Abstract This research paper presents a critical analysis of British colonial ethnographic documentation—specifically R.V. Russell and Hira Lal’s 1916 publication ‘The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India’—and provides a systematic historical refutation of its conclusions regarding the Bhoyar Pawar community. The study demonstrates that the Bhoyar Pawar community are the descendants of the Parmar dynasty of Malwa and are not ‘degraded Rajputs’ as classified by colonial administrators. The 72-gotra system, linguistic evidence from the Pawari/Bhoyari dialect, and documented historical migration patterns collectively substantiate this refutation. Keywords: Bhoyar Pawar, Colonial Ethnography, R.V. Russell, 72-Gotra System, Parmar Dynasty, Kshatriya Identity, Decolonization, Malwa Migration, Pawari Dialect, Historical Refutation Preface: The Legacy of Colonial Ethnography In Indian social history, the ethnographic documentation conducted during the British period was not merely an academic exercise—it was an instrument for consolidating colonial rule. In the early 19th and 20th centuries, census officials such as Sir Herbert Risley, R.V. Russell, and Rai Bahadur Hira Lal attempted to divide Indian castes into rigid administrative categories. With specific reference to the Central Provinces, R.V. Russell’s 1916 publication ‘The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India’ constructed a discourse that permanently confused the identity of the Pawar (Pawar) or Bhoyar Pawar community of Satpura and Vidarbha. For the sake of administrative convenience, Russell subsumed several groups with independent identities under a single ‘Bhoyar’ umbrella—a classification that modern historical research (2023–2025) considers wholly erroneous and an act of historical injustice.