Refuting Lies About Bhumihars

Countering misconceptions

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 :

(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.

(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.

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"

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.

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. 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.

(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.

(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.