Origin

Introduction

Bhumihars or Babhans were originally the native Brahmins of Magadha, who had almost entirely converted to Buddhism and later reconverted to Hinduism after Buddhism declined. Having spent many centuries as Buddhists, they had largely shed their ritual status and priestly functions and, since they were returning to Hinduism from another religion, they were naturally regarded as having branched off and thus emerged as a distinct caste. Yet they still retained their gotras, pravars, ved, upved etc.

While numerous theories have been historically proposed regarding the ethnogenesis and origins of the Bhumihars, some criminally scandalous, penned by orthodox Brahmins in 20th century, to malign the Babhans/Bhumihars, and others speculative, misguided, and half baked originating from some British writers, the true story is far off from both.

The most credible and historically supported, firmly established origin story, endorsed by respected historians and corroborated by authentic published sources, holds that the Bhumihars are the erstwhile native Brahmins of Magadha who had converted to Buddhism. Upon their later reconversion to Hinduism, they lost their former ritual status Babhans are thus former Brahmins who adopted Buddhism and subsequently reintegrated into Hinduism with a relegatede status, lower than Brahmins but higher than Rajpoots. During this religious transition, they drifted away from the Brahminical order and became a completely distinct caste, while assuming control over lands and shrines associated with abandoned Buddhist monasteries, hence the name Bhūmi + Hāraka (Bhumihar), meaning “Those who usurped lands”.

We will discuss the evidence supporting this in the next section

Historical Testimony of Conversions

The internationally renowned historian William Dalrymple, through his field research, identified an entire village of Brahmins who had converted to Buddhism (present day Bhumihars) during Ashoka’s reign around 300 BCE. If anyone needs a proven example of such a conversion, it is now available

Origins according to report of The Asiatic Society, Ministry of Culture, GOI

During Buddhism’s height, many Brahmins converted and rose to prominence within monasteries. But as Buddhism declined by the twelfth century, they returned to Hinduism, accepted back only with a relegated status. Anticipating Buddhism’s fall, they accepted this term and came to be known as distinct caste called Bhumihars. Some continued as heads of former Buddhist monasteries, which later turned into Hindu worship centres called Thakurwadis which could be found in many Bhumihar villages even to this day.

Linguistic and Geographical proofs of origin

Bhumihar’s synonym or traditional name ‘Babhan’, is the Pali form of Brahman from Ashokan times and it points to Brahmins who had converted to Buddhism and their Pali name stuck with them ever since. The term Bhumihāraka reflects their control of lands once tied to Buddhist monasteries. The centre of their population, Magadha, and their other settlements coincide with the regions where Buddhism was strongest and persisted for the longest time according to British era historian and Sanskrit linguist Haraprasad Shastri Bhattacharya

Geographical Continuity in the Buddhist Heartland

Some archaeological and settlement related information are given below to show how Bhumihars have long inhabited important sites associated with Buddhism, further strengthening the claim of their Buddhist past.

(a) The Magadh region of Bihar is dotted with sites of Buddhist significance, many of which are either heavily inhabited by Bhumihars or have Bhumihar settlements in close proximity. Ghosrawan lies six miles northeast of Indra-śilā peak (Giryak), eight miles east of Nālandā, seven miles southeast of Bihar’s “isolated rock,” and ten miles northeast of the Rājgir ruins—placing it at the heart of ancient Buddhist Magadha. Titrawan, mentioned alongside Ghosrawan, is another site noted for important Buddhist remains. The fact that these villages are almost entirely inhabited by Babhans or Bhumihars lends further weight to the Buddhist-Brahmin origin theory by establishing geographical continuity Historical Testimony

(b) The villages of Pilliccha and Aramā, where Arahanta Pilinda-Vaccha, a noted disciple of Gautama Buddha, resided, are inhabited by the Bhumihar community of the Pilichavara Mool, that's based on the name of the village itself and their Mools are based on villages that they've been inhabiting since thousands of years, indicating their ancient presence in that village. This adds further credence to the view that early Bhumihar settlements coincided with Buddhist centres, strengthening the theory that their origins trace back to Brahmin groups who had adopted Buddhism. Historical Testimony

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 drawn from the very same books :

“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.

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

“Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly Brahmin” / “Bhumihars are partly Rajput and partly other castes” / “Bhumihars are bastard Brahmins”

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, or a “bastard” form of Brahmins.

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; or are a race of bastard Brahmans. I have been unable to obtain any trustworthy evidence for such assertions”

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

“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.

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”

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

“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.

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.”

“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.

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”

“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.

References

ID	Book/Article	Author	Year	Snippet
[1]	The Tribes and Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh	William Crooke	1896
[2]	The Tribes and Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh	William Crooke	1896