes and Castes \|volume=I \|year=1872}}</ref>

	=~~= “They~~ are ~~degraded Brahmins” =~~=		{{quote \|text=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 \|sign=Quoted from his book}}

	~~== “They are promoted Aryans” / “They~~ were ~~promoted as Brahmins in King Jarasandha’s feat due to shortage of Brahmins” ==~~		In his assessment, doubts about the purity of their Brahmin status were based on assertions for which he could obtain no trustworthy evidence.

	== ~~“They~~ were tribals promoted as sham Brahmins at a feast organised by King ~~Jarasandha”~~ ==		=== (3) "Bhumihars are of mixed Brahmin–Rajput origin" ===
			With regard to the claim that Bhumihars are part Rajput and part Brahmin, [[D. L. Drake-Brockman]], a British civil services officer who wrote district gazetteers, stated in 1911 that he found no concrete evidence to support this defamatory theory. Instead, he recorded that it was generally their Hindu Rajput and Brahmin neighbours who propagated the slander that Bhumihars were of mixed Brahmin–Rajput descent.<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>

			{{quote \|text=Their Brahman and Rajput neighbours generally insinuate that they are of mixed Brahman and Rajput breed, but there is no evidence in varticular to support this view \|sign=Quoted from his book}}

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

			=== (4) "They are degraded Brahmins" ===
			This is again contradicted by the evidence. [[Herbert Hope Risley\|H. H. Risley]] argued that a close examination of the sections or exogamous groups into which the Babhans (Bhumihars) are divided strongly undermines the hypothesis that they are degraded Brahmins. According to him, these internal groups are usually the oldest and most enduring elements in the organisation of a caste or tribe, which is inconsistent with the idea of a later "degraded" offshoot.<ref>{{cite book \|last=Risley \|first=H. H. \|title=Census of India, 1901, Volume I: India, Ethnographic Appendices \|year=1903}}</ref>

			{{quote \|text=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. \|sign=Quoted from his book}}

			=== (5) "They are promoted Aryans" / "They were promoted as Brahmins in King Jarasandha's feat due to shortage of Brahmins" ===
			This theory is again rejected by HH Risley in his ethnography, which notes that the appearance and demeanour of the Babhans are inconsistent with the idea that they were suddenly promoted from low-caste status at a single feast of [[Jarasandha]].<ref>{{cite book \|last=Risley \|first=H. H. \|title=Census of India, 1901, Volume I: India, Ethnographic Appendices \|year=1903}}</ref>

			{{quote \|text=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 \|sign=Quoted from his book}}

			=== (6) "They were tribals promoted as sham Brahmins at a feast organised by King Jarasandha" ===
			This is yet another baseless story. William Crooke, writing in 1896, stated that there is no evidence to support the popular hearsay that Babhans/Bhumihars were originally a lowly group raised to Brahmin rank by King Jarasandha at some ceremonial feast.
			He treated this tale as unsubstantiated legend rather than a historical fact.<ref>{{cite book \|last=Crooke \|first=William \|title=The Tribes and Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh \|volume=II \|year=1896}}</ref>

			== References ==
			{{reflist}}

Babhanwiki: Created page with "Regarding the origins and ethnogenesis of the Bhumihars, many unsubstantiated, defamatory and scandalous theories were propagated by their enemies with the intent of slandering them and tarnishing their reputation. This assertion is based not only on the patently silly and unscientific nature of those slanders, but also on the observations of Sir Alexander Cunningham, the founder and first Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India, who remarked that defamato..."

2026-07-25T05:45:59Z

Created page with "Regarding the origins and ethnogenesis of the Bhumihars, many unsubstantiated, defamatory and scandalous theories were propagated by their enemies with the intent of slandering them and tarnishing their reputation. This assertion is based not only on the patently silly and unscientific nature of those slanders, but also on the observations of Sir Alexander Cunningham, the founder and first Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India, who remarked that defamato..."

New page

Regarding the origins and ethnogenesis of the Bhumihars, many unsubstantiated, defamatory and scandalous theories were propagated by their enemies with the intent of slandering them and tarnishing their reputation. This assertion is based not only on the patently silly and unscientific nature of those slanders, but also on the observations of Sir Alexander Cunningham, the founder and first Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India, who remarked that defamatory stories about the Bhumihars were spread by “their enemies.”

Below are those theories, together with their rebuttals/refutations drawn from the very same books :

== “Bhumihars are a mixed race” ==

== “Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly Brahmin” / “Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly other castes” ==

== “Bhumihars are of mixed Brahmin–Rajput origin” ==

== “They are degraded Brahmins” ==

== “They are promoted Aryans” / “They were promoted as Brahmins in King Jarasandha’s feat due to shortage of Brahmins” ==

== “They were tribals promoted as sham Brahmins at a feast organised by King Jarasandha” ==