Talk:Baidya/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Vaidyas are Brahmins

Hello everyone. Here after a long time. Had a good fight with Ekdalian two years back. Took the help of Arnold Sir, I think Mr Arnold Reinhold. For everybody's information, I am going to Kashi for Vedic analysis regarding the Brahminical status of Vaidyas. Vedas hold the highest authority in Hinduism. And all Vaidyas are not from South India. Please read Vaidyas of Bengal modified Scribd article by Mr Raibatak Sengupta. The first stream of Vaidyas ( Sadhha Vaidyas) came from Karnataka and the second stream (Sidhha Vaidyas) came from Ambastha ( ancient Punjab). Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey Anirban Kolkata, please note that Vedas and Puranas are considered as primary sources here (read WP:PRIMARY) and cannot be cited here. The article by Sengupta is again unreliable; we use high quality reliable sources only especially in caste articles. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think there is Double standard going on. In the Baidya article of Wikipedia, Brahma vaivarta purana has been used to prove that Vaidyas are Shudras.

Wikipedia must understand that Vedas are the ultimate authority in Hinduism regarding any dispute. Hinduism without Vedas is an utopia.

The best quality reliable source of Hinduism is Vedas. It is the DIVINE TRUTH, AND NOT ANY MAN MADE TRUTH.

Hope you understand Ekdalian :-)

Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry! You have simply failed to understand, Anirban Kolkata! High quality sources by modern scholars have been used here which interprets the Upapuranas, the Upapuranas have not been cited. Vedas, Mahabharata, etc are not accepted by us, and several editors trying to cite the same (even after warnings) have been blocked from editing. Ekdalian (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Bold

The Upapuranas played a significant role in the history of Bengal: they propagated and established Brahminic ideals in the hitherto-impure fringes of Aryavarta and accommodated elements of the vernacular culture to gain acceptance among masses. In the process, they became evidence of sociocultural negotiations that transpired in late-medieval Bengal.

Bṛhaddharma Puraṇa (Brh. P.; c. 13th century) was the earliest document to chronicle a hierarchy of castes in Bengal and it became the standard text for popular negotiations of caste status. It mentioned the Baidyas as a occupational caste, equivalent to the Ambasthas, deriving from a famous mythical episode where Brahmins had them ordained to be the highest of Shudras and conferred a monopoly to practice Ayurveda. In contrast, the Brahma Vaivarta Purana (Bv. P.) —notable for a very late Bengali recension (c. 14/15th c.)— treats the Baidyas as separate to Ambasthas but notes both to be Satsudras.

THIS IS A PART OF THE BAIDYA ARTICLE CURRENTLY PUBLISHED IN WIKIPEDIA. IT IS CLEARLY STATING ABOUT TWO PURANAS WHICH ARE OF MEDIEVAL BENGAL ORIGIN THAT HAS BEEN RE-WRITTEN BY BENGALI "PUNDITS" SUSPECTED TO HAVE BIASED MINDSET TOWARDS THE VAIDYA COMMUNITY.

I THINK THE CHATURVEDAS OF THE RISHIS ARE FAR BETTER SOURCES THAN THESE TAMPERED PURANAS EKDALIAN :-)

Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you fear the truth Ekdalian. I will consult with the highest editorial board of Wikipedia regarding this. Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I AM GOING FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION EKDALIAN AS ADVISED BY ARNOLD REINHOLD SIR. SEE YOU THERE :-) Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about our policies, Anirban Kolkata! Unlike you, I am not here to promote any caste, I edit hundreds of caste related articles for years! And, please note that I am not the main architect of this current version! Wikipedia will continue to maintain the standard irrespective of the views of WP:SPAs! Ekdalian (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution process started. Thanks Arnold Sir. Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I can provide Govt. of India website where the views of Sayanacharya establishing Vaidyas as Brahmin is clearly there from Vedic shlokas. Sayanacharya is that ancient Indian Vedic scholar who has been followed by all modern Western Vedic scholars like HH Wilson. Wikipedia is that reliable, verifiable source ? Anirban Kolkata (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess you have posted in the wrong page, not the DRN (rather the talk page), Anirban Kolkata!

@TrangaBellam, LukeEmily, and Satnam2408: you may enlighten this new user if you want to! Pinging these editors since this represents the last consensus version! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey Anirban Kolkata , please understand the Vedas, Puranas and related sources generally fall under the primary source category. These sources can not be accepted as reliable until duly interpreted by some modern scholars. Those sources which refer to and analyse the contents of primary sources are secondary sources. We consider these secondary sources for such caste-related articles. The secondary sources should also be of good quality. Please note original research or your interpretation is strictly prohibited in Wikipedia. Hence Ekdalian is correct. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC).

Hello Mr Abhishek Sengupta 24, I have posted my Veda primary and secondary source in the Dispute Resolution page. Hope Transporter Man sir will mediate between me and Ekdalian soon. Thanks Satnam for atleast accepting the koulinno of Vedas :-) Anirban Kolkata (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Anirban Kolkata, I was pinged here. We cannot use primary sources directly. Ekdalian and Satnam2408 have explained it very well. If you have a modern interpretation (not just literal translation) by a scholar, please can you quote it? Second, the Baidyas(or Vaidyas) did not exist as a caste in the Vedic times. If you are saying the ancestors of present day Baidyas could have been Brahmins, maybe that is true IMHO given their high literacy and knowledge of Sanskrit - but we need reliable sources for such opinions.LukeEmily (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Mr Emily, I have stated my primary and secondary Vedic source of Baidyas being Brahmins in the Dispute Resolution page of Transporter Man. The Bengali Baidyas are actually linked to the North Indian Vaids. As a political election is going to take place in my state West Bengal, I will continue my work here after 11th July, 2023. Thankyou. Anirban Kolkata (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes Mr Anirban Sengupta you are right. Joaquinreal (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Vedic Vaidyas may or may not be Brahmins but Bengali Baidyas represent a distinct caste (varna status is disputed)

Hey Anirban Kolkata, this section is basically meant for you! You seem to be so much engrossed, desperately trying to promote the caste that you have forgotten that Vedic Vaidyas and Bengali Baidyas are not the same! Anyway, Vedas are not allowed to be cited here (primary source, already explained); but even if we could find proper interpretation of the Vedas by a modern reliable author, it would not be applicable for Bengali Baidyas! The Bengali Baidya represents a distinct caste, which was initially a professional group like the Kayastha and possibly recognized as a full-fledged caste during the Senas, as per reliable sources. It has got nothing to do with the Vedic Vaidyas! Hope you understand that the Vedic society was completely different from the medieval society and this article clearly represents the Baidya caste of Bengal, the only region where this professional group went on to form a distinct caste, thanks to the peculiar systems introduced by the orthodox Senas! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well Ekdalian, My personal ritualistic surname is SenSharma and according to Bhavishya Purana, Sensharma or Sharma is the first Brahmin surname. You can easily find this out in Google. There is no difference between Vedic Vaidyas and Bengali Baidya Brahmin caste. The only difference is that Vedic Vaidyas lived in Aryavarta/Brahmavarta and Bengali Vaidyas lived in Bengal ( Patitbhumi, outside Aryavarta.) Caste history is best known by the members of the caste, not by outsiders. Baidya Brahmins are linked to the Saraswat Mohyal Brahmins of Punjab, and I can give you multiple evidence of that, if you can accept it. The Sidhha Vaidyas had migrated from Ambastha (ancient Punjab) to Bengal. Veda was mainly written in the Saraswati river region. Thus this is the clear proof that Sen Brahmin like myself is clearly linked with Vedic people.My ancestry is from North India.

As far as Sen kings are concerned, they are a mysterious and controversial lot. Many people claim that Kulinism was started by them, but that is disputed. Kulin Brahmin theories regarding origin from Kanauj/Kanyakubja and the other myths are also disputed by modern historians. So the caste system formed by Sen kings is actually a disputed subject.

BEING A LAWYER OF HON. CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, I HAVE DECIDED TO CONTINUE MY WORK IN THIS SITE AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE WEST BENGAL PANCHAYAT ELECTIONS ARE DECLARED ON 11TH JULY, 2023. THIS IS BEING DONE FOR THE GREATER INTEREST OF THE SOCIETY OF WEST BENGAL. I HOPE EVERYBODY WILL UNDERSTAND. THANKS. Anirban Kolkata (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Anirban_Kolkata, your surname SenSharma hardly means anything! Anyone can change their surname, you must be aware as a legal professional! As per reliable sources, most of the Baidyas appended either Gupta (in order to claim Vaishya status) or Sharma (in order to claim Brahmin status) during the medieval/late medieval period; and thus Sen became Sengupta or SenSharma! You have not yet come up with any reliable source, and all your narratives are oral, typically what we hear from our Baidya friends and families! We all know that the Baidyas (in spite of being a great community in terms of education and qualities) have literally left no stone unturned in order to claim Brahmin status through centuries, but failed! Therefore, no one believes in your narratives, which are mostly fabricated ones promoted by a part of the Baidya community! We only believe in reliable sources and fortunately we have plenty of them. If you are serious, please avoid your original research (WP:OR), and bring reliable sources (supporting your claims) here.

I shall no longer participate in such discussions unless you provide reliable sources, as per our policies. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Joaquinreal (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2023

Many Baidyas didn't give up their right to wear the sacred thread after those pseudo purans. Please add that. Joaquinreal (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Add this information "But in places like Srikhanda in Burdwan district and Senbhum in Manbhum district , the Vaidyas continued to practise the usages of the Brahmanas in as much as the right of wearing sacred thread was not given up" after the line "Nripendra Kumar Dutt held these Upapuranas as tools for Brahmin law-makers to deprive Vaidyas of its mixed-caste privileges such as a sacred thread." Joaquinreal (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

source : https://www.scribd.com/document/368079149/Vaidyas-of-Bengal-Modified Joaquinreal (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Joaquinreal, this is not a typical "change X to Y" sort of modification. You want to add a statement to this WP:STABLE version, and such changes require discussion and WP:CONSENSUS among editors! Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Mr Ekdalian how to apply for it? Joaquinreal (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this your only source? In that case, you need to find reliable & verifiable source(s) by modern reliable authors and typically published by reputed publisher(s); the source cited above won't be considered as reliable! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Mr Raibatak Sen Gupta is a professor, why he is not reliable? Joaquinreal (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Where? I mean which institution/University? And more importantly, which subject? Which publisher has published his work, which seems to glorify his own community! Please note that this is a contentious topic! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I searched a bit about him but couldn't find anything about him, I guess he is not that famous. Can I use a source which is already present in this page? Joaquinreal (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have already mentioned about consensus; anyway, you may place your request here citing an existing source. Ekdalian (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

A sention of Brahmins tried to reduce the status of Baidyas by using these puranas and mythical stories. But many Baidyas still didn't give up their Brahminical rights. Please add that. Joaquinreal (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Why I can't edit this article? there is a lock sign. Joaquinreal (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Provide source details including page number, url and quote. The article is blocked from editing in order to prevent vandalism! Ekdalian (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

link - https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.124919/page/n80/mode/1up?view=theater

quote - "But in places like Srikhanda in Burdwan district and Senbhum in Manbhum district the Vaidyas did not give up the right of wearing the sacred thread." Joaquinreal (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We can close this semi-protected edit request now; and as a user, you may start a new topic with an appropriate name, say 'Addition of related content', where you can share the details mentioned above & request for consideration of the same. Ekdalian (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

ok, I will copy and paste this. Joaquinreal (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Addition of related content

Discussion initiated by sock of Nobita456

Please add this information "But in places like Srikhanda in Burdwan district and Senbhum in Manbhum district the Vaidyas did not give up the right of wearing the sacred thread." Source link - https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.124919/page/n80/mode/1up?view=theater Joaquinreal (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Hey Joaquinreal, I don't think, achieving consensus would be easy! I guess Nobita (an user blocked for POV pushing) had raised this, (though I am not sure) but couldn't achieve consensus! Regarding another such proposal (a different one), TrangaBellam had opposed and I quote them: "The current version is fine. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)" "The constant acrobatics to insert every bit of POV from every source without regards for lucidity and flow needs to stop. We are not drafting a legal note and it is getting boring. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)". I am still pinging the main contributors for their opinion/concern, if any. @TrangaBellam, LukeEmily, and Satnam2408: you may please share your opinion on this! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This is history, please add this. Joaquinreal (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Hi @Joaquinreal and Ekdalian:, since it is well-sourced and the source is scholarly and reliable, I am OK with adding the statement to the article. My understanding here is limited but if I am understanding the source correctly, it seems that the Brahmins in Bengal decided to follow a binary(Shudra/Brahmin) system in the 15th century (for whatever reason), and wrote scriptures to support it. Then the non-Brahmin castes in Bengal that were wearing sacred thread at the time complied to this new rule but some Baidyas refused to comply. Seems Ok to add it IMHO. Please wait for response from Satnam2408 and TrangaBellam(who has mostly written this article). I have no objection to its addition. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks LukeEmily! Will wait for the opinion of TrangaBellam and Satnam2408! Ekdalian (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Hey, Ekdalian and Joaquinreal I completely agree with Luke Emily. According to sources These Shrikhandi and other relevant vaidyas are those from whom spiritual leaders, philosophers and teachers have come. Regarding sacred thread initiation, it is said that these Vaidyas never give up their thread however some sources are silent about this. Let me present some sources, Dutta has mentioned this. Apart from him Shankar Sengupta also has mentioned this ---- It is difficult to say when this professional group was developed into a caste. Even now a Vaidya caste, as we find it in Bengal, cannot be found out in upper India. There is no reference to Vaidya as a caste in Bengal before the 12th century A.D. The Kulajis refer to Adisura both as Ambastha and Vaidya and also regard Sena Kings as Vaidyas. But the texts in which these views are expressed can hardly claim much historical value. The Brihaddharma Purana treats the terms Vaidya and Ambastha as synonymous (Uttara XIV, 41) and directs the Vaidyas to observe the duties of a Sudra (Sudradharman) (Uttara. XIV. 44). Attempts were made by a section of Brahmana legislators to reduce the status of the Vaidyas and make them Sudras on the plea that in the Kali age, there would be only two varnas, Brahmana and Sudra. The Vaidya genealogist Bharata Mallika in the 17th century and the Vaidya leader Raja Rajballava in the 18th century claimed themselves as Ambasthas and practised their rites and usages. But in places like Srikhanda in Burdwan district and Senbhum in Manbhum district, the Vaidyas continued to practise the usages of the Brahmanas in as much as the right of wearing sacred thread was not given up. — Gupta, Sankar Sen (1970). A Study of Women of Bengal. Indian Publications. p. 14. . According R.C Majumdar (As cited by Nobita once) Rajballabh was also a great social reformer. In his days the section of the Vaidya community to which he belonged did not wear the sacred thread. At enormous cost he assembled the Brahman Pandits from different parts of India, and after a great deal of discussion they recorded their opinion in writing admitting the right of the Vaidyas to use the sacred thread, a right which they still maintain. — Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra (1947). Maharaja Rajballabh: A Critical Study Based on Contemporary Records. University of Calcutta. p. 90. According to Bhaumik The Baidyas had been referred in the Brahmanical texts like Ushana and Yajnabalka as offspring of a Brahmin father and a legally married Vaisya mother. Apart from these sacred texts, which assigned to them a very high origin, there arose a strong consideration in favour of their social status from their name, character and occupation which gave a fairly accurate clue to their caste and establish their precedence over the Kshatriyas. The words "Brahmin" and "Baidya" came from the Sanskrit roots signifying knowledge, whereas the word Kshatriya by its derivation simply gave an idea of physical force. As the names implies, the function of a Brahmin or a Baidya was evidently to cultivate knowledge, while that of a Kshatriya was to cultivate valour. In course of time, Brahmins who were the sole repositories of all kinds of knowledge found it rather expedient to divide labour amongst themselves and to delegate to the Baidyas, who were evidently regarded as one of their branches and were considered to be fit recipients of sacred knowledge, the function of studying the sacred science of medicine called Ayurveda and of teaching and explaining the same to others. As there were however no Kshatriyas in Bengal and as the Rajputs claimed to be the modern representatives of the Kshatriyas of classical tradition it is necessary to compare them with the Rajputs of the Bengal presidency. The Baidyas of Sreekhanda and some other places stand as spiritual guides to a large number of respectable Brahmins, occupying a high social position amongst the Brahmin community. According to Risley, Baidyas did not employ themselves in any menial services, "whereas the Rajputs used to plough and milk cows with their own hands." The Baidyas however observed the full Upananaya ceremony and also observed marriage ceremony like that of Brahmins. — Bhaumik, Sudarshana (2022-08-26). The Changing World of Caste and Hierarchy in Bengal: Depiction from the Mangalkavyas c. 1700–1931. Taylor & Francis. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-000-64143-1. . I think the relevant information can be included in the interpretation section of Puranas with Dutta by attributing it to any of the given sources of an anthropologist or historians. Thanks. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Mr Satnam how to get this book of Bhaumik? Joaquinreal (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Wow the article also unlocked, thanks Mr admin Ekdalian for unlocking the article. Joaquinreal (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Mr Ekdalian please rewrite those lines, I don't see anyone made any objections regarding that information. Joaquinreal (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Mr satnam please give me the purchase link of that book of Bhaumik, tq. Joaquinreal (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Preview available here.Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Bought it, thanks. Joaquinreal (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Mr Ekdalian, Satnam, LukeEmily can I now edit? I think we don't have any objection. Joaquinreal (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Hey Joaquinreal, haven't you read what our knowledgeable admin Abecedare has mentioned on their talk page? @TrangaBellam: pinging TB once again for their opinion! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Mr Abecedare told me to go through sources and summarize them. Sengupta(1970) sumarized Baidyas quite well but he also mentioned about some Baidyas who didn't give up their Brahminical rituals. This thing is missing from this article. That is why I ask for consensus. Mr LukeEmily and Satnam didn't object my information, thats why I am asking again, what is the problem? I don't see anyone turned down my information. Joaquinreal (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Why do you seem desperate? Why are you restless when it comes to improving an article; as rightly mentioned on their talk page, Abecedare also stressed on the quality of improvement which may go through a slow process of achieving consensus! Let's wait for TB. Ekdalian (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Mr Ekdalian please don't revert my last edit. Regarding sacred thread I will wait for Mr TrangaBellam. But my last edit is well sourced and written by a modern scholar as advised by Abecedare. Let other editors and admin Abecedare revert it if they find it controversial. Joaquinreal (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Joaquinreal, you are not supposed to dictate me! I shall act in the best interest of Wikipedia. Wait for TB. Ekdalian (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC) My friend Ekdalian I am not dictating you, just requesting you. You made 5k+ edits, I respect you for your large contributions. Joaquinreal (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Hey Joaquinreal Please understand Wikipedia primarily works on the general principle consensus (Please see in detail here). Every contributor's views and advice are equally important. So it is better to wait for a consensus to achieve. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks Satnam, I will not edit anything without consensus from now. Joaquinreal (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC) @Joaquinreal: This edit was not a good idea and I have reverted it to prevent another disruptive edit-revert cycle,. Since the topic is already being discussed, please propose the specific change you wish to make on the talkpage (as in "Any comments or objections to adding "Lorem ipsum dolor...1 at _ place in the article?") and give other involved editors an opportunity to provide feedback or to propose modifications, before implementing the change that is agreed upon. Unilaterally determining that the one's proposal is "well sourced and written" is not helpful. To be clear: I am not commenting on the substance of the particular edit but to the rushed process. Abecedare (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Caste status and contestations section

@Satnam2408: and @Ekdalian:, please let me know if you think this is ok.

Original: (mentions Sudra 4 times)

The Vallal Charita of Ānanda Bhaṭṭa classed the Baidyas among Satsudras, of whom Kayasthas were held to be the highest. The Chandimangal of Mukundaram Chakrabarti (c. mid 16th century CE) placed the Baidyas below Vaisyas but above Kayasthas, again indicating a Sudra status. Works by Raghunandana (c. mid 16th century) also hold Baidyas to be Sudras. In 1653 C.E., Ramakanta Das wrote the oldest available Baidya kulanji — Sadvaidyakulapnjika. A few years later, Bharatamallika would write Chandraprabha (1675 C.E.), and Ratnaprabha, a summary of the former text. Bharata claimed a mixed-caste/Vaishya status for the Baidyas whereas Das skipped such discussions. In the Caitanya Caritāmṛta of Baidya Krishnadasa Kaviraja, one Candrasekhara is variably referred to as a Baidya and a Sudra.

Suggested:(small step) - mentions sudra only once

Scriptures from Bengal vary over the varna classification of Baidyas. The Vallal Charita of Ānanda Bhaṭṭa and the Chandimangal of Mukundaram Chakrabarti (c. mid 16th century CE) classed the Bengali Baidyas and Bengali Kayasthas among Satsudras however the relative ranking of these two castes varies. The former places the Kayastha higher but the latter places the Baidyas higher. The other scriptures indicating similar varna for the Baidyas are works by Raghunandana (c. mid 16th century), Caitanya Caritāmṛta of Baidya Krishnadasa Kaviraja. Bharatamallika, in Chandraprabha (1675 C.E.), and Ratnaprabha, a summary of the former text claims a mixed-caste/Vaishya status for the Baidyas. In 1653 C.E., Ramakanta Das wrote the oldest available Baidya kulanji — Sadvaidyakulapnjika which skips varna discussions.

LukeEmily (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Copy paste the current version in your sandbox; install the proposed edits; and, provide a diff for easy comparison. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey TrangaBellam your response amidst your busy schedule is truly admirable. Hey LukeEmily Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude for the initiative you have taken. Your writing is accurate and effectively elucidates the situation. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey TrangaBellam, LukeEmily and Ekdalian

I would like to provide you with some essential information regarding Candrashekhar (mentioned in Caitanya Caritāmṛta of Baidya Krishnadasa Kaviraja) which I believe is of your interest. According to Majumdar —

ইহার অর্থ সম্ভবত এই যে কোন কোন বৈদ্য ঔষধের অর্থাৎ বটিকা সেবনের ব্যবস্থা করিতেন, আবার কেহ কেহ ঝাড়ফুঁক তন্ত্রমন্ত্রের সাহায্যে ব্যাধির উপশম করিতেন। রোগ কঠিন দেখিলে বৈদ্যরা রোগীর বাড়ী হইতে নানা ছলে পলাইতেন। চিকিৎসা বৈদ্যদের প্রধান বৃত্তি হইলেও অন্যান্য শাস্ত্রেও তাহাদের পারদর্শিতা ছিল। বৈষ্ণবগ্রন্থে চৈতন্যের ভক্ত বৈদ্য চন্দ্রশেখরকে ব্রাহ্মণ বলা হইয়াছে এবং বৈদ্যজাতীয় পুরুষোত্তম "হরিভক্তি তত্বসার সংগ্রহ" গ্রন্থের উপ-সংহারে নিজে শর্মা উপাধি ব্যবহার করিয়াছেন।
— Majumdar, R. C.(1966). Bangla Desher Itihas Vol-2. General printers and publishers private limited. pp. 298(২৯৮)

Here is the translation–

trans. It can be inferred that medicinal remedies, commonly known as botika, were once administered, alongside the application of tantra mantra for disease relief. If the disease was severe, the Vaidya would run away from the patient's house under various pretenses. While their primary vocation was in medicine, they possessed expertise in other fields as well. In Vaishnava texts, Vaidya Chandrasekhara, a devout follower of Caitanya, is recognized as a Brahmin, and Vaidyajatiya Purushottam himself assumes the title of Sharma in the concluding chapter of the 'Haribhakti Tattvasar Sangraha'. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess, TB has mentioned more precisely, what I tried to mention earlier regarding the diffs; the point is, diffs are really important before initiating any change! Satnam2408 may proceed in that direction. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if LukeEmily could consider undertaking the task. I will proceed based on my own judgment and methods on different section. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Satnam2408, your statement implies that you do not agree with the consensus regarding the diffs! You can always request LukeEmily or any other editor to take it up, but your last statement is confusing! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel a sense of shame regarding these mistakes that were made, however, I assure you that they were completely unintentional. Let me emphasize that I have complete trust in the consensus. I mean to say, I will edit any other section to the best of my ability. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam, Ekdalian, and Satnam2408:, here is the diff for the section above. To the best of my knowledge, I have not removed any major information nor changed any meaning. If I did, it was completely unintentional. It is simply a jugglery of words to reduce unnecessary repetition of the Sudra word. I want to emphasize that TB has written an excellent article with all due/relevant information andthe article is written with exceptional clarity. These changes are not really necessary but more of a preference. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, TrangaBellam and Ekdalian What LukeEmily has written is remarkably coherent. However, given the subject of caste contention that we are discussing, it is worth noting that Chandra Shekhar is referred to as a Brahmin in certain Vaishnava texts. I express my gratitude for your contribution. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Satnam2408:, Sorry, I did not know about the Brahmin mention. I only re-worded the current content of the section. We could add the source for the Brahmin mention and modify the section appropriately once we get consensus from TrangaBellam and Ekdalian.LukeEmily (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I am okay with LukeEmily's version! Thanks LukeEmily for your time and effort. Ekdalian (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Ekdalian, TrangaBellam Could I kindly solicit your advice pertaining to Chandra Sekhar in light of our ongoing discourse on the subject of caste conflict? An inclusion of Majumdar's publication alongside his corresponding citations can be found earlier in this discussion. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing, since the author says that Baidya Chandrasekhara is considered as a Brahmin in Vaishnava texts! The author is still considering him as Baidya, therefore I am not sure about it! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Hopefully TrangaBellam or LukeEmily won't have trouble understanding this, whereas this part is about the varna status of the Vaidya caste. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If I am understanding it correctly, it means that the varna of Baidya Chandrasekhara was Brahmin according to some scriptures but a Sudra according to one scripture mentioned in the article. IMHO, we could add both views if all editors agree. LukeEmily (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I shall wait for TB's response on LukeEmily's version before discussing further. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should consider our true purpose at this moment. Any addition of things under NPOV or concerns regarding the article can be discussed later. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, let us wait for TB's response first and discuss this concern later.LukeEmily (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I will incorporate a copyedit to the proposed effects (but not precisely LE's draft) in a couple of days. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

TB, the section in the draft is Baidya#Caste status and contestations on the main page. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Written records query

We say Sedentary agrarian societies had formed in western regions of Bengal by c. 1000 BCE. The growth of states were roughly simultaneous with the rise of the Gupta Empire and by then, cultural contacts with North India were gradually flourishing. Written records predating the Guptas do not survive.

I don't think the last sentence is needed but I am curious: since the Guptas were around 400-500 BCE & there are no written records from before them, how do researchers conclude what they do about 1000 BCE? Archaeology for that period is likely to be very fragmentary & difficult to date. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hena Basu

Currently present as citation #39, the Hena Basu source might fail WP:SPS. Can anyone confirm/deny? - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush:, Hena Basu is the director of "Basu Research & Documentation Service"(publisher) and her employment status is "self-employed" on linkedin. So WP:SPS may apply. That being said, her name occurs in several scholarly books (if you search google books for Hena Basu). Should we remove the source as per WP:SPS? Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@LukeEmily Thanks. Yes, I think the citation will have to go. One reason why even a respected academic might self-publish is because they have a pet theory which they know would not pass peer review. It's rare but does happen, and peer review/editorial oversight is an important aspect of WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Citing

It looks like there may be a lot of overciting in this article. Unless a statement is known to be controversial/extraordinary, only one source is required. I suspect that there are also far more footnotes than strictly necessary. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Blame me. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam It isn't a blame game, no worries. I've just made a few edits to show some obvious examples (where a single source is cited for consecutive statements) but I'm actually more concerned about possible refbombing, which is harder to fix. Refbombing being where multiple sources are cited for an uncontroversial statement. It just makes it a so much harder read, adding unnecessary complexity. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Sitush, I have searched but am not able to find any specific essay on the rules about the footnotes section regarding a caste article. May I request you to take a look at the footnotes section of the article, describing mythical storeys in the Upapurana section? I know the section is not the primary readable one, but it is accessible to readers. My concern is about the stories or myths described in the footnotes and the repeated labeling of 'Shudras' there (mentioned once in the main article in the Upapurana section), which is further increased due to repetitions. I think we should use these scriptures only for the description of Varna status; the stories have some trenchant wordings, such as 'forbidden union', illegitimate son', etc too. Btw IMHO this is one of the best caste articles created by TrangaBellam and LukeEmily mainly with a good quality of sources. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408 The footnotes are distracting and often tangential. No article should need so many explanations formed as "asides" to the main text. There are more footnotes for this short article than in many chapters of academic books etc. Something isn't right. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Remember our version, Sitush; short & simple! Shudra was mentioned only once, and the version was here for years! This is obviously a much better version with lots of information, thanks to TB; I agree, something needs to be done as far as the voluminous footnotes are concerned. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

My suspicion is that much of this article would be better suited in something like Historical development of the caste system in Bengal. There are huge chunks related to Brahmins, varna etc which are very interesting and well researched but drift somewhat from what should be the main focus of this article. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

True indeed! Good suggestion. Ekdalian (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• So far, good excision of footnotes except this. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  @TrangaBellam the diffyou give above doesn't seem to work in the mobile app, which has more bugs than an old mattress. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Ambastha Connection

Hey Sitush, actually the Brihaddharma Purana doesn't mention the Baidya caste, but it does mention a caste group called Ambasthas which were synonymous with the Baidya due to their profession. However, the Brahmavaibarta Purana separates these two and gives different origins. This is the contrast as mentioned in the Upapurana section.

I have created a draft for the section and also presented it during the talk (in the upper section where the discussion is taking place) to reduce repetition of the term 'Shudra' like this -

"The Brihadharma Purana, which is the earliest document to chronicle, does not mention Vaidya as a separate caste but identifies the Ambasthas as the clan born of a Brahmin father and a Vaishya mother who were considered equivalent to Vaidyas due to their profession as physicians. The Brahmavaivarta Purana, notable for a very late Bengali recession, separates Ambastha from Vaidya and describes Vaidya as being begotten by a Brahmin woman and Ashwini Kumara, the healing deity of the Gods. In any case, the Vaidyas were branded as Sat-Shudras according to the tradition of Bengal, where only two varnas existed.", Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408 Ah, I see. I will remove the tag & let you all sort it out. NB: I realise that there might be unavoidable exceptions but as a general rule we should write Baidya rather than Vaidya - we try to stay consistent with spellings & we follow the article title. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I am fortunate to have the opportunity to receive guidance from you. Rest assured, I will certainly change the term 'Vaidya' to 'Baidya.' Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, TrangaBellam and LukeEmily Do you agree with this? I Beg your pardon for the mobile version. Thanks. Regards,Satnam2408 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Satnam2408, don't you think I am an involved editor in this article? I am an integral part of this consensus version; this is not acceptable in a collegial editing environment!! Ekdalian (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

... Says one of the people who repeatedly invoked my name without letting me know at Talk:Bengali Kayastha! Just go with the flow: you know now, life is short, we all mess up sometimes. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, fine! Ekdalian (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush: I didn't ping you since Flower&Flower had mentioned somewhere that you were not well and we should not ping & disturb you; I honestly had no other intention! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Ekdalian Please forgive me. This is the similar version you already have approved. You might have missed it. But if I have hurt you in any way, unintentionally, please forgive me if you can. Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Sitush Please forgive me. They have already approved it , Please see the diff. I have just inserted that version with in the current one. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC).

It's okay, it happens, Satnam2408! After all, we are human beings! Oh, yes, I have already approved a similar draft! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Majumdar et al - History of Bengal

I think Majumdar was a Baidya and History of Bengal was published in 1943, which falls foul of WP:RAJ / WP:HISTRS and numerous discussions at WP:RSN. I know he has a stellar reputation, like Sarkar, but historians writing 80 years ago are fairly unlikely to cut mustard today. Even if they're still relevant, it would be unusual for a more recent source not to have made the same point.

I think that source needs to be replaced or removed. Replaced where it is the only one cited; removed if it is part of a refbombing exercise. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I suspected this; you are right Sitush. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why this source is being used. A later edition of Majumdar is available. I have used that edition in other articles.

This is the source -

MAJUMDAR, R. C. (1971). HISTORY OF ANCIENT BENGAL. G. BHARADWAJ , CALCUTTA. pp. 435–437.

Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408 Assuming that the 1971 book actually supports at least some of the statements for which we are using the 1943 one, will you have time/inclination to adjust the article? - Sitush (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes certainly I will try. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Sitush I have replaced the previous edition of Majumdar with the later one. I forgot about this part The origins of Baidyas remain surrounded by a wide variety of overlapping and sometimes contradictory myths and are heavily contested. Aside from Upapuranas and two genealogies (Kulajis), premodern Bengali literature does not discuss details of the caste's origins, nor does literature from outside the region. Majumdar didn't say it, he claimed this - The Vaidya as a caste-name does not occur in the old and genuine Smritis, The Usanas Smriti refers to a caste called Bhishak (physician) born of illicit union between Brahmana male and Kshatriya female, and designates it as Vaidyaka I asked TrangaBellam and their answer was this. I think we need a source that explicitly mentions such information nor does literature from outside the region to avoid WP:SYN and WP:OR. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408 We definitely need a source for it. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Too many Sudra remarks

Hey TrangaBellam, LukeEmily, and Ekdalian I am initiating this discussion to find ways to reduce the too much Shudra labelling. I agree with LukeEmily. The shudra labelling is used more here than in any other caste-related articles, related to Bengal. We can try to reduce these trenchant labellings by summarizing it better way without compromising quality. Further, It should also be noted that there are huge inconsistencies between these two Puranas regarding Baidya and are highly contested among scholars. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree; can you or LukeEmily suggest some ways? Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

We would try our best to find a middle path. I am waiting for LukeEmily for their proposals; They have a profound knowledge of editing other cast-related articles too. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, too much mention of Shudra in the article. Probably, the article on WP that has more mention of the word Shudra is the Shudra article itself. In my opinion, as the first step, we can add a section "Baidya as per scriptures of Bengal" and move most of the scripture related information there. As a second step, instead of having two or three sentences all which mention their varna in different places as per different scriptures, it would be better to combine them into a single sentence. Frankly, it will be a little difficult to do all this as it may break the flow of the article. Ideally, if TB agrees, it would be best if they do it. But if they cannot, I think we should get a "no objection" from TB or Sitush before we start any major changes. We can all contribute to a draft on the talk page first. If we simply rearrange so as to remove multiple mentions of Shudra without removing any information as such, then most other senior editors may not have objections. LukeEmily (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with LukeEmily. We can try to reduce shudra repetition as well as can do summarization, For example, The Purana portion can be written like this

The Brihadharma Purana, which is the earliest document to chronicle, doesn't mention Vaidya as a caste separately but identifies the Ambasthas as the clan born of a Vaishya mother and a Brahmin father who were known as Vaidyas for their profession as physicians. The Brahmavaivarta Purana, notable for a very late Bengali recession, separates Amabastha from Vaidya and describes Vaidya as being begotten by a Brahmin woman and Ashwini Kumara, the healing deity of Gods. In any case, the Vaidyas were branded as Sat-Shudras. It is worth noting that there were only two Varnas among the Hindus in Bengal: Brahmins and Shudras. Here I have reduced shudra repetition by one. In this way, we can proceed. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! I agree this would be the best way to proceed. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an example by only taking two Puranas, but as LukeEmily probably states, all literary sources will be enlisted within the Scriptures of Bengal category after discussion and achieving consensus. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey TrangaBellam, LukeEmily and Ekdalian I have tried only the Scripture section as guided by LukeEmily. May I request you to check it?. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408: please share the draft link here! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry in hurry I have forgotten to give link. Here is the link. I believe some deletion or addition can be done upon consultation. Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand that our article (relevant part) and your draft are essentially the same; you have tried to reduce the number of times the term 'Shudra' is mentioned, as suggested by LukeEmily. I have no objection provided there's no loss of information. Rest, let's wait for LukeEmily and TB. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add that once consensus is achieved, the article should be edited IMHO so that we don't miss any existing content! The draft should not ideally replace the part; rather, incremental edits will help us fetch the diffs easily & validate the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. It's just a sample for adding or removing content from the article. There is further room for addition or removal in the draft. There are some shudra labels in the medieval section as well, which can also be summarized without reducing the quality.Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I think We should not disturb TrangaBellam any further as they are busy editing another article. I have pinged them multiple times and have also communicated with them on their talk page. We can proceed based on the consensus of LukeEmily. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408 and Ekdalian:, I think lets focus the article section by section. TB may not have any objection as long as we don't remove information. We should take very small steps so that no information is lost since both TB and Sitush have reviewed the present version and Sitush did not have any major objections. Tomorrow, I can give an example on the talk page about the kind of changes I had in mind. Also, need to refresh my memory with what Sitush and TB said in early 2022 in their discussion about this article.LukeEmily (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408, Ekdalian, and CharlesWain:, please see suggestion by Sitush here. If we follow his suggestion, we will automatically get rid of the excessive shudra mentions on the page. Basically, a lot of religious scripture stuff will be copied to the new page and all the excessive shudra references can be removed from the Baidya page. It is much easier than rephrasing and rewording sections.LukeEmily (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, LukeEmily. Let's follow Sitush's directions. By the way, you are always accurate in providing suggestions and editing the articles. Thanks for that. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, LukeEmily! Let's ping Sitush and TrangaBellam. Ekdalian (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush: please share your opinion! LukeEmily, let's wait for Sitush, but you may suggest how we can achieve consensus (may be a draft?)! It would have been great if TB got involved, but she seems to be less active on this page nowadays! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Famous Baidyas

Amartya Sen, Konkona Sen Sharma, Suchitra Sen, Sushmita Sen 94.209.101.120 (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hena Basu (2)

Basu is a popular name among academics who work on the social history of Bengal. Her bibliography guides and referencing services have helped countless scholars including Chris Bayly, Jeffrey Kripal, Rachel McDermott, Brian Pennington, John Hawley, Hugh Urban, Tony Stewart, and others.

The particular catalog I cite is referred to by Haag (2012) as an admirable "compilation of Bengali chronicles and pamphlets on caste." And, I am not making an exceptional/controversial claim either. So, there's nothing to gain by purging the citation invoking SPS. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)