India: West Bengal Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in March 2012.

Ethnic groups Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

None of the references are true!?The only information that is substantiated and know to all is that Brahmin and the Brahminetar Kayastha and Vaidya flocked together to form the upper crust of Brahminical society.Do north Indian Guptas have anything common with Bengali Guptas.Why many of them do not use the Gupta part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.199.141 (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add this information to the article, just provide a reliable citation that supports the information. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 21:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ekdalian again doing his dirty work. please go through all sources provided by Mr. Abhishek Sengupta. all are from a third-party neutral valid source! why can't accept the fact that vaidyas of Bengal are pure Saraswat brahmins?

Please inform me the procedure of talking as a named contributor. I am providing e-copies of old texts ad other links to support my inputs. Yet they are repeatedly being deleted and a concocted version based on some irrelavant news articles is being restored. I prepared a list of eminent vaidyas but that too was deleted by a user named "Ekdalian". I am trying to make the page truthful and constructive whereas they are deleting my inputs and representing a vague version.Yet I am the one who is being accused for vandalism !!! Even they deleted the fact that vaidyas had the highest literacy in India although I had given the documents proving that. Anyone who is acquainted with Bengali society knows thatt Vaidyas, though forms a separate cluster from priest brahmins, are Brahmins in Varna-status and they perform their rituals as Brahmins. They are called Vaidya-brahmins. Some sheer propaganda is going on here to give a wrong history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.9.64 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may create your login, and discuss as a named user, and sign your posts using 4 '~' signs at the end, as mentioned. I must tell you, you are taking the article personally, which is detrimental to a neutral point of view. By the way, the text cited is by Sengupta, and will not be considered as reliable/neutral by Wikipedia standards, since it is meant for consumption by his own Baidya community. Please go through Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing, especially before editing sensitive articles. Now, please note Wikipedia ensures that articles are based on secondary sources, which must be reliable. You may believe that whatever you are contributing is truth. But the fact is that you need to cite reliable sources, typically books (check those available on Google Books) by reputed authors, which are easily verifiable. You cannot simply cite a website, and obviously not one promoted by the caste itself (which cannot be granted as neutral). If you seriously want to improve this article, please discuss what you would like to add/remove here citing reliable sources, as explained, and we need to agree. If you simply keep on editing the page and reverting sourced information, that will not help, and finally this page may even be protected from editing. You may contribute and add the list of notable 'Baidyas', obviously valid ones, please remember not to name persons having surnames like Kar, Dutt, Roy, Roy Chaudhuri, Das, Mullick, which are commonly used by other castes mainly Kayasthas, unless you can specifically cite sources mentioning them as Baidyas. Also, you may check other similar articles for the conventional format, and follow those. And you may also add information regarding their literacy rate citing reliable source(s).

I have now reverted your removal of sourced information at Baidya quite a number of times. If you have an issue with the statements that are clearly reliably sourced then it is best to discuss them here rather than engage in what can rapidly escalate into an edit war. Certainly, you should not remove/add content, as far as caste information is concerned, without discussions here.

The community have recently imposed sanctions in relation to Indian caste articles etc and I think it wise for you to be aware of them. For this reason, please find below a copy of the notice. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

I think it is illogical to think that one needs to cite an author from a different caste to discuss about a caste. For example, all the discussions about Brahmins are taken from books written by Brahmins (or from authors who cited these books). Rather, I believe, it is often detrimental to truthfulness because he might have a grudge against the concerned community, which was surely the case with Bijoy Chandra Majumdar, who could not cite a single evidence in support of his Vellela hypothesis, either from baidya traditions or from other documented history. So it is unjustified to cite an unproven hypothesis in a general page unless that is the established social norm. If you are acquainted with Bengali society than you will know that all Baidyas perform their rites and rituals as Brahmins, observe 10 days of mourning , use "sharma" surname and wear sacred threads. I can even provide you different "Byabasthapatras" (directive letters)by Brahmin pundits of different area (including that of Late Pandit DakshinaCharan Smrititirtha of Kolikata Pandit Sabha) opining that Baidyas are Brahmins. Still, if you want more references from authors belonging to other castes, I request you to go through " Amar Bikrampur" by Hariananda barori (Ananda Pub.) or "Gane Ramprasad" by Amiyalal Mukhopadhyay. So what I have written is NOT my belief/suggestion (unlike Mr.Majumdar), it is based on old texts (Jaysen Biswas's "Vaidyakula Chandrika" clearly states that vaidyas are "Yajurvedi kanva shakha Saraswat" and even today the vaidyas follow the yajurvedi kanva-shakha rituals), socially and religiously accepted norms and I feel that unwillingness to consider them and giving importance to some particular author is improper.

Moreover, you have wrongly linked the page of "ambastha kayastha" group with this page. The "Ambastha" hypothesis for vaidyas came from the medical profession assigned to the Ambastha clan in Manusamhita in other texts. That Ambastha was the offspring of a Brahmin father and a Vaishya mother (check any standard Hindu text) and hence belonged to the Brahmin varna (note the verse "trishu varneshu jatahi brahmanah brahaman bhavet" by vedavyas in mahabharata, i.e., children of a brahmin from wives belonging to the first three varnas will be a Brahmin). These Ambasthas have no connection with Ambastha kayastha just as Rarhi Brahmins have no connections with Rarhi kayasthas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.4.87 (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vellelas or Vellalrs never functioned as priests or physicians, neither did they study vedas. They are a agricultural landlord clan which claim a yaduvanshi/chandravanshi kshatriya status (search anywhere for vellalars and you will get no account of their performing priesthood or ayurvedic treatment, as Mr. majumdar had claimed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.4.87 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you seem to be logical when you say that it is illogical to think that one needs to cite an author from a different caste. Ideally, it shouldn't be, but caste issues especially those where a caste claims some status, require neutral citations. In this case, the Baidyas have traditionally, through ages, claimed Brahmin status, therefore it would be improper to cite Sengupta, or any article/website promoted by the caste itself. Its good to see that though you have already edited caste related information in the article without discussions here on the talk page, you have at lease learnt how to cite sources. Honestly speaking, if you can cite reliable sources, we would be glad to accept those and improve this article. But see, you are citing sources selectively, like your first source 'The Dharmasutras' clearly states that 'a Brahmin fathers a Brahmin from a Ksatriya wife, an Ambastha from a Vaishya wife', you have purposely chosen the other source by J. Muir to support that offspring from a Brahmin father and Vaishya mother is a Brahmin. This is not only contradictory, but also selective quoting. It is known to all, that Indian caste system is full of fallacies and contraditions, several sources state otherwise. But interestingly, everyone claims Brahmin status, and in case of SCs and OBCs, you will find there exists some folklore relating them to a Brahmin ancestor, though the Brahmins mostly refuse to grant or acknowlege it.

Ambashthas are Ambasthas. I have a fair knowledge about Hindu caste system, and have gone through a lot of texts, infact you are the first one to say that there are Ambashtha Brahmins and Ambashtha Kayasthas. Even the Vaidya Kings seems to have claimed that they are Ambashthas/Vaidyas. And, why should a historian have grudge on a particular community. Bijay Chandra Majumdar, rather seems to glorify their past, including military prowess, etc. He may be right or wrong, as far his hypothesis is concerned, but he has logically tried to trace their origin.

Anyway, I will go through your sources in details, before actually editing (if required) the article. By the way, we all intend to improve the article, and add more valid information (not just caste status) from relaible sources, so you are most welcome to provide such sources, and discuss here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I hope you would realize that the case for vaidyas is pretty much different than the other so-called lower caste communities claiming a higher status. There were no brahiminical tradition associated with them and hence their illogical claim was rightly refuted by Brahmins. But vaidyas have since ages written books in Sanskrit, studied other Brahminical disciplines like Nyay, tarka, vyakaran etc., officiated as "Sabha-pundits' in different kings' courts (including those of Brahmin kings like Bhurisrestha king in Burdwan-Hooghly region), taught Brahmins in "chatuspathis" at a time when it was forbidden for any non-brahmin, held upadhis like Tarkaratna, Shiromoni, Sarbabhuoma, mahamahopadhyay etc. That's why Brahmin Pundits all over Bengal perform vaidyas' rituals as Yajurvedi Brahmins. By the way the terms "ambastha-brahmin' and "ambastha kayastha" are quite well-known and they clearly relate to the place "ambastha" mentioned in mahabharata and in other texts. In old utkalkarika the term "Ambastha-brahmin" was mentioned as well as the in the copperplate of Sen Kings found in madhainagar (which was deciphered by Durganath Devsharma of Pabna). Again Ambastha Kayastha is a well-known sect of kayasthas which derived their name from their ancestral place like other kayastha clans as Srivastava, Mathur, Bhatnagar etc.

−

Now regarding my citing, I could not understand why you termed it as contradictory. I first cited a source showing that Ambasthas are born from brahmin father and vaishya mother and then cited a source to show that they fell in the brahmin varna (likewise Murdhavishikta, being born of a brahmin father and kshatriya mother, also belongs to the brahmin varna). Even there is a verse in "Daybhaga Prakarana" which states that "kshatriyaaymcha ya putro brahmanah sohapyasamshaya sa cha matubirsheshattu trin-angshan hartumarhati || brahmanachhaiba jatastu vaishyayang brahmanascha ya dwirangshastena hartabya brahmanaswad yudhisthira" (i.e., a brahmin born of a brahmin father and kshatriya mother will get three parts of paternal property, and the brahmin born of a brahmin father and a vaishya mother will get two parts of paternal property).117.194.6.246 (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your other statements, whatever I have seen so far is that most of the so-called lower castes claim kshatriya status, not brahmin status. For few low-castes who claim brahmin status like valmikis etc., their folklore might be true having a brahmin ancestor. But going by the verse in mahabharata already cited by me (J. Muir), they are non-brahmins as they were born from Sudra or Non-aryan mother. Mahabharata is obviously authentic and I don't see why one should call it selective posting. that verse is not an interpolation.

Finally, let me give you 2 more inputs . Both of them are from Shivkali Bhattacharya's " Chiranjeevi Banaoushadhi " (Ananda pub.). In the foreward of Vol. 6, Prof. Devipada Bhattacharya has cited a verse from "Charaksamhita" stating that the Vaidya title can only be obtained by a dvija Brahmin and that too when he completes Ayurveda . Secondly, in page 63 in Vol 4. Sri Shivkali writes "pipul nibandher seshe baidyakbrittir adi katha smaran kore bola jay je rishider kaj e chilo arter seva. Se sampraday je aikantikbhabe kebol brahmin srenir e etao sarbata swiakarya. kintu sei rishi sampradayer ekti shreni jakhan jeevika hisebe baidyak kritya ke grahan korlen ebong sanmanik dan dwara binimay banijyer antargata kore ante laglen artha, ar seva dharma ta takhan gouna hoye gie sei chiktsavritti tader jibika hoye dariechilo, sei theke tara baidyak hoyeo ba yajurvediya brahamn hoyeo arthat charakiya shakhar chikitsak ba baidya-brahman hoyeo ekti swatantra sreni te porinoto holen. tobe eta beshi najar pore banglay". i think you are conversant with bengali so I am not translating it (however, if needed, i will). Probably that's why Mukundaram Chakravarti in his "kobikankan chandi" placed baidyas and agradani brahmins together as both their professions were disliked at that time by usual brahmins. 117.194.6.246 (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you first, that there is no comparison between Baidyas and the so called lower castes. Baidyas, along with the Brahmins and Kayasthas truly form the upper layer of the Hindu society in Bengal. And yes, I meant Brahmins and Kshatriyas, the two traditional upper castes, when I said Brahmins, and lower castes mostly associate with Kshatriya lineage. As far as Baidyas are concerned, my personal opinion is that they are brilliant as a community, and equivalent to Brahmins in Bengal in terms of social status. Even if the Brahmins refuse them Brahmin status in Medieval Bengal, that hardly makes any difference. But, when it comes to this article, we need to cite reliable sources as per our policies, and not Mahabharat or the Puranas. And there are hardly any reliable text mentioning Ambashtha Brahmins, even if you find one, it is well known that Baidyas are associated with Ambashtha caste or sub-caste (related to Kayasthas, not Brahmins) as per most caste related reliable texts. Regarding the contradiction, your first source (and similarly other common sources) distinguishes beteen Brahmin father-Kshatriya mother and Brahmin father-Vaishya mother, and calls the former Brahmins and the latter Ambashthas, thus distinguishing beteen the two. The second source classifies them all as Brahmins. That's what I wanted to say. Anyway, I must appreciate your research, keep up the good job! Ekdalian (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for your appreciation. However, Mahabharata is considered as an authentic and reliable source for many fields of ancient Indian life, so something in it cannot be termed unreliable , in my opinion. The term "Mrdhavishikta' is used for a son born of a Brahmin father and a kshatriya mother. Secondly, though there have been enough instances of vaidyas being associated or even termed as Ambasthas, you will nowhere find any association between kayasthas and vaidyas. Ambastha subcaste was specifically assigned the medical profession just as Karana subcaste was assigned the profession of a scribe,( this even led to the term "ambattan" being associated to the barber surgeons in south india) but no such medical tradition was there with the Ambastha kayasthas and it is more or less established that the term Ambastha is regional in their case like Mathur, Srivastava etc.

Anyway I would be happy if you at least mention that they perform their rituals as Brahmins (you can easily check this and this is a state-wide custom) and the opinion of Shivkali Bhattacharya (who along with medicinal studies, was a commentator of Hindu society and religion as well). Regards and thanks again.117.194.0.249 (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.- In the line "kulagranthas of rarhi and barendra brahmins", the word vaidya must be included, as among the texts I had entered the "chandraprabha" is a vaidya kulaji text, written by Bharat Mallik Sen - Sabhapundit of Bhurisrestha rajsabha and a commentator of different Hindu-shaastras.117.194.0.249 (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the article and included Vaidyas among kulagranthas. Mahabharat is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia's sourcing policies are concerned. Your statement 'Ambastha subcaste was specifically assigned the medical profession' can be incorporated if you cite a reliable source, and same for the part that they perform their rituals as Brahmins. It would be easier if you can cite a text available on Google Books and mention the url/link here. Ekdalian (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I must say I am a little surprised that wikipedia policy does not consider Mahabharata as authentic, or a scholar of Shivkali Bhattacharya's repute as authentic. Anyway, for the moment let me provide three links in support of Vaidyas performing rituals in Brahmin customs (It is so well known anyone can easily check it). (1)First is a research article by Dr. G. K. Ghosh and Shukla Ghosh titled "Vaidyas of Bengal and their declining" (presented at social anthropology section of Indian Science Congress, 2005). Here is the url : [[1]] Please check the second paragraph of the 12th page. Although Dr. Ghosh has written that a number of Vaidyas wear sacred thread, actually he has referred to the upanayana at early age. All the vaidyas wear it during marriage if they are not initiated before. (2) Check this book "Samar Sen" by Nityapriya Ghosha, it cites such a case where poet Samar Sen took the sacred thread just before the marriage because he had avoided it at his childhood : [[2]] and finally (3) This is the translation of "Pratham pratishruti" by Ashapurna Devi where the reason of vaidyas degradation has been cited with a link to Dr. Zimmerman's article and also the reference of vaidyas' sacred thread is given : [[3]]. The article states that vaidyas had degraded from usual Brahminhood just like Brahmins embracing the war profession. If you consider with a wider aspect, same was the case for Pirali brahmins (like Rabindranath Thakur's family) and Agradani Brahmins who were prohibited from social relations with Brahmins. But in all cases, the basic Brahmanic rituals remained the same.117.194.15.203 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually looking for some better sources, where the ritual status of Baidyas are also mentioned. Anyway, soon I 'll improve the content of this article, and also incorporate the fact that most of the Baidyas perform their rituals (like wearing sacred thread) as practised by Brahmins. Ekdalian (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Sir. I will also provide you more links whenever I find them. Thanks again.117.194.6.197 (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while mentioning the ritual of sacred thread, I think it should also be mentioned that they perform the rituals as Yajurvedi Brahmans, use Sharma as surname and have 10 days of pollution (it is mentioned in Dr.Ghosh's paper). Furthermore, if you consider the rituals of Hinduism, then it is easy to realize that the term "optional sacred thread" is meaningless. Some of them take it in proper time(in childhood), others take it during marriage. varna-status cannot be optional and every ritual has to be performed according to proper varna-status. So either one has to mandatorily wear the thread during rituals, or he is not entitled to wear it. during Lakshmana Sena's regime (not Ballal), one section of East-Bengali vaidyas were barred from the sacred thread ritual (it was not 'optional' but directive punishment),but they returned to Brahmin ritual during Raja Rajballabh's regime by performing a Shudhhi. You may see the Ballalmohamudgar I have referred to.117.194.3.55 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just quoted from a reliable source (obviously including the reference to Ballal Sen), you may go through the source. This is the only way, if you want to improve the content of the article. If you can cite some other reliable source(s), as per our policies (preferably reliable texts available on Google Books, as already mentioned), then we can consider. Whatever you are mentioning regarding sacred thread and ritual status, may be correct, but requires such reliable sources in order to be mentioned here. I could not open 'Ballalmohamudgar' using the link available, if possible you can provide the url/link here. Ekdalian (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Sir. The problem with Google books is that most of them show only limited pages, hence it at times becomes difficult to find references in Google Books. Anyway, I will certainly look for links like those. On a personal note, what I feel is that even authors who are deemed authentic (most of them are from western background) often fall prey to some errors and speculations, probably that's why first-hand texts on Indian society/rituals/religion , written in Sanskrit/Bengali seem more reliable to me in these cases. Anyway, that is a personal opinion.117.194.3.11 (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed at how dishonest a person can be. This Mr. Ekdalian asked me repeatedly come with sources. I cited books then he told only google books or online excerpts are considered. Fine, then I gave Online links, yet he continues to delete it whenever I give them. I am surprised why this double-standard is being tolerated here and why this is not considered as vandalism. This Mr. Ekdalian is linking the Ambastha description to a page with Ambastha Kayasthas. That is factually incorrect, Ambastha KAyasthas have no tradition of being born of Brahmin fathers and vaishya mothers and no such thing is mentioned in that Ambastha kayastha page either. On the other hand, that is very definition of Ambastha (i.e., one which is attached to Vaidyas) in shastras and historical works alike. This cannot go on. I have given the link showing that Ambasthas, when applied to vaidyas, refer to that Brahmin-Vaishya offspring. He should have minimum conscience to not repeat such fraudulent vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.23.65 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the revision history before abusing someone. Check properly who has removed the references and do check the reason he has mentioned in the Edit Summary. Check the revisions one by one so that you can understand. By the way, this talk page is meant for constructive discussions and not for personal attacks. Instead of complaining, you could have improved the content of the article on Ambashtha citing reliable sources. And last but not the least, we have to follow our policies; its not about me, other senior editors and reviewers are also there to take care. Ekdalian (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned earlier as well that you should refrain from personal attacks; we can always discuss about edits, and we may agree or disagree. Especially, you are not a regular editor on Wikipedia; therefore, you may not be fully aware of our policies. But personal attacks, and that too in 'Edit summary' is not acceptable. Please note that I have no grudge against any community (forget about hatred). But as far as my edits are concerned, neutrality has to be maintained, and I have to stick to our policies like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. All senior editors & reviewers are regularly abused, when it comes to sensitive articles like caste related ones; and this is not going to help you. Rather you should use this talk page for constructive discussions.

Coming back to your last edit, please note that we need to arrive at a consensus here before you insert that part. Please explain why a particular statement related to the varna status of the Ambashthas has to be mentioned selectively out of context here, when it is mentioned in details in the article on Ambashtha. Also note that we generally do not accept Raj era sources (and moreover this one is mythological), as far as caste articles are concerned. Still, it has been incorporated in the article on Ambashtha along with context and all. Now, we cannot selectively mention one such statement here; in case this statement is incorporated, we have to mention related statements including counterviews and what differentiates an Ambashtha from a Baidya, which is covered in Ambashtha. You cannot simply cherry-pick one particular statement here. Ekdalian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed the lead due to some gross misrepresentation of the sources. Am I going to have to check all of the recent changes for similar problems? I'm getting fed up of doing this when it involves people who should know better by now. - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sitush, I should have handled it better. And yes, Bhattacharya and Sadasivan should not be cited, and I 'll take care of the same in the article on Ambashtha. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bijay Chandra Majumdar is also raj-era, is not it? Jogendranath's book is quoted and referred to by any researcher discussing caste history. Regarding difference between Ambashtha and Vaidya, it is Ambasthta which corresponds to Bengali Baidyas, not the other one. And the reason for putting the varna-status there is because that is the one of the most important reasons vaidyas identify themselves as Brahmins. Lastly, I would like to you know that this allegation of vaidyas themselves starting the upanayana is false, as has been mentioned in many bengali books (including 'Banglar samajik itihas" by Durgabar sanyal)about vaidyas taking sacred thread during Balllal sen era, Vaishnava cultural revival etc., i.e., much before Rajballabh. Now you are taking any online sources and hence I cannot give that (since you do not accept even scanned copies of book), but at least understand that what I am trying is to enrich the article by honest and verified facts, so that the socio-cultural history of the vaidyas get reflected in the article. It is very much saddening and unfortunate that you are using the technical loopholes to prevent others from giving facts and selectively accepting sources to give a skewed look of vaidya history through the scantly available online resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.0.183 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush is a very senior editor, and has expressed concerns regarding "misrepresentation" of sources after reviewing this article. I also agree with his views; both Bhattacharya (not only Raj-era, also too old) and Sadasivan are not acceptable. Therefore, you need to discuss and arrive at consensus here and not just revert to that older version, which has been rejected. Please understand that no one has any grudge on Vaidyas here, and there's no question of using technical loopholes to prevent you from editing as you said. In fact, I have always tried my best to find reliable sources in order to improve this article and did so for years. Also note that its not just online sources, we accept all reliable sources which are verifiable; if the source is reliable, the scanned copy of the relevant page is acceptable. Discuss here instead of engaging in edit war, if you actually want to improve the article.

Do note that the burden of bringing in new references/sources is on you, as per our policies. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are lists under Dasgupta and Sengupta, but quite a few Baidyas had non-Baidya surnames: e.g. Mohitlal Majumdar, R.C. Majumdar, Bimal Roy. Also, the "Gupta" part of "Dasgupta" and "Sengupta" was a 19th century addition as a definitive caste marker that was by no means universally adopted; so there are plenty of Das and Sen among Baidyas, e.g. Chittaranjan Das, Jibanananda Das, Amartya Sen. And these don't exhaust the surnames. So, given the variety, this article is probably the logical place for a list, as opposed to the specific surname articles. rudra (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very late response but here goes ... Surnames are not a guide to caste anyway. At least, not on Wikipedia. See User:Sitush/Common#Castelists for some background on this issue. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While you are mostly correct, in the specific case of Baidyas, certain surnames (such as Dasgupta and Sengupta) are definitely dispositive. The relevant social history has not been treated at all in the article, which may actually be a good thing, as wikilawyering over content - not infrequently a reaction to enthusiastic contributions of at best anecdotal provenance - generally results in an incoherent mishmash anyway. One of the reasons for my losing interest in Wikipedia, long ago. Cheers. rudra (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing the statement attributed to Ronald Inden, whom even the remover only a few hours before said was a "recognised Indologist", the solution surely lies in providing reliable sources for other opinions. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The facts regarding Sacred Threat sanskar as written in this article is not completely true. Actually Rahri Baidya never stop this sanskar. The tradition is continued since all ages. Baredra baidya were debarred from this for some time. In 1890 they also started tradition after 'Praschitya' https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.289333/page/n31/mode/1up Go to page no 30. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will surely check this, Abhishek Sengupta 24; only issue is the source is a Bengali one. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ekdalian I thought You are Bengali. In case of english the page number at the bottom will be 32.I have given the link, that will directly land you to the page. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Abhishek Sengupta 24. I was talking about other senior editors/admins, who will not understand Bengali. I shall go through the same soon, and validate, and will obviously let you know. Thanks, Ekdalian (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abhishek Sengupta 24, I have gone through the source provided, and it seems more or less okay. It would be great, if you can find some English source supporting this claim; otherwise, we will see what can be done about this part. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Ekdalian You can go through the following source. https://www.scribd.com/doc/292425503/Journal-of-Bengali-Studies-Vol-4-No-2 Page No 95 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page 95-96 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abhishek Sengupta 24, I could go through one of these two pages due to restricted access. But then, what exactly is your point? Which statement(s) are you referring to from this source? Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have given two source one in Bengali and other in English.From thsese two sources it is cleared that Ballal sen not divided Vaidya in two part for whom the Upanayan is compulsory and other it's optional,A part of Vaidya was punished because they were in touch of Ballal Sen‍,Who married a hadi woman. Secondly you have mentioned the quote of Mr.SN Mukherjee which is also half true as the part of Vaidya who were debarred from upanayan during the reign of Ballan Sen by Lakshman Sen Re started (Not Started) their tradition after praschitya,Where as Rahti Vaidya Never stopped their tradition. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ekdaliyan, I want to highlight the following statement from my source T.P Russell Stracy suggested a connection between Vaidya and Mohiyal Vaids" Vaid is a sub-clan of Mohiyal Brahmin as it mentioned in Wikipedia itself. https://www.scribd.com/doc/292425503/Journal-of-Bengali-Studies-Vol-4-No-2 page no-81. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also the author of the article himself indicated it by defining several similarity between Vaidya and Mohiyal Vaids.

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, got it. Go ahead with your edit, Abhishek Sengupta 24. I shall review and refine the same later, if required. Thanks.Ekdalian (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Mr. Ekdaliyan. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for your reply? Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Kulaji text information to make the document unbiased and also logical. Vaidya claimed Brahmin status -It is true. But reason behind this claim is their Kulaji texts. In the Citation I have given link https://www.scribd.com/doc/292425503/Journal-of-Bengali-Studies-Vol-4-No-2 Please refer to page 81 - 82.In this journal Author first establish relation between Vaidya and Saraswat Brahmin and then stated What kulaji text says starting from the line "The above points are all consistent to the proposition stated in the Vaidya Kulajis (and in later texts) that Saraswata Vaidyas (as mentioned by Durjoy Dash and Jay Sen Biswas)........" Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Bengali Brahmin and Kayastha page their Kulaji describtion have already given. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For detail you may consider page 80-82. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In saraswat Brahmin Dictionary They also accepted it. However the site is down. I am giving the archived link https://web.archive.org/web/20141106114015/http://saraswatdirectory.com/saraswat6.php Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abhishek Sengupta 24, let me tell you first that such sites like saraswatdirectory.com are not considered as reliable at all. What we precisely need are sources by reliable & neutral authors. Same is applicable for Journal of Bengali Studies. Is it a reliable source? Nope. Why? Who is the editor? Tamal Dasgupta, a Baidya, as clearly evident from the surname, who will obviously put forward what the Baidyas claim. Please note that for this purpose, we can't consider it as a neutral & reliable source. Baidyas' claim cannot be validated by such biased sources. Please find neutral and reliable authors for such sensitive claims like connection with Saraswat Brahmins. Moreover, there were other issues as well like selective quotation from the page(s) mentioned. Anyway, since the source is unreliable, I am not discussing any other point at this juncture. Hope you understand, and come up with proper reliable & verifiable sources for improving this article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kulaji texts of Baidya should be considered here. He just quoted what kulaji texts described. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56022/page/n488/mode/1up Census report clearly mentioned Vaidya s were invited and given equal treatment as other brahmin. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.237762/page/n142/mode/1up T.P. Russell Stracey is not vaidya. He clearly mentioned Vaidya is actually Vaid of Mohiyal Saraswat. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.50087/page/n215/mode/1up page185 Panchanan Raya also not vaidya he clearly mentioned Vaidya as brother of Mohiyal Vaid. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go saraswat brahmin wiki page. They already mentionef vaidya as saraswat brahmin.

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for your quick reply. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Saraswat%20Brahmin/en-en/

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is biased view. Kulaji texts should be added. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All three sources mentioned above - Census Of India 1931, The History Of The Muhiyals (1938) and A Historical Review Of Hindu India (1939), are Raj era sources, and cannot be considered as per long-term consensus. Sites like dictionary.sensagent.com are highly unreliable again. And regarding the Kulaji texts, look at who's interpreting the same? We can't interpret it right? Interpretation by a reliable author may be considered. Last but not the least, if the Wikipedia page on Saraswat Brahmin is incorrect, we need to fix it. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdaliyan The journal is welknown and given what is correct. In this journal authors are of several caste. Check first. I have given all sources above which proves that the journal is correct. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraswat_Brahmin They accepted vaidya as saraswat brahmin. Who are you? Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting as I have given each and individual main sources that is mentioned in this journal. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ekdalian again doing his dirty work. please go through all sources provided by Mr. Abhishek Sengupta. all are from a third-party neutral valid source! why can't you accept the fact that vaidyas of Bengal are pure Saraswat brahmins?

Due to your so called long term consensue I have given the journal as source as it published in 2015 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And all claims of journal have proper valied sourcing as I have given. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please! I have clearly explained why each of your source is unreliable. You are citing 3 Raj era sources, one unreliable site (where the same unreliable source is cited) and a journal (2015) edited by a Baidya only thus making it all the more unreliable. You have no point now, it now seems that you are simply what we call here, a caste warrior. So, stop reverting my edits before reaching consensus here; else you may be blocked for edit warring, and the article may also be blocked from further editing, if required. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I want other admin for this. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bc Mazumdar's book is also from Raj Era Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie's Book is also from Raj era. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will definitely check these soon (within a day), and remove the content if these are Raj era sources. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bengaliwikipro pls stop reverting until consensus. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have called Sitush for this. Pls stop reverting Bengaliwikipro. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr abhishek we need a non biased and educated admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengaliwikipro (talk • contribs) 10:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for this.but this admin ekdalian continuously disrespecting the baidya community!! why would we claim the brahmin status? we are giving all information regarding the connection between bengali Baidyas and saraswat brahmins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengaliwikipro (talk • contribs) 10:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.scribd.com/doc/292425503/Journal-of-Bengali-Studies-Vol-4-No-2 This is the given journal that I have provided.According to Mr Ekdalian as it is edited by A Dasgupta hence is unreliable because because "Tamal Dasgupta, a Baidya, as clearly evident from the surname, who will obviously put forward what the Baidyas claim". But starting from page 80 to 82 for information given I have provided the main sources which he quoted, Hence reliability is proved here. All books tha is written by other authors is based on individual facts. In case of Baidya caste it is very difficult to find modern author books. The history is most neglected in this case. You might realise it. Hence sime Raj Era books which is written by neutral author Should consider. And the Census Report is not a Book it's Govt Of India Record itself. How it can Be unreliable. By the way How you claim that books written by other authors is non biased wher as There is longterm history of Baidys-Brahmin-Kayastha war is exist. The reliability should not be decided by Surname But By facts that is provided there. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my previous edit He accepted it. See the talk page. Now He refuses. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why Raj Era books are unreliable. Can you elaborate. And Hoe government of India Record itself is unreliable. Most of the caste information are based folklore itself. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ekdalian I have not provided Raj Era books. In the journal citation is already provided. He told about the Census Report Here it is https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56022 He told about the T. P Russel Stracy's View regarding Vaidya and Vaid Here it is https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.237762/page/n142/mode/1up He told about the view of Panchanan Raya Here it is https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.50087/page/n215/mode/1up page185 Then why my previous edit is also removed?

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What he did is just cited other books that is already written by others just what any non baidya writer do. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Every claim He provided cotation is given and you can check it. Still it is unreliable. Is it a joke? Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other admin available here??? no one is coming to discuss this matter!

Ekdalian is still editing this article even after we are provided valuable sources! is Ekdalian the owner of Wikipedia??

Hello Abhishek Sengupta 24, I can see the source by Mazumdar is a Raj era one. The statement is there probably because no one has contested it. Do you want to remove the same? You can. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No that should be there as He is eminent one. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search about Stracy He is also eminent and His book is one of the primary sources used by many other historian. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to tell you taht some Raj era sources which are written by neutral writers should be considered at least in case of baidya as I already told you in Sitush page. At least consider my last verson for which you gave me approval. Its my request. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My last verson regarding Vaidya and Mohiyal is based on those neutral sources. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped after your warning then why protection imposed here. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had told you to proceed with your changes, and had also mentioned that I shall review the same later. Anyway, I haven't asked for page protection, this page has been protected by an admin, not involved in this discussion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek Sengupta 24: Look Mr. Majumdar is referring it the Vellalas of the Chola army here whom he says gave rise to the Vellala Vaidyas [4].

Here is a speech by David Ludden talking about Vellalas, notice how he interchangeably used Vellalars with Vellalas [5]. Here is Subbaraylu an expert on Chola history again talking about them [6]. Both of them make references to Burton stein. Here you can see Stein also using Vellalar and Vellala interchangeably [7][8] Here is a write up about Noboru Karashimas work- he has studied the cholas and the Vellalas extensively[9].

It’s very obvious the Chola Vellalas Majumdar is referring to are the Vellalars. Vellalas or Vellalars, both are the same thing and used interchangeably by English authors.[10]

It’s a silly non issue really, Just go through the references in the Vellalar Wikipedia page if you want, the citations will use Vellala more often than Vellalar.

Also read page 51 and 52 of Mazumdar [11]. He gives the etymology of Vellala, which is essentially they same as the etymological origin of Vellalar[12]. He also talks about how being a physician was not their main occupation. They were basically officers of the Chola court. [13]

Mr. Ekdaliyan now decide what to do. According to wikipedia policy I can't use Raj Era sources. Where as there are different hypothesis available by different Historians. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources I’ve given you are Raj Era sources. They’re all WP:RS. Also you don’t need to add them to the main article, they were only for your clarification. I’ve never seen anyone else claim Vellalas and Vellalars are different.

Hey editor of this vellalar where are You from? Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ekdalian dont allowing Vaidya schollars would surely make this article one sided and biased. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Vellalas did not have an Ayurvedic heritage of teaching, studying and authoring Classical medicinal texts. They are mainly an agricultural community which sometimes acted as local chieftains. In the orthodox Brahminical tradition of Tamilnadu, no non-Brahmin (especially if he belongs to an agricultural Shudra caste) can be expected to be a Vedic scholar, there is no evidence of Vellalas being Vedic scholars either. Secondly, Bijaychandra is clearly wrong when he says that the word Vaidya had no connection with medicine.The definition of the word Vaidya and all over India Ayurvedic scholars are known by the name Vaidyas. Thirdly, Sen kings came from Karnataka, not from Tamilnadu. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vellalars were a very sanskritised and forward community. I suggest you give the varna classification section of the Vellalar page a read. Claiming that a reputed historian like Mazumdar is wrong is not really an argument. The Sena’s may have come from Karnataka, but Majumdar clearly states these were ‘Chola’ Vellalas. Besides Stein also clearly mentions that there were Vellalars in the Mysore region of Karnataka. This is also corroborated by the karmandala Satakam, a medieval era Tamil literary source [14] 12:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

In Bengal Vaidyas are Historically Ayurved professionals. So how can this Vellalar be Ayurveda specialist. At least there is no proof of Vellalar being Ayurveda found. Its better to remove the Hyperlink as per my opinion. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda as a profession wasn’t restricted to any one caste. Here is an example of Ezhavas, avarmas of the Kerala caste system practising Ayurveda [15]. Do you have any proof that Vellalars did not perform Ayurveda? 12:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hence it is not clear that By saying Vellala Vaidya which community did Mazumdar want to indicate. I have mentioned above de similarities. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very obvious. He clearly says chola vellalas. And I’ve provided you plenty of reputed sources from Karashima to Stein, removing all doubts as to who the Vellalas were. Please counter sources with better sources, not opinions and conjectures. Staring Majumdar may have been wrong is not a valid reason.12:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

What ever I questioned is from that journal which You rejected Mr. Ekdaliyan. He himself is a Reserch fellow and counter Mr.Mazumdar's Hypothesis logically. You can also Under stand that. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC) By the way I am talking with Moderator Mr Ekdalian not with You whoever you are. I already have given logics why Mrazdar is wrong above. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know, you seem to want to POV Push to elevate the Baidyas as Brahmins. So you want to erase all links to the Vellalas because you think they are ‘agricultural’ ‘sudras’. Anyway, lets wait for Mr. Ekdalian to opine on this.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/292425503/Journal-of-Bengali-Studies-Vol-4-No-2 in this journal He clearly written Vellala dont have Ayurved heritage. Now counter him Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Go to page no 90 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Give proof That Vellalar has Ayurved heritage. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think ‘Journal or Bengal studies’ is WP:RS. Also that article is behind a paywall. Please provide a reputed history book or the work of a reputed historian to counter. Not something like this.13:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Mr Mazumdar gave all his analysis on the basis of Sens dynasty. Sens came from Karnataka not fron Tamil Nadu. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate what I stated earlier “The Sena’s may have come from Karnataka, but Majumdar clearly states these were ‘Chola’ Vellalas. Besides Stein also clearly mentions that there were Vellalars in the Mysore region of Karnataka. This is also corroborated by the karmandala Satakam, a medieval era Tamil literary source [16]” 13:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Panchanan Raya suggest that Vaidyas are descended from Sena and Gupta dynasty and as per him Sens were Brahmin.Although Gupta were vaisya. Infact meny Historians also identified Senas as Brahmin. But Vellalar are Vasya. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.50087 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry He(Panchanan Raya) says that sen s are descended of Vakataka and Gupta emperor and that of Bengals Vaidyas are. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any way I am not deleting your hypetlink. But There are some different view is present regarding evaluation of Baidyas. Although these are Raj era sources But wikipedia policy saye ig defferent view present there then that should be included.The BC Mazumdar's book is also from Raj era But it was republished in 2000. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stracey also linked Vaidya with Vaid of Mohiyal clan. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.237762 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ekdaliyan I gave You proof that What the journal says is correct. Now again proving it. The journal says Vellala does not Have Ayurveda Profession now the link given here https://archive.org/details/dli.jZY9lup2kZl6TuXGlZQdjZU3kZly.TVA_BOK_0006660 Go to 644 point no 1572 clearly mentioned that Vellalar community dont take any other occupation other than Farming and Cultivation. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’re referencing the Tolkappiyam, this has already been discussed and expanded here Vellalar#Classification_in_the_Tolkāppiyam The Vēlāḷas had marital relations with royal families, served as army commanders and were chieftains of smaller kingdoms.

https://books.google.com/books/about/An_Untouchable_Community_in_South_India.html?id=L4t9BgAAQBAJ page no 37 It exactly repeated what the journal said mentioned Vellalar as craftsman and angriculturist. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Also mentioned Vellalar as Peasant. Hence again Authenticity of the journal is proved. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand something, in south india, there were no separate Kshatriya and Vaishya castes. After the Brahmins, it was Vellalars who did Kshatriya and vaishya functions. Yes, they were agriculturists, but that does not mean that was all they did. Please read the Vellalar article in detail, and do not cherrypick statements. In the source you provided in page 36 it is clearly mentioned there were two classes of Vellalans. [17]

Unlike varnas, however, in this system the Brahmin has no clear precedence over the Arasar. Furthermore, the Vellalar category is divided into “superior Vellalars” and “inferior Vellalars.” Superior Vellalars have the right to intermarry with Kings”

See I dont want to degrade You. Dont have intention for that. I want to say that Mr Mazumdar is not perfect in this case. Actually Mr. Ekdaliyan thinks that the journal is biased because it is written by a Vaidya.Hence I want to take his attention. Pls dont take it personally. Chill. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr sengupta who is the admin of this article? do you know him? we need a neutral admin for this article

Mr. Ekdaliyan I want to add summary here. First In Bengal Vaidyas main profession and Identity is for their Ayurvedic knowledge. They never indulge in Agricultur or Cultivation activity(This is the main profession of Vellalar ). It is unusual that after migrated to Bengal Vellalar became Ayurvedic experts(By God's grace) by renouncing agricultural profession. Second, Surnames, Gotras, Prabars, of Bengali Vaidya s does not match with Vellalar comunity.Third Mr. Mazumdar himself says that the term Vaidya is due to their Vedic knowledge not due to Ayurvedic profession. This is again contradictory as Vaidya name of Bengali Baidya s is mainly due to their Ayurvedic knowledge (Although in past They also possessed Vedic knowledge) Fourth at the starting Mr. Mazumdar says that Bengali Baidya should be studied on the par of Sena dynasty. Sens are from Karnataka. Although the above author says that there were Vellalar present in Karnataka also but I studied they did not had Sen surnames or Upadhis. Sens can be found in the Vakataka empire. And most Contradictory point is Sens were Brahmin by caste not Vaishya.Mr. Mazumdar specifically stressed on the word Vellala Vaidya. There is no wiki page present for Vellala Vaidya. It is also unusual to Link Vaidya community with entire Vellalar community.There is also other view Present that Vaidyas are actually Vaid clan of Mohiyal. Vaids had history of Ayurveda Profession and Dhanvantari Gotra can be found in Both community. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any community could learn Ayurveda, there was no caste restriction, I already gave you an example of Ezhavas of Kerala who were avarnas and untouchables mastering Ayurveda [18]? As far as the Sen surname and the Gotras are concerned, those could have been adopted by the Baidya community after settling in Bengal, they need not have had the same surnames and gotras upon their arrival. Many castes in India have sanskritised themseleves.03:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey vellalar editor(He doesn't has account ) pls. dont take it personally. Vellalar is an excellent community, just ranked below the Brahmin. They Have respected position as wel as wealth in South India. I am just talking about desimilarities. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it’s not about Vellalars being inferior or higher etc, etc. I am not a Vellalar and have no personal stake in this matter. Many communities and castes in India were linked in the past. I think it’s important to establish these relationships when backed with reputable sources. 03:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

What ever You are is all Your assumption. Dont has any Historical evidences. What ever I told have proved already. Vellalars did not have any history Ayurvedic heritage.Sena dynasty had changed their title is also false as sens ancestor veer sena mentioned in Puran also. As there are so many desimilarities and vague information present here the hyperlink should be deleted. Caste issue is a sensitive issue especially when they are claiming some status.Create a page on Vellala Vaidya (Mr Mazumdar stressed on it)and then give the hyperlink We should not assume any thing. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How you confirm that Vaidyas are Vellalar. You should known there are several hypothesis available as I have given.We dont know By the word Vellalas what actually He want to say. Your given links are other's voice not Mr Mazumdar 's. Here He did not make any referrence to any place. Vella Vaidya caste is also not known to Us. Hence no assumption should be made here. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I’ve provided valid excellent historians and published material to prove my case. They are verifiable. You’ve not given any reliable sources. Mazumdar has clearly stated Vellala Vaidya were Vellalans of the Cholas. And I’ve given you multiple historians from Karashima to Ludden stating clearly who the Chola Vellalars were and what was their function. You biggest argument is Vellalans we’re Ayurvedic physicians and Brahmins. But both of these is not supported by any reliable source. In fact Mazumdar clearly states that Ayurveda was infact NOT their main profession. They were officials and officers. Which the Vellalars were.

Your conjectures and opinions are not facts. If you can give me published sources of solid historians proving that Vellala Vaidya are not related to the Vellalas, I’ll remove the hyperlink.

05:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Mr Mazumdar in his complete article dont mentioned the word Vellalar. There are so many desimilarities also with Vellalar and Vaidya of Bengal. What I have given are also valied and established facts. For all facts proper citation is given in respective wiki pages. I only included Vellalar dont have Ayurvedic Heritage thats also verifiable. Added Dhanvantari Gotra of Vaidya thats also verifiable. Sena king were Brahmakshatriya thats also verifiable given in respective wiki page. Huge desimilarities suggeste to remove Hyperlink. I have given Panchanan Raya and Stracy's different view regarding Vaidya. All are verifiable. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mazumdar strongly suggested not claimed that Vaidyas are Vellala Vaidya.On the basis of someome's suggestion how can You be confirmed. The View of Panchanan Raya and Mazumdar regarding Sena king also contradictory. Panchanan Raya gave his complete explanation where as Mazumdar did not give any prove. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read page number 51 and 52 carefully. He mentions Vellala very very clearly and even goes through the etymological derivation behind it.[19] I’ve also given you multiple sources proving that Vellalar and Vellala are the same words, just different transliterations, something like Reddi, Reddy and Reddiar etc. If you’re still not convinced read the etymology of Vellalar [20]. It’s EXACTLY the same as the etymological origin of Vellala that Majumdar has mentioned in the page number 51 of his book. [21] 06:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also please note that in page 53 he says “I may mention this fact that a sectiun of the Vellāla Vaidyas in the Tamilakam country is known by the name Shānan ” Shanan is where the ‘Sena’ name comes from.

Majumdar is very clear about what he means. You’re only simply dismissing it because you want to POV push a brahminical orogin and don’t want to be associated with any caste that has agricultural origins. Whether Majumdar is a reliable source or not is an argument you’ll have to take up with the Admins. Afaik, he is one of the most reputed reliable historians. 06:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

You’re free to add alternative theories instead of removing existing proven ones, if you back up your alt theories with reliable sources, please feel free to edit the article. You can add your points about how they should not be equated with the Vellalars. But do not remove any content simply because it does not glorify your caste. 06:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not removing. Check the history. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way either Hyperlink should be removed ot let me allow to add Panchanan Raya and Stracy's view to make it neutral. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Mazumdar did not mention Vellalar where as the entire article is based on his view. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not an admin, please add your content, I will not and shall not or revert your edits. My request is that simply don’t remove hyperlink, that’s all. And I don’t know why you keep saying Majumdar didn’t mention Vellalar, pg 51, 52 and 53 is full of references to them [22] 06:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Ekdaliyan I am Demanding NPOV. refer to the wiki article Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here different views available regarding Vaidya. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Quarterly_Journal_of_the_Mythic_Soci.html?id=Mlk4AQAAMAAJ go to page no 294 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly written Vellala Vaidya extinct now. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it is extinct hence no hyper link should be given. As BC Mazumdar stressed on Vellala Vaidya. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not suppose to add Hyperlink again. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Mlk4AQAAMAAJ&q=vellala+Vaidyan+extinct&dq=vellala+Vaidyan+extinct&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjpn_DA9YTxAhWKwjgGHX55DEgQ6AEwA3oECAUQAw Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sect whi was termed by BC Mazumdar as Vellala Vaidya is extinct now. It is supposed to add the link with Vellala Vaidya community just like how kayasthas are added with Bengali Kayastha and Brahmins are added with Bengali Brahmins which are subsect of these broader castes. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’re deriving conclusions based on Raj Era sources that are not WP:RS. edit reverted.10:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Mr Mazumdar also from Raj era. Let's Wait for admin. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His book's actuall publication year is 1920. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Raj ers sources are not WP:RS then Mr Mazumdar's book also not WP:RS. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The verson is exact copy of the BC Mazumdar's 1920's publication hence definitely Raj Era source. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both are Raj era source hence now You dont have any pont. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes exceptions are made for top quality sources. Mazumdar is one such source. 12:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That's why his content is there. By the way I just want to remove the Hyperlink link. As Baidya s should not br linked with entire Vellalar community. Vaidya of Vellalas is extinct and there are so many desimilarities. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Mazumdar did not use Vellalar. He referred those vellalas who were Vaidya. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanvantari gotra was the original gotra https://books.google.co.in/books?id=I3JDAAAAYAAJ&dq=Dhanvantari+Gotra+was+the+original+gotra+of+baidya+community&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Dhanvantari Two professors view about Vaidya

https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=ttcnAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Vaidyas Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dutt's page 77 and latter one page 90 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ekdalian pls check it. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.jnu.ac.in/content/christopherraj See best peer section first point he and Mcandrew recieved honour. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiculturalism is the book. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R.N Chakraborty's view https://books.google.com.au/books?id=PItbvfAvVggC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=Vaidya&f=false Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pls Click on the page no 124.I added it.

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pls add R. N Chakraborty's view at first then BC Mazumdar's view. These would be a perfect chronology. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mr sengupta you are wasting your time here! you will give 1000 citations for your claims but at the end Ekdalian will revert them by saying they are not authentic,bal bla bla.who is the admin of this article?? please atleast do a discussion. Sourav431 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ekdaliyan pls add the view of RN Chakraborty. He gives the earliest reference of Vaidya as a social group. Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Sourav431 pls check the history section. Every thing is there. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ekdalian.Hope you are doing well.I have added a new source to this article.If you experience any problem for verification then pls tell me.I would give you complete access to this article.Have a nice day.Regards.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check it [23] page no 164.It is written that Bengali Saraswat(Vaidyas). Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, I have checked the source. You may add the relevant statement; I shall review the same and modify it in order to align with the source, if required. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Your endeavors to make the relevant articles truthful is admirable.Thanks once again. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ekdalian I have re-added the 'claim Brahmin status section' in the lead section. As per last consensus it should be added in verna status.As there is no varna status at this moment, hence I re-added it.Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ekdalian There are different hypothesis available regarding evaluation of Baidyas. Mr. Mazumdar connected Baidyas with Vellalar but Stracy and Panchanan Raya connected them with Mohiyal. I want to use any one source. Although these are Raj Era source but Mr. Mazumdar 's source is also from Raj Era. Stracy's book is used in various caste related articles. NPOV suggests to add different views. Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have gone through WP:RAJ and understand it. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ekdaliyan In the entire Vellalar page of Wikipedia page there is no reference available for that Vaidya community which Mazumdar mentioned as Vedic schollars. Even some sources tell that the Vellala Vaidya community extinct. Hyperlinks are provided for extra information for a specific topic. Whear as in Vellalar page no description about Vellala Vaidya is given. Hence pls remove the Hyperlink. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/dli.jZY9lup2kZl6TuXGlZQdjZU3kZly.TVA_BOK_0006660 page 644 point no 1572.It is a reputable clearly mentioned that Vellalar have no other profession but farming and Cultivation. It also suggest that currently the Vaidya community which Mr. Mazumdar is extinct. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Mlk4AQAAMAAJ&q=vellala+Vaidyan+extinct&dq=vellala+Vaidyan+extinct&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjpn_DA9YTxAhWKwjgGHX55DEgQ6AEwA3oECAUQAw Here it is clearly written. Its a Raj era source but above source is not. It's best to remove Hyperlink where so many confussion are present. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may remove the wikilink since there are some serious doubts regarding the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr.Ekdaliyan. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Ekdalian the line tha tells that "In precolonial era Baidyas were regarded as highest Hindu caste...." Is disputed as in many sources Baidya are still highest hindu caste and almost equivalent to Brahmin. Check it [24] page no 36.Thanj You.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even The great Holly Mother shri Sharda Maa also consider Vaidya as almost equivalent to Brahmin. See [25] pp108.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In many wiki article Joshua project is used as a source especially to evaluate the social distribution of verious surnames and castes see what it tells [26] Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many references including the census reports, And books like Jogen Bhattacharjee from which it is clear that Baidya s have almost equal status as Brahmin. But from lead line text any one think baidyas are now lower caste. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr.Ekdalian. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

according to Rigveda vaidya(physician) is a sage(brahmin). is it valid or not??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:9004:C10D:38C9:F29C:7890:D5B (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have given valied sources. All the sources are according to the Wikipedia standard.Mr. Ekdalian don't try to confuse other admins by misguiding him. All that I have mentioned in the revert summery is already mentioned in those sources. I just want to expose you. Mr Ekdalian 1.You mentioned to Ashish413 in the Ambastha and Trija subtopic of the talk page that lead section should contain universally true topics. Kayasthas are Kshatriya is not universally true (Refer to my sources)but still it is mentioned there. 2.Baidyas are always regarded upper than Kayastha. You know that,as you are a Bengali wikipedian as per your wiki profile and also edited many caste articles including this one.But still you didn't mention baidya in the kayastha page where it is written that "Kayasthas are regarded as highest hindu caste along with Brahmin". Whear as you don't forget to mention kayastha ranked next to Brahmin by citing a source which is not verifiable.This is apparently shown your biased intention. 3.You have removed my citation of Risley's content(Mentioned by anil seal and the publisher is WP:RS)which is already mentioned in kayastha article. 4.You don't allow any Baidya writers here in this article wheare as the article itself is about the Baidya(without caring who is the author and what is the source). But allowed Kayastha writers(Sananda Lal Ghosh) in kayastha page. 3.Jogen Bhattacharjee's book is not allowed here but it is cited in Bengali Brahmin and Bhumihar article. Mr Ekdalian your selective decisions are doubtful. Banglawikit (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that I an repeatedly attacking other caste but actually the sources mention them "shudra". What can I do? I can feel your emotion because we had to undergo the same when it is written in this article '"in precolonial era Baidyas were regarded as the higest hindu caste..'" And you claim yourself as nutral editor didn't change it. Where as it is apperent that Baidyas are higest hindu caste upper than Kayastha. In Bengali Kayastha page still baidya absent in higher caste list.

Banglawikit (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Ekdalian refer the source. First it mentioned initiation ceremony which is clearly vissible. Then he mention phrase 'High caste man' and mention them as Dvija and then he says Vaidya as trija and 'one step beyond'. Its clear. Observe my placement. I place it before migration part.Bengali Vaidya are what thats not our concern. We are not judge. The source is clear, transparent and authentic and post Raj era.I have mentioned exactly what is mentioned here.Baidya and Vaidya is same mentioned at the beginning of the Wikipedia page. [27] Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will check once again, and will let you know. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ekdalian move the ambastha part to history section and explain it well or add the trija part in first line where ambastha part is also present.

Mr. Ekdalian by the way as per your point of view many brahmins are not dwija in this case. Varna system it self is ancient. You wrote that it may not applicable for Bengali Vaidyas. Why? Can you explain? Brahmins also got dwija status by initiation ceremony. Many Brahmins abandoned priestly activities but still they are Dvija.Here by both the source its clear that both say about Vaidya. The content was properly sourced. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riche clearly says that at first that initiation ceremony seperate high caste man who were dwijas and make them superior. And in the very next line he mention that Vaidy is one step beyond. It is clear and beyond of doubt that initiation ceremony seperate vaidya and Dvijas from shudra And Vaidya is supirior(one step beyond ) the others. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a court case about Kayastha status. Court clearly gave value to old scriptures and gave kayastha 'Kshatriya 'status inspite the fact that Kayastha abandoned dwija sanskar. In Bengal Baidyas traditionally had Upanayana ceremony. Your logic is not acceptable. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read it like 'Vaidyas traditionally have Upanayana sanskar' Sorry for typo error.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, I told you that I shall review the same. Why are you unnecessarily wasting your energy by writing such a lengthy response! It's good to write about your caste, would urge you not to get obsessed about the same. Let this vandalism stop first, I shall revisit the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I know that I have just cleared my logic. And I have not re installed the same.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I have given here extra link to show you that leslie by quoted susrut samhita mention that shudras were some times allowed in medical training but he didn't mention them as Vaidya.From this source it is clear in shushrut samhita text physician called Bhisaj.[28] pp42 That's why Riche differentiated Vaidya from sudra.Thanks again for reply. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ambastha and trija part both are taken from the same source.If trija part is not valid then remove the Ambastha part also.--Ashish413 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish413, it's not just about one particular source. Statements in the lead section are actually mentioned in almost all reliable sources; therefore there's no doubt about these information. Now, coming to the statement related to 'trija', it is not universal, and according to another reliable source (mentioned in the article itself), it has never gained general acceptance. Hope you understand the difference. Ekdalian (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Bengali baidya wiki page there is no way ambastha should be mentioned in the first line.Trija part is also there in many reliable sources,so please add the trija part also or move the ambastha part to the history section and explain it well--Ashish413 (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian I have seen here about Ashish413's statement.You say that the part which is universally accepted should be there. I know that some Vaidya Kulajikar claim themselves Ambastha but again there is a different view " In the Brihaddharma Purana the Ambashthas and the Vaidyas were considered as the same caste in its list of 36 castes but another text, the Brahma Vaivarta Purana considered them as two separate sub-castes" mentioned in PB Mukherjee's book, also mentioned in wikpedia section.It seems that Vaidya being Ambastha is also not universally accepted.Then can you explain that Why Ambastha should be in lead section? Thanks. RegardsAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Mr abhishek sengupta rightly said.Mr ekdalian I request you to move the abastha part to the history section and explain it correctly.Bengali baidyas are not ambasthas.Your source mentioning that Some Ambasthas are called Vaidyas ,But Bengali Baidyas are ambasthas where is it written??? can you explain?? --Ashish413 (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are talking about majority of sources. Even in texts, where it is mentioned that the two are different, we find that most of them indicate there is a relation between the two e.g. even in the above mentioned source (I have gone through a number of times earlier), the other Purana considers them as two separate subcastes, which indicate the same broader caste in general. Moreover, one of our very senior editors (especially as far as caste articles are concerned), Sitush had used the word 'some' considering all these factors, therefore this represents the consensus version of the lead section. You have gone through so many reliable sources, hence I don't think I need to explain when I say majority of the sources. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

where is it written that bengali baidyas are ambasthas????????????????? how many books are there which is saying that???? some Ambasthas are called Vaidyas for their medical profession but Bengali Baidyas are not ambasthas!!!!! why just you can't understand the simple thing?????? and if you still want to include the ambastha part in the first line then add the trija part also Ashish413 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

your explanation is not making any sense at all!!!!!!! any neutral person can see you just want to demote a certain community Ashish413 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)??? is this how Wikipedia work???[reply]

some reliable sources and books clearly mentioning that Bengali vaidyas and ambasthas are completely different caste which MR Abhishek Sengupta already provided!!!! you should remove the ambastha part from the front section of this article. Without it, Wikipedia will lose credibility. Ashish413 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ambastha part is not even in the Vaidya wiki page but it exists is in the baidya page.is this ok????Ashish413 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=PItbvfAvVggC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=Vaidya&f=false Rabindra Nath Chakraborty also mentioning that Bengali vaidyas and ambasthas are different. .

Abhishek Sengupta 24 has accepted my explanation and thanked me for the edit. You don't seem to understand because you are showing all the characteristics of a caste warrior. Since Abhishek Sengupta 24 has now understood, I would like to warn you Ashish413 not to edit the consensus version of the lead section without arriving at any conclusion on this talk page. Wikipedia doesn't care about your POV, it's all about reliable sources. The last link you have shared is the same as what we have already discussed. If you want, you may incorporate the same in the Vaidya page; anyway I shall review the same later when I get time. But, if you continue with your unconstructive POV edits here and / or edit warring, you may be blocked from further editing. Ekdalian (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what is your caste are you even neutral???? this is the biggest question!!! facts- 1.Leslie, Charles said some ambasthas are also known as vaidyas for their medical proffesion but not even for a single time they said bengali baidyas are ambasthas 2. Rabindra Nath Chakraborty also mentioned that Bengali vaidyas and ambasthas are different 3. PB Mukherjee also mentioned that Bengali vaidyas and ambasthas are different so how can you write bengali baidyas are ambasthas in the front line of this article???Ashish413 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are not accepted here, hope you understand. Most importantly, I have not added this; I was not the only editor who brought this article to shape; there were other senior editors involved. And do you understand the meaning of consensus version or you are just fighting for caste glorification?? And last but not the least, your own community people have added content here in this article which are not even related to Bengali Baidyas citing the reason that this article is on Baidyas. For example, Charaka (Carak) Samhita is a pre 2nd century text, and Bengalis emerged around 10th-11th century prior to which there was no separate Bengali identity. So, going by your logic, trija and all such pre Bengali concepts should be removed from this article. Ekdalian (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At first, you told me that I am a "caste warrior"?? so who did a personal attack first??? I don't see any other editor except you who did regular edits in this article. I am not telling you to remove the ambastha part, not to delete it because trija part is also here. but the trija part is not present in the front line but the ambastha is present there.Baidyas migrated here arround 10th to 11th century.before that we were the part of moyhal Saraswat brahmin community.but you will not accept the part because of your own personal agenda even if we give proper reference to that. somehow you will find an issue related to that and will warn others not to edit this page,using your power. just like If a brahmin who has a surname "mukherjee" covert into Islam don't make the whole mukherjee community muslim,same like that all vaidyas are not ambasthas.I have gave you enough evidence to prove bengali baidyas and ambasthas ate two seperate caste.Ashish413 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ekdalian I would request you to at least add this,that Risley (Father of Cast System) accepted that Baidyas claim of Brahmin status is valied one. It would maintain a proper balance in the lead section. [29] Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here in this link it is written that "their complexion and feature support the claim" Can you add this after the Ambastha section mentioned in lead line? Thanks. Regards. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for long comment. Actually Muir, Ghuriye, mention that Ambastha also should have Brahmin Varna(Mentioned in wikipedia). See the link [30].Mr. SN Mazumdar also supported it.In Ambatta sutta Ambasthas are also Brahmin.Thanks. Regards... Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, see Risley (1891, pre Raj era) cannot be cited as the author is not interpreting the same or adding his own view, simply citing Risley here. And Risley is talking about Aryan features here at least. In the second source, as you can see, there are other views as well. You cannot be selective while adding a view. Do you also want to add that according to some, they were farmers? How many views regarding the Ambashthas will you add in the lead section? Not possible. That's the reason we have a wikilink here, and such details can be mentioned in the article on Ambasthas. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ekdaliyan actually in Bengal Baidyas are called as Baidya Brahmin like Bhumihar are called Bhumihar Brahmin. In census reports Baidyas were called Baidya Brahmin. In Bhumihar page it is written in lead section that Bhumihar are called Bhumihar Brahmin. But in Baidya page its not written. I would request you to go through the link. [31] page 31 to 32. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Bengal, what I have noticed is that the Baidyas at times call themselves Baidya Brahmin. Anyway, coming to your source, it also states that in modern times as well, the Baidyas have claimed Brahmin status and then talks about the census reports. Please note that as per long standing consensus, we don't accept census reports as reliable source; they publish whatever the person claims. And you are aware that in Bengal, the Brahmins never consider Baidyas as another Brahmin group, nor does any reliable author. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong Brahmin officially not accepted Baidya but You probably not know that many Brahmins in Bengal consider baidya as Brahmin.see here in this book a Brahmin writer consider Baidya Brahman word [32] Here Baidya and Baidya Brahman words are alternatively used [33]. Anyway Brahmins not consider Vaidya as Brahmin is false. Vaidyas are always considered as Brahmin that's in south India as wel as in Bengal. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several letters in which Brahmin Pandits considered Vaidya as Brahmin but that are Rajera sources. Vaidya and Saraswat connection is also mentioned by many authors but again those are Raj era sources. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, I understand that you can't use these Raj era sources here. Regarding my statement that Brahmins don't recognize the Baidyas as Brahmins, obviously what I mean is majority of Brahmins; you know every rule has exceptions. Same is applicable for reliable authors, and that's the reason almost all reliable authors mention that Brahmins, Baidyas and Kayasthas are considered as upper castes in Bengal, all through in history. Otherwise they would not have mentioned the Baidyas separately. As you are aware, you have also mentioned on a user's talk page that Amartya Sen should not be included under Bengali Brahmins, since the Brahmins don't accept Baidyas as their part. And this article exists because Baidyas are considered a distinct caste in Bengal. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ekdaliyan can I mention it in the histry section that Brahmins used to discuss about sam veda and Baidyas on Atharva veda in their respective village tols.[34] page no 47? Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that in English Wikipedia, we would prefer English sources. And it is already mentioned in the article that the Baidyas possessed one of the Vedas the Ayurveda. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ekdalian Thanks for your reply. Your reply really makes me upset. In many English Wiki pages,sources of other languages is also used including Hindi. I have gone through WP:RS. In this instructions I have not seen any language Restrictions.Bengali sources is also verifiable. You can verify it by any Bengali Admin/Moderator. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Baidyas are mainly Yajur-vedi and Atharva-vedi.At this time I have source regarding Atharva-Vedi, hence I want to add it. Thanks.

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda is a Unpaveda. Vaidyas no doubt posses it. But they also posses Atharva Veda as per the instruction given by none other than charak himself. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get upset Abhishek Sengupta 24. Since this is a known fact, you may add Atharvaveda along with Ayurveda where only Ayurveda is mentioned citing this, but try finding some English source which can be added later on. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your permission.Thanks from the bottom of my heart. Regards. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For unknown reasons, I happened to click on this page and checked its history. It seems like there has been a lot of edits on this page in the last 15 days - mostly by a blocked sock. But the current version retains many of their edits and I see the citations are not such that cannot be used for caste articles. For example, Lele is an engineer/Lawyer, and the publication is also not academic. Secondly, Sitush has clarified that People of India series by Popular press is not WP:RS. I will revert it to the version before the sock started editing and add changes made by Sengupta (such as Atharvaveda) one by one.LukeEmily (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24 , Ekdalian , hope you are doing well. Noticed a non-trivial number disruptions and tried to clean this up. I have added Atharvaveda, Bhadralok(elite class) etc. on this page. I went through the talk page as well as the main page and feel there are a number of issues with this page.

1) The history section seems to be focused on mainly the ritual status instead of non-religious history.

2) The content at times does not match the text. Also, the profession Vaidya is at times used synonymously with the community which is not correct.

3) I found a WP:RS, P Thankappan Nair, that states Baidyas are of Brahmin origin that later took the profession of Kshatriyas. Their ritual status may have been degraded later.

4) There seems to be a dispute about connection between some Ambastha caste and Baidya. A quick search search showed that some sources do mention it. Specifically P Thankappan Nair writes: The Vaidya or the physician caste of Bengal is identified With the ancient Ambastha jati in the Vaidya Kulapanji entitled Chandraprabha written in 1675 A. D. by Mahamahopadhyaya Bharata Mallika, the celebrated Vaidya author ofBengal.91 That the Vaidyas were regarded as identical with the Ambasthas atleast as early as sixteenth century is proved by the Surjanacharita which describes its author Chandrasekhara as 'a Gauda Ambastha. The Vaidyas and Ambasthas are mentioned side by side in the Usanahsamhita and Brahmavaivarta Purana. The Vaidyas are however described as Ambasthas in the Brihaddharma Purana.

I do not have much context about this caste but will be happy to help in any way I can to improve the article. I feel that there should be another section called "religion" or "varna" and all the different comments about varna should be put together in that section and that section can be expanded. The history section should mainly focus on how the migration - Brahmin-Kshatriyas(Sena) moving to Bengal and and some historic events, discuss some notables etc. As the article stands now, 80% of the history section discusses ritual status - think of what it means to a non-Indian or an atheist. But I will leave the decision to experts like Ekdalian and Sitush.LukeEmily (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, can you help? Can you add quotes to the citations for thread ceremoney etc.? If the sources are in Bengali , please provide your own english translation for the quote. Please note we can use only scholarly sources for highly sensitive points like varnaLukeEmily (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, LukeEmily! The article badly needed this cleanup. Thanks for your edits. Ekdalian (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: Thanks for this cleanup.I would definitely try my best to improve this article.I am feeling great as you have decided to help me for the same.Thank you very much.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian:, @Abhishek Sengupta 24: Is this reliable for the Baidya caste page? The History of the Bengali Language. Bijay Chandra Mazumdar Asian Educational Services. My concerns: 1. The original is published in 1920 ( pre-independence) 2. Despite it's name , Asian_Educational_Services is a non-academic publication 3. Was he a historian or a Bengali language scholar? Thanks.LukeEmily (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: Yes, He was a historian.It is true that the source is from Raj Era.There are also some odds with his hypothesis (As described in the talk page).As it was there for many years hence, I have not deleted it.Thanks.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily:, Abhishek Sengupta is right; he is a historian. But the source is pre 1947, it was there probably because there was no objection from anyone. However, we need to find better post Raj era source(s). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: I would suggest you to start the history section by describing the migration of 'Ambashthas' from Ambashtha region.It is also described many eminent Historians like BP Sinha.This ancient Ambashtha tribe must have some connection with Vaidyas.The journal of bengali studies edited by professor Tamal Dasgupta also explained it.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PB Mukherjee and Uday Sahay mention the existence of Ambahstha tribe and Uday Sahay mention the Ambahstha king.BP Sinha and Roychowdhuey define their migration to Bengal.The complete description is also given in the journal.Ekdalian please give your valuable suggestions.Thanks to both of you for your effort to improve the article.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all hello to my all fellow editors. @LukeEmily: in this article in the first line baidyas are mentioned as ambasthas here. is this acceptable???? I mean the ambastha tag of baidyas is a big question mark. you yourself mentioned that baidyas and ambasthas are different from each other. many baidya writers as well as other writers also confirmed that. also in baidya kul panjhika author Bharat Mallik described him as a gaud anbastha. gaud is a region, so we can assume he is also mentioning ambastha as a region here. ambastha as a region is confirmed by many nonbaidya authors also. so please I request you to remove or atleast move the ambastha tag from the first line of this article because of the confusion it creates. we should add the contents to the first part which have universal acceptance such as their profession. Arthur1277 (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Abhishek Sengupta 24, not only the sources you have mentioned, most of the reliable sources mention about the Ambashtha connection. Therefore, it's logical to start the 'History' section with such reliably sourced content related to the Ambashthas. Mazumdar's hypothesis may come after this. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur1277, once we get the main text in a better shape, we can discuss the lede section later.

For the Ambastha connection, I found three references that are academic. Here are the quotes. One was mentioned earlier.

1.‎India's Communities Singh - Oxford University Press (not the Popular press that is not WP:RS) pg. 185

The Vaidya ( Baidya ) of Bengal are supposed to be of the castes of mixed descent called Ambastha in Manu's code . It is possible that they are Ambastha Kayastha of south Bihar ( Bhattacharya 1896 )

2. Historian P Thankappan Nair writes: The Vaidya or the physician caste of Bengal is identified With the ancient Ambastha jati in the Vaidya Kulapanji entitled Chandraprabha written in 1675 A. D. by Mahamahopadhyaya Bharata Mallika, the celebrated Vaidya author ofBengal.91 That the Vaidyas were regarded as identical with the Ambasthas atleast as early as sixteenth century is proved by the Surjanacharita which describes its author Chandrasekhara as 'a Gauda Ambastha. The Vaidyas and Ambasthas are mentioned side by side in the Usanahsamhita and Brahmavaivarta Purana. The Vaidyas are however described as Ambasthas in the Brihaddharma Purana.

3.Doctoring Traditions: Ayurveda, Small Technologies, and Braided Sciences By (Professor)Projit Bihari Mukharji states that the Ambasthas were Brahmins and the Baidyas and a Bihar Kayastha subgroup both claim descent from these ancient Ambasthas.

LukeEmily (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is this ok based on 1,2? Feel free to edit. I will also add more. Once we have consensus, we can add the text to the main page.

A Baidya author, Mahamahopadhyaya Bharata Mallika states in his seventeenth century vaidya kulapanji chandraprabha that the ancient Ambastha caste and the Baidya are equivalent. This is also affirmed by the Surjanacharita and the Brihaddharma Purana. However, the Brahma Vaivarta Purana and Usanahsamhita treat them as different communities. As per Bhattacharya, it is likely that the Baidya's are Ambastha Kayastha from southern part of Bihar.

LukeEmily (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a side, reading both the University of Chicago press as well as the Cambridge University source (Leech) makes it clear that although Baidya's claim to be part of the Brahmin community, the claim is generally not accepted by the Brahmins. Are there any sources with opposing views? The sources also talk of intermarriages between the Bengali Kayasthas and Bengali Baidyas. But they do not talk of intermarriages between these castes and Brahmins. What are the disputed points currently? Based on the sources I have seen, are these 4 points correct? 1)Baidyas and Brahmins are different communities and since 1822 there has been a heated dispute about their ritual status 2)Many sources mention their connection with Ambastha. 3)Baidyas, Brahmins and Kayasthas are the three upper-caste communities of Bengal. 4)The only real difference between the Brahmins and Baidyas/Kayasthas was the ritual status, not the education. All communities were highly educated.LukeEmily (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily, all of the above 4 points are correct, based on almost all reliable sources. Thanks for your efforts, once again. Ekdalian (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily 1.baidyas of Bengal are considered as brahmins, enrollment of baidya boys in Sanskrit college which is exclusive to brahmins is the prime example of it link 1

2.The connection between baidya and ambastha is totally confusing as I told before,ambastha is a region and also a mythological caste.baidya author Bharat Mallik mentioned himself as a gaud ambastha. gaud is a region and we can assume he was also mentioning ambastha as a region there. many non baidya authors also confirmed ambastha a region . 3.yes the three castes were the upper layer of the society but ritually they did not rank together,which we can discuss later. 4.brahmins and baidyas both share the same ritual status. Arthur1277 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The social status of vaidyas is equivalent to brahmins in Bengal 1. page no 108 2. page no 222 3. page no 44 4. Sanskrit college enrolment of baidya boys along with only brahmin boys.

Arthur1277 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily Vaidya of Bengal are identified as Ambahstha.This 'Ambashthas' has two different history.'Ambastha' Kingdom is mentioned by many authentic authors like PB Mukherjee.Another mythologycal origin of Ambahstha saying them as admixture of Brahmin Father and Vaisya mother.Ambastha and Karana are two different sect mentioned in verious sources.This Karan is said to be formed the Kayastha sub caste.Vaidyas of Bengal are rituestically similer to that of Brahmins.Vaidya claimed to be Ambahstha Brahmin.Ambastha Brahmin is a sect mentioned by Romilla Thappar.Ambasthas are exclusively medical professional but Ambahstha Kayastha has no such history.Yes intermarriage happend between them,but it was happend to a limited part of Bengal now fall in Bangladesh.I would provide you sources. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidyas are rituestically similer to Brahmin check here

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Kayastha and Vaidya [35] Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kayastha were scribe and Vaidya were physicians [36] Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this [37] Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to this intermerrage vaidyas were degraded from their caste.This is the primary source [38] Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a issue in the sacred thread section.Actually a sect of Vaidya started wearing sacred thread themselves is not half true.Actually A sect of Vaidya were degraded by Laksman sen of sena dynasty.Latter they were again returned in 18th century.[39] this book is written in 19th century hardly about 20 years latter the incident happened.I have already provided it to Ekdalian.It is written in Bengal language.Ekdalian can verify it.Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur1277, okay, I will keep your edits here till the verdict comes, but will choose not to consider them till you get a clean chit.

Abhishek Sengupta 24, what you are citing are very few sources, which you have come across through POV specific google searches (discouraged by admins, have a look at Bishonen's talk page, discussion on blocking caste warriors and socks active here) in order to establish your POV; and it is very obvious since the Baidyas are the ones claiming Brahmin status for almost two centuries now. The broader point here is what majority of reliable sources say, as LukeEmily has rightly pointed out. Honestly speaking, Baidya is a brilliant community, and there's hardly any need to fight over their ritual status. I would like to reiterate that all four points mentioned above by LukeEmily are correct, as per majority of reliable sources. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian Thanks for your advice.Actually the source was once cited here and I have copied it.Here is another source [40] Thanks.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian what verdict you are talking about? and Ekdalin cant you see the facts provided by me and MR Abhishek Sengupta here??baidyas were considered as a brahmin in both socially(mentioned in sources provided by me and MR Sengupta) and officially(Sanskrit college). why are you focusing on that brahmin claim again and again??? stop misleading MR luke.Arthur1277 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sensitive nature as well as varying opinions, I think we should focus only on sources that are WP:HSC. So opinions of historians, anthropologists, political scientists etc. Please see this link. I will create a new section with all quotes about varna that I can find from academic sources or by historians.LukeEmily (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

good idea MR lukeemily,I also appreciate that. I would suggest you add things that are universally accepted in the lead section 1.the meaning of baidya/vaidya and their profession 2.social and caste status of baidyas which is equal to brahmins in Bengal. (accepted by Sanskrit college, Bengali society, mentioned in religious books like Rigveda,charak samhita etc) 3.brahmins,baidyas and kayasthas were the upper layer of the society of Bengal

and please move the brahmin claim part which is written by MR Nirmal Kumar bose, that makes no sense to be there in the lead section. once again thank you for your time and effort to make this article better and clean. Arthur1277 (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss here Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed, please add sources (and quotes) from historians/scholars about Varna status here. We can discuss whether each source is reliable or not. If necessary, we can create a new Varna section.(please feel free to reformat/indent if necessary).

1. Elites in South Asia , Cambridge University Press, S.N.Mukherjee, pg 55 Quote:Traditionally, the Hindu community in Bengal was divided into two varnas, Brahmin and Shudra. The Shudras were further subdivided into three groups: clean, unclean and untouchable.All jatis in Bengal were fitted into these four broad categories, Brahmins, clean Shudras, unclean Shudras and untouchable. Two caste groups, Kayastha and Baidya, enjoyed a very high social and political status along with the Brahmin, although their ritual status was rather low.^[1]

Reliability comments: (please add your individual comments below)

• LukeEmily: source is reliable: Very high quality. Edmund_Leach was an anthropologist/academic. S.N.Mukherjee was a historian. CUP publication, academic and from a top university.
• Ekdalian: Reliable source indeed!

2. Elites in South Asia , Cambridge University Press, S.N.Mukherjee, pg. 59 Quote:The rich members of ritually low caste started to establish started to establish horizontal links with caste brothers outside their regions and began to improve their ritual status. The Baidyas were the first caste to take steps in this direction. In the eighteenth century, under the leadership Raja Rajballabh, some of them started wearing the sacred thread and declared themselves twice-born. Since 1822, there has been a continuous pamphlet warfare between the Brahmin and Baidya pandits of Calcutta over the ritual status of the Baidyas.^[2]

Reliability comments: (please add your individual comments below)

• LukeEmily: source is reliable: Very high quality. Edmund_Leach was an anthropologist/academic. S.N.Mukherjee was a historian. CUP publication, academic and from a top university.
• Ekdalian: reliable source, no doubt!

3.Recovering Liberties: Indian Thought in the Age of Liberalism and Empire pg:144,145,C.A.Bayly Quote:Again, even the great reforming pandit Vidyasagar, when he was assistant secretary to the calcutta sanskrit college, could not bring himself to admission of Shudras to the college.Initially only Brahmin and Baidya boys were allowed to enroll...^[3]

Reliability comments: (please add your individual comments below)

• LukeEmily: source is reliable. Christopher Bayly was a british historian. academic publication(CUP).

• Ekdalian: Source is reliable. (Comments: Does not mean Baidyas were considered as Brahmins, they were allowed to study Sanskrit, otherwise they would not be able to study the Vedas precisely Ayurveda, and Brahmins were socially quite comfortable with the other two upper castes, Baidyas & Kayasthas).

4.Multiculturalism: Public Policy and Problem Areas in Canada and India edited by Christopher S. Raj, Marie McAndrew (Transcripts of papers presented at an international conference) Quote(pg 90):There are semi-Brahmin castes like Bhumihars (in Bihar and U.P) and Vaidyas (in west Bengal) who, like Brahmins, have access to the scriptures, the sacred thread, and the right to use the 'Sharma' caste surname. But neither Bhumihars nor Vaidyas have the right to conduct public Divine Service . Bhumihars and Vaidyas have nothing else in common .

• Ekdalian: Not sure.

5Isvar Chandra Vidyasagar, a story of his life and work by Subal Chandra Mitra (see https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/6168882) . I dont think this source is academic but I was interested in finding about the Sanskrit college. It is available online. The first one has reference to vaidya here in this [quote]. Again, I am not sure how accurate this is.

• Ekdalian: Seems logical. Thanks for digging deeper!

6.Caste in Life: Experiencing Inequalities quote(page 175) "Vaidya A Shudra caste in Bengal. Also known as Baidya." ^[4]

• LukeEmily: Not sure about reliability yet. Need to check the author qualifications. But it is getting confusing now with so many sources contradicting each other. Honestly, I feel they must have Brahmin or at least Kshatriya origins because as they were so educated and the rivalry with Brahmins must have resulted in degradation. But my personal opinion does not count on wikipedia. I did a lot of search on "baidya Brahmin" , "Brahmin Baidya" and most sources simply repeat the same "Baidyas, Brahmins, kayasthas are the upper castes in Bengal". I was trying to find some source that said something like "Baidyas are a subcaste of Brahmins". Does anyone know of any source that says that?

• Ekdalian: Not surprising actually. The Baidyas & Kayasthas in spite of being highly educated and upper castes (ruled Bengal for hundreds of years, and later continued as zamindars as well as senior government officials) were downgraded by the orthodox Sena dynasty rulers during the 11th/12th century, who declared that there were only two varnas in Bengal, Brahmins & Shudras. By that definition, even Baidyas & Kayasthas also ranked as Shudras, though their social status was quite high (inspite of low ritual status during those times; were labelled as the highest among the Shudra castes). Later, some historians and experts on the subject do consider the above two castes as twice-born. (This information is based on reliable sources only)
  • Further, for your information LukeEmily, prior to the Sena rule, the Bengali society was not rigid about the caste system, and Baidya (physician) & Kayastha (administrator/official) being professions, were mostly followed by Brahmins & educated upper class. These were transformed into castes during the Sena rule only. The Brahmins were obvious rivals of these two castes since they challenged their monopoly; they seem to be the happiest when the Senas declared the two varna system in Bengal, and could take advantage of the same in downgrading their ritual status. (Reliably sourced info, last statement is personal opinion)

7. Quotes from South Indians in Kolkatta by P Thankappan Nair Quotes from 3 pages

pg25 Vaidyas of Bengal. The Senas are now represented by Sens, who belong to the Vaidya caste. Vaidyas are on par with the Kayasthas of Bengal in caste-ranking. Their present titles include Sen, Sen-Gupta, Sen-Sarma, Gupta and Sen Mahasay. Who has not heard the names of Keshab Sen, the Brahmo leader, and his relative B. L. Gupta, who belonged to the Indian Civil Service? The down-fall of Brahma-Kshatriya Senas to the Vaidya caste of Bengal is interesting.

pg-25/26 With the ancient Ambastha jati in the Vaidya Kulapanji entitled Chandraprabha written in 1675 A. D. by Mahamahopadhyaya Bharata Mallika, the celebrated Vaidya author ofBengal.That the Vaidyas were regarded as identical with the Ambasthas atleast as early as sixteenth century is proved by the Surjanacharita which describes its author Chandrasekhara as a Gauda Ambastha The Vaidyas and Ambasthas are mentioned side by side in the Usanahsamhita and Brahmavaivarta Purana. The Vaidyas are however described as Ambasthas in the Brihaddharma Purana. The Bengal Vaidyas were regarded as Sudras by Vachaspati Misra, Raghunandana and the Kulapanjikas. There were no objections to inter-caste mariage between the Vaidyas and Kayasthas of Bengal, for Damanadasa, ancestor of the great Vaidya Kulina Vamanadasa, married in the Kayastha Pala family.

pg 16: How Brahma-Kshatriya Senas were reduced to Kayasthas is better told by Dinesh Chandra Sircar. In the Deopada inscription of king Vijayasena (c. 1097-1115 A.D.) of Bengal, his remote ancestor Virasena is described as born in the lunar race of Dakshinatya kings, and Vijaya's grandfather, Samantasena, as sprung from the Sena family and as an ornamentof the clan of the Brahma Kshatriyas who fought for the royal fortune ofKarnata and also as settled in his old age in the land watered by the Ganges. In the Barrackpur plate of the same king, Samantasena of the lunar race is represented as a Kshatriya while the said ruler is stated in the Naihati plate of Ballalasena (c. 1159-79), son of Vijayasena, to have descended from princes of the lunar race, who became ornament of the Radha country. The Madhainagar and Bhowal plates of Ballala's son Lakshmanasena. (c. 117~1206 A. D.) state Samantasena was the crest-jewel of the Kshatriya clan of Karnata. It is quite clear from the above passages that the Senas came from Karnata in the Deccan and settled in Radha in South-West Bengal. It may be noticed that Ballala, who had a typical Kannada name, married Ramadevi, described as born in the family of the Chalukya kings. According to Bengal traditions, the Senas were merged in the local Vaidya or Kayastha community.

8. A number of books mention sacred thread

Please seee this page 45: Doctoring Traditions: Ayurveda, Small Technologies, and Braided Sciences By (Professor)Projit Bihari Mukharji] Sanyal also points out that the Baidyas , along with their nearest rivals, the Kayasthas, had been successful in ritually and socially elevating their status considerably in the sixteenth century...In fact, by the eighteenth century, Raja Rajballabh a proud baidya, had acquired enormous wealh and power under Bengals' post-Mughal nawabs. He used his power and influence to the fullest to formally convince a large body of Brahmins to accept the right to wear the sacred thread. This act admitted the Biadya into the uppermost fold of the social and ritual hierarchy in the Hindu society. p 46:Whereas Brahmins now resented the Baidyas for wearing the sacred thread, the latter, using the thread as evidence sought equality with the Brahmins.

page 302: 50.Khangendranath Chobey , "Ambasthanang chikitsam", Baidya Hitoshi 4, no 6 (1926|1333 BE]:368-72 51.For the long term association between snaskrit learning and Baidya jati mobility, see Pascale Haag "I wanna be a brahmin too:Grmmar , traditions and Mythology as means for social legitimization among vaidyas in bengal", i samskrta-sadhuta"goodness of sanskrit":studies in honour of professor Ashok N. Aklujar, ed.Chikafumi Watababe, michele Marie desmarais and yoshichika Honda(226-49)

• Lukeemily: This source says that they wear sacred thread and *were* successful in elevating status.

There is another source that talks about Brahmin father/Vaishya mother origin. It seems from the source(P.B.Mukerji) that although the Brahmins in Bengal had degraded their ritual status earlier, they fought back and were successful in regaining their ritual status. The Bengali Brahmins may not like that but that is irrelevant as it was already resolved.

9.Also, see this [41] Hindu Revivalism in Bengal, 1872–1905: Amiya P. Sen · 2001

• LE: Source says they did wear the sacred thread.

10. Devoted to the Goddess: The Life and Work of Ramprasad^[5] At enormous cost he assmebled the Brahmin Pandits from different parts of India and after a great deal of discussion they recorded their opinion in writing admitting the right of Vaidyas to use the sacred thread - a right which they still maintain.. R.C.Majumdar

• LukeEmily: This source says that they have the right to wear sacred thread now and that is approved by the Brahmins all over India.

11. Caste, Entrepreneurship and the Illusions of Tradition:Branding the Potters of Kolkata-Geir Heierstad [[42]] quoteThus to complicate the picture even more, the Baidyas and Kayasthas are often grouped together with the Brahmans to constitute the higher caste group or uccha jati. Some of the Baidyas and the Kayasthas are known to have started using the sacred thread as the sign of being second-born.

• LE: Please check page 45 and 46. [Geir_Heierstad] has divided the castes in Bengal in 6 groups. He is stating that the caste system in Bengal is quite confusing.

12. Origin And Growth Of Caste In India Vol.2 71 "Brahmana legislators and interpreters of law to reduce the status of the Vaidyas and make them Sudras on the plea that in the Kali age there were only two varnas, Brahmana and Sudra. Thus the Brihaddharmapurana (Uttara, XIV. 44) directs the Vaidyas to observe the duties of a Sudra, Sudradharman." "The result was that many of the Vaidyas gave up the right of initiation as twice-born and began to observe the thirty days' rule for impurity like ordinary Sudras. 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."

• LE:I have copied the quotes given by Abhishek Sengupta 24. Based on the historian, it does seem that Baidyas were originally twice-born and degraded by the Brahmins (probably due to some politics).

LukeEmily Thanks for your efforts to improve this article.Here is another book Multiculturalism written by professor Christopher S Raj.Please check the best peer reviewed section.Thanks.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nipendra Kumar dutta is an eminent historyan and principle.please check it [43] page no 70.He writes that Brahmins degraded them. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually vaidyas or Ambahsthas had painful history.Inspite of being a Brahmin sect they were degraded.Brahmin(priest) degraded Vaidyas due to their medical profession.However latter they regain their position by several movements.Abstha tribe was actually Brahmin tribe.You know that.Your given source of PB Mukherjee also mentions it. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, I have added the quote from the book you mentioned where the paper calls them "semi-Brahmin". Christopher Raj is the editor. Do you know who the author of the paper is? In general, if multiple reliable sources give different opinions, we will need to list all of them for WP:NPOV. However, it does seem from the sources I have seen so far that they are *currently* not part of the Brahmin community of Bengal (please correct me if i am mistaken as I do not have context about the caste system in Bengal). Yes, it was quite common to degrade castes that are rivals.LukeEmily (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes LukeEmily, not just currently, Baidyas have all through been considered as a distinct caste in Bengal, but formed the upper layer of Hindu society along with Brahmins & Kayasthas. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyasagar calling shudra to Vaidya was strongly opposed by another legend Bankimchandra Chatterjee. See [44] page no 88 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Bengal there was only two sect Brahmin and Shudra. There was no intermediate caste see your sorces yourself. Calcutta Sanskrit college barred shudras from admission but allowed Vaidyas. Sanskrit learning and Studying Veda is restricted for Shudras see [45] written by Peter Gonslave. Thease are the clear indication Baidyas are not considered as shudra. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidyas are almost equivalent to Brahmin [46] written by Kanchiv lochan Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidya is a different caste and Brahmin is a different caste. Ambastha or Vaidyas were Brahmin latter they are degraded by priestly brahmins. Please see the book of Nripendra kumar Dutta[47] Page 70 to 71.Please Identify Niprendra kumar dutta here [48]. He is an eminent historian. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambasthas were Brahmin is mentioned by many authors. Bimal Churn Law also mentioned it [49]. Vaidya and are two different caste.Brahmin is also a caste as well as Varna. Vaidya or Ambastha is a different caste but of Brahmin varna. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elites in South Asia , Cambridge University Press, S.N.Mukherjee This is written by a POV writer , Mukherjee surname.Because he belongs from Priestly caste!Purohit(priest) and Vaidya(doctor) both have right to become brahmin in Head Religious Text "The Veda " . Because of being 'competetor' Mr.mukherjee is a POV writter. Dr.SunBD (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily please understand baidyas are now considered as twice born. After several movement and sanskrit college incident they regain their status. I have given a number of Sources above. Please consider Nipendra Kumar Dutta. He is an eminent historian from Bengal. Ekdalian please help him to identify Niprendra kumar dutta. Baidya and Kayastha are two upper caste apart from Brahmin and they altogether form the Brahminchal society. Baidyas are Ambastha. Ambastha are Brahmin as well as Brahma-Kshatriya. It is written by maby authors including PB Mukherjee which was given by you. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24 , yes. They wear the sacred thread and that was approved by Brahmins. That means Baidya are considered twice-born now.. Some Brahmins may resent it now as the sources say. But that is not relevant as there are south Indian Brahmins who also resent the Kashmiri Pandits because the latter eat meat. But that does not make the Kashmiri Pandits "non-Brahmin". There might have been some issues in the past but those were resolved as per (8) and (9). Please can you also add the quote from Niprendra kumar Dutta. If I understand correctly, here is the summary." The Baidyas were BrahmaKshatriyas who were degraded by Brahmins in the 12th century. Later, since the 16th century they started fighting back about their ritual status and elevated their ritual status back to the original status. This is based on P.B.Mukherji's book. Is this correct? Please may I ask two questions for my own knowledge? 1)Currently, do Baidya's perform the sacred thead ceremony using a Brahmin priest? (I assume a Brahmin priest will always be required for this ceremony) 2)What is the mourning period for Śrāddha - for the Baidyas? If it is 10 days, it is a Brahmin custom. Ekdalian, please can you review P.B.Mukherji, he says that both the Kayasthas and Baidyas elevated their ritual status.LukeEmily (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily, I have reviewed P.B.Mukherji's book. The Baidyas were not BrahmaKshatriyas (as per all reliable sources), only the Sena dynasty kings claimed to be BrahmaKshatriyas (accepted by many), and later their descendants merged with the Baidya and Kayastha communities of Bengal. And yes, Baidyas & Kayasthas were able to elevate their ritual status (as per reliable sources), and some Brahmin groups accepted them (Baidyas) as twice-born (dwija), and the Baidyas started wearing the sacred thread; what I understand from this particular source as well as other sources is though some Brahmin groups accepted their twice-born status, they never accepted that Baidyas are Brahmins. As you know, except the Shudras, all three varnas including Vaishyas have the right to sacred thread. Therefore, we can mention about their somewhat elevated status in the 16th century and later, and the fact that they were allowed to wear the sacred thread and thus considered as twice-born by some Brahmin groups. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmilyBaidyas have to perform sacred thread ceremony at boyhood [50] Their all ceremonies are performed by Priests.They observe 10 days mourn impurity. Many authors even refer baidyas as Baidya Brahmin [51] Baidyas are similer in culture of Brahmins[52]. Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here [53] page 106.Quote "A number of Vaidyas wear sacred thread like Brahmins. Their marriage ... Death ceremonies are also exactly similar to Brahmins having pollution period of ten days. Dead bodies are usually cremated." It's in snippet view but a little can be seen here [54] I am searching better source. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily in Bengal only Brahmins and Baidyas have sacred thread ritual(See my source). In Bengal there are only two Varnas Brahmin and Shudra. I am reiterating,no intermediate varna present here. Check provided sources provided by you.Kayastha as a caste elevated there position in Bengal, but they come after Baidya. Bengali Brahmins think vaidya as a seperate caste. Brahmin is a caste as well as Varna. Vaidya or Ambastha is a seperate caste but has Brahmin Varna. Ambasthas are Brahmin supported by many authentic authors as well. Ekdalian why are you not commenting about Nipendra Kumar Dutta. I would urge you to help him to identify Niprendra Kumar Dutta.He should also know about this Bengali schollar.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambasthas were Brahmin as well as Brahma-Kshatriya. Check here[55] written by Bimal Churn Law. Please check pb mukherjee's Book. He also mentioned Ambastha as Brahmin.Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, Ekdalian, please see the 2017 source by modern scholar Geir Heierstad. Abhishek Sengupta 24, unfortunately, we cannot use the genetics paper as a source because the author is a Geneticist not an anthropologist, historian or political scientist. Can we get some info on who Dubey was?(was he a historian who called them Baidya Brahmans) One thing is clear from all sources : Baidays (at least some) have rituals similar to brahmins. It is also clear that the Baidyas said they were of Brahmin status. But the opinion of modern scholars such seems to be contradictory as you can see from points 1 to 11.LukeEmily (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily I understand.Due to priestly Brahmins, Vaidya's identity is now on risk. I am urging to consider Nipendra Kumar Dutt because, He clearly mentioned what happened with Baidyas. But now Vaidyas are well within dwija group and Semi-Brahmin or lower Brahmin or almost brahmin (I have given). Many authors unanimously accepted that Baidya or Ambastha were Brahmin. Here concentrate on , Julius J. Lipner also saying baidyas are ex brahmin [56].The confussion is because of their degradation in Medieval era by Priestly Brahmins. But Now they are considered as lower Brahmin group.I would suggest to concentrate on Their history. Ambastha history.Their Varna status. Thanks.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abhishek Sengupta 24, yes, we can focus on history. My suggestion is that we all can start editing the page based on reliable sources (such as the ones above). The ritual status of both the Bengali Baidyas and Bengali kayasthas is pretty confusing, especially for someone like me who does not have context of the caste system in Bengal. Out of interest, I did a google search on matrimonal advertisements and found pages like this (from 2001) and it seems like it is not unusual for Brahmins, Baidyas and Kayasthas to intermarry. For example, a brahmin bride is looking for a Brahmin, Baidya or Kayastha groom in the last listing. The ritual status seems to have secondary value in Bengal. Of course , that website is not a reliable source for wikipedia but just mentioning as part of the discussion. I will be back online after a few hours.LukeEmily (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmilyin any respect vaidya can't be lower,rather according to some shastras vaidyas are 'Trija´ one step ahead of Brahmin. Vaidya have to learn shastras, Vedas.It's compulsory for them See Thomas Alexander Wise about Baidya [57].Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nriprendra Kumar Dutt writes about Vaidyas forceful degradation. He is quoted by many eminent schollars as well like Ludo Rocher [58]Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is also quoted by Marvin Davis [59]. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily

Dineshchandra Sircar, The person who is quoted by Nair(check) tells all rituals of Baidyas are done by Brahmin Priest. But it is in bengali language . Can you arrange to get it verified [60] page 61.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily, I have gone through the source by Geir Heierstad, and all it says is in fact true. Also, such matrimonial ads are quite normal, and there are arranged marriages between Brahmins, Baidyas & Kayasthas! Abhishek Sengupta 24, you need to understand that WP:SYN is not acceptable here; therefore instead of arriving at conclusions yourself, it would be better if we follow what the reliable sources say. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian LukeEmily Exactly I am not concluding myself. The same source which mentions Vaidya or Ambastha degradation mentions Ambastha as Brahmin. Check page 67.Nripendra Kumar Dutt. ThanksAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Ekdalian, Abhishek Sengupta 24, yes I read about their degradation in Nripendra Kumar Dutt. That is very sad history. Abhishek Sengupta 24, please can you add in the talk section above the quotes from Nripendra Kumar Dutt that you think should go on the main page. Geir Heierstad seems to be talking in the present tense. Should we simply create a Varna section and add opinions of different scholars? Any suggestions?LukeEmily (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, Dineshchandra Sircar is reliable, please feel free to add his quote in Bengali about the sacred thread and also add your own translation in english for the benefit of readers. The sacred thread mention is already there on the main page, you can just expand that.LukeEmily (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, LukeEmily, we can have a separate Varna section, and add opinions from reliable sources. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily As you wanted to know about our mourn Impurity rituals.Here I am giving you a source.[61] written by Hamlet Bareh.Vaidya's rituals are similer to that of Brahmins.Regarding Varna status:- If you add this section than please mention Ambastha's varna as cited by reliable sources.Ambastha has a mythological origin i.e Brahmin father and Vaisya Mother.Regarding this status G. S. Ghurye mentions [62] their varna should brahmin.Then history of degradation(As many reliable sources mentions them as shudra) as well as their current status.A reliable source also cited them as Ex Brahmin.One thing, vaidya's actual surname is sharma,which they use at rituals mentioned my Christopher S raj as well.see here [63].Please move the sacred thread section and "claim brahmin status" of lead section to varna and ritual section.Vaidya's themselves started wearing sacred thread is not completely true.I would definitely quote Nripendra Dutt's Book here.Thanks.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[64] page no 71 "Brahmana legislators and interpreters of law to reduce the status of the Vaidyas and make them Sudras on the plea that in the Kali age there were only two varnas, Brahmana and Sudra. Thus the Brihaddharmapurana (Uttara, XIV. 44) directs the Vaidyas to observe the duties of a Sudra, Sudradharman."

"The result was that many of the Vaidyas gave up the right of initiation as twice-born and began to observe the thirty days' rule for impurity like ordinary Sudras. 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." He mentions thar baidyas used to had twice born initiation before the the degradation and mentions that not all vaidyas gaveup twice-born initiation. Latter Raja Rajballav part is given by many other historian.Thanks.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, based on the quotes, it does seem that they were originally twice-born but degraded due to some absurd theory that was popular in the Bengal.LukeEmily (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, Ekdalian, I have created a new section and moved existing text there. Also adding a couple of new points. Please feel free to expand it based on the sources and quotes. BTW, Nipendra Kumar Dutt was born in 1890. His book was originally published in 1931. Do you know if volume 2 was also published in 1931? The 1965 may be a reprint.LukeEmily (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily, I have checked and found that the original publication may be in 1931(actually it's published in many volumes).Actually he is an eminent historian and the same book is used by many other eminents to constract their works.For example Saul David used the same book in The Indian Mutiny: 1857 ; Gail Omvedt used the same book in Dalits and the Democratic Revolution: Dr Ambedkar and the Dalit Movement in ; Alan Dundes used the same book in Two Tales of Crow and Sparrow: A Freudian Folkloristic Essay on Caste and ...; His another book is used here Hindu Places of Pilgrimage in India: A Study in Cultural Geography.These Books are post Raj era but using the same person's work.I am novice, hence, don't know the wikipedia policy deeply.You can use it(pages 94-96) as another supporting doccument, edited by Tamal Dasgupta, professor of Delhi University.It is published is 2015.It gives a little detail storey.The content that is given by Dutt is also consistent with other reliable sources.And, I would like to thank you, for your extreme efforts.It's really adimirable.I am grateful to you.Thanks again.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any issues, please mention them. Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam The journal Journal of Bengali Studies has ISSN 2277-9426 it's indexed in [65].It's a peer reviewed journal.You are not supposed to remove without talking here.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can check more detail here. The journal is edited by Professor Dr. Tamal Dasgupta. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow indentation guidelines. ISSN is not an academic index. Impact factor is calculated by Clarivate WoS and CosmosImpactFactor is a misleading metric. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TrangaBellam Thanks for your edit. May I request you to mention that Vaidyas were actually twice born. See the page 70 to 71 of Dutt, He mentions that they gave up the twice-born right( but not all). You seem to be well versed in Indian caste system. ThanksAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• See page no 70 Nripendra Dutt mentions that "Vaidyas gave up right of initiation of twice born...." And mentions that Srikhanda, Bardhaman, senbhum and Manbhum they did not give up it. ThanksAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Vaidyas were actually twice born, nobody is actually twice-born. To the best of my knowledge, Baidyas claimed the status in around early 1800. Dutt is usually unreliable and Puranic studies have underwent a revolution since his days. He is also wrong about Rajballabha. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are better sources. I will add them. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TrangaBellam I would urge you to stop editing this article. LukeEmily studied deeply about Baidyas. Let him review it first. thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why don't you indent your posts? Your request won't be paid any heed. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I urge both of you to read this:

  The entire rich and complex historiography of the phenomenon of caste in South Asia has taught us to deeply distrust the putative conflation of ancient labels and contemporary identities that Bala engages in. Careful archival work and a serious engagement with a wider array of sources—particularly beyond the narrow cache of colonial governmental records in English—plainly shows why such conflations are illegitimate.
  [C]ontemporary scholarship on castes in general which notes that the caste groups of India, far from static, ahistorical, or biologically discrete entities, are in fact dynamic social corporates that continually fuse, split off, reinvent, and renegotiate their identity and status within local milieus. The operative unit in this dynamic system is not the fourfold varna categories usually referred to as “caste”: namely, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Sudra, but rather more localized units called jatis.
  — Mukharji, Projit Bihari. A Baidya-Bourgeois World: The Sociology of Braided Sciences. University of Chicago Press. p. 45-46

  TrangaBellam (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TrangaBellam You are editing without reaching consensus here. Vaidya intermarry kayastha but it degraded them. See[66]. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to make coherent objections. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome TrangaBellam! Thanks for your efforts. Please feel free to discuss as and when required. Thanks Ekdalian (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. If you see anything concerning, flag. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TrangaBellam You are pushing your POV by WP:SYN.Here for caste related article WP:HSC is applied. where the journal you have used is under payroll and not verifiable. Also you have edited some lines by assumption like you have used kayastha intermarry in a way that Vaidya had married to gain social position. Where as due to this intermarry their social position degrades(I have given the source above).ThanksAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are alleging me of violating rules, please take the time to provide diffs.

  WP:HSC states nothing about pay-walled sources. WP:PAYWALL is quoted verbatim :

  Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives.

  All these incurred significant social mobility for the Baidyas and they had marriages with Kayasthas do not mean that kayastha intermarry in a way that Vaidya had married to gain social position. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Check Sitush for caste related article [67] Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  It should be Universal. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Abhishek Sengupta 24:Which of my sources are self-published or written by Raj-era authors or written by a member of Baidya jati? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You cited a journal which is not available for all.How can I verify it? Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Visit a real/virtual library? They are yet to be a thing of past. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Please can you add quotes for some of the contentious new text? Also, please can you review the 12 sources and the quotes given in the "Ritual Status" above. Why is Dutt not considered reliable? What about Nair? I do not think that writing Shudra in the origin is accurate because they were degraded from their original "twice-born" varna as per Dutt.LukeEmily (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Which parts are contentious? I have a general apathy against using quotes. They take up screen space.

  Source (1) and (2) are same and reliable. They are used in the article. As is source (3). Source (4) is a collection of conference presentations and not reliable. Source (5) is about 120 years old and not reliable.^[1] I don't have access to source (6). Source (7) is by a respected author but his field of eminence is not social history of Bengal. Source (8) is reliable and I have used it. Source (9) is reliable but I am not certain in interpreting it. Source (10) is reliable but I have used two better sources. Source (11) is reliable but I am not sure what additional information/context it provides. Source (12) [Dutt] is reliable but old; I had expanded his views but shifted them to footnotes. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TrangaBellam Nripendra Dutt in his book mentions that Brahmana legislators and interpreters of law to reduce the status of the Vaidyas and make them Sudras on the plea that in the Kali age there were only two varnas, Brahmana and Sudra. Thus the Brihaddharmapurana (Uttara, XIV. 44) directs the Vaidyas to observe the duties of a Sudra, Sudradharman." "The result was that many of the Vaidyas gave up the right of initiation as twice-born and began to observe the thirty days' rule for impurity like ordinary Sudras. 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." In page no 70.You should mention it in the part where you mention that "Baidya wore sacred thread since ever". Under NPOV. It is necessary. You can't be selective. I am quite agree with LukeEmily that, In the origin you are telling them sudra. It's wrong they were Brahmin. Ambasthas were Brahmin accepted by many authors.It is to be mentioned there, what Dutt mentions. It should be in the article not on foot note. Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Get a better and recent source. Your source contradicts Gupta, Mukharji and Dasgupta. I am yet to have my hands on Haag but if she supports Dutt, I will bring it back to body.

• The Vaidyas claimed themselves to be Brahmanas, but the claim seems to be unfounded and remains unproven.
  — https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php/Vaidya

TrangaBellam (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you reverting my sourced content. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Like? TrangaBellam (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TrangaBellam it seems like your intention is not good. I am providing reliable and verifiable source and you are reverting it! It was there in the lead section for many years. On my request LukeEmily moved it. Ekdalian can you say something? And Dutt is a good reliable source then what is your problem? Under NPOV it's necessary to mention it.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You have been already warned to not ascribe motives to editors. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not ascribing you. Why are you reverting My edits which is reliably sourced. Its against the Wikipedia policy.

• See your revert here [68] and what type of unreliable web site you are providing. Banglapedia is unreliable for caste related article. Banglapedia is also saying that they claimed Brahmin status. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Banglapedia is the first Bangladeshi encyclopedia and is published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh in collaboration with national universities and UNESCO. That is what our article notes and hence, the source is reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Banglapedia is also saying that Vaidya claimed Brahmin status. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• You probably not got it. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• See what Nirmal Kumar Bose is saying Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok thanks grateful to you. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dutt's hypothesis does not make any sense. I will write a note once I have some time. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TrangaBellam you can use better source for the "Claimed Brahmin status" section of Nirmal Kumar Bose here [69]. The content is unsourced. Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Your source is a translation of Bose (1949) and very poor. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TrangaBellam can you please add quote WP:QUOTE for some sensitive sections?For example Kayastha intermarry is used such a way that, for any ordinary readers it seems that Vaidya married kayastha and "Overally" They gained good social status. Thanks.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dutt's hypothesis does not make any sense. I will write a note once I have some time. TrangaBellam. Please see WP:OR.LukeEmily (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you know that I will engage in original research? Dutt has got his dating wrong about two things. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Abhishek Sengupta 24, in response to your ping, I would like to say that TrangaBellam is doing a pretty good job here, and I feel he is editing in his own flow. Let him finish first; you can then come up with your concerns, if any. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ekdalian, TrangaBellam Can you tell me under which wikipedia guideline he(TrangaBellam) is deleting the reliability sourced contents including myne and LukeEmily. Which guideline tells reliable sources should be in footnote. Please give the shortcut here, I like to read the guideline.Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dutt

Please stop promoting Dutt's fancy non-evidenced hypothesis to body. It is from a book which is 60 years old and recent scholarship either does not bother engaging with him or contradict his views. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a reprint of 1931 work. Owen M. Lynch notes, From a contemporary point of view, the book is marred by somewhat outmoded views about the Aryan (white) and Dravidian (black) races in India. It also suffers from not too concealed value judgments on the morality of ancient practices, especially marriage customs, and on the relative mental and cultural status of tribals and untouchables in ancient India.

@RegentsPark: What is your opinion on using such an old source to assert a view about Baidyas being ex-brahmins, which no modern source repeats? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New scholarly sources should be preferred over older ones (ceteris paribus).--RegentsPark (comment) 15:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources

• See,@RegentsPark: Julius J. Lipner in his book herePage No 133 re-iterated it.Published in 2010.Dineshchandra Sircar also gives the history. I would give it here.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Dineshchandra Sircar in his book [70] page 107-108 tells baidyas as Ambastha and mentions Ambastha as Brahmin. Dutt is an eminent historian, whose book is latter used by many other historian. TrangaBellam also accepted him as reliable. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Apart from these, this book in hindi language Page 176 also mentions it. Nripendra Dutt's book is important, because he mentions the history of degradation as well and also available online. He is an eminent historian. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The book in Hindi is not reliable. D. C. Sircar says something else and not about Bengali Baidyas. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  TrangaBellam I think you don't know properly about Baidyas. Baidya only found in Bengal and Sircar clearly saying about Bengali Baidya and Mahisya. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  See here Baidya or Vaidya are same. Also written in the Baidya main article. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am astonished! Sircar clearly saying about Bengali Baidyas in page 107-108 and you not got it. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Please quote the line where Sircar finds Bengali Baidyas to be Brahmins. As far as I see, he notes that Baidyas claim to be historical Ambasthas but declines to pass any judgment on the validity of the claim. Ambasthas are held to be an ancient tribe of warriors, who shifted to different professions. Kayasthas and Mahisyas are noted to be ex-Ambasthas, too. In pg. 112, he notes Ambasthas of S. India to be non-Brahmanas. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually this the main history of Ambastha migration to Bengal . Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In page no 107 he mentions about Ambasthas. He mentions "In Ambatta sutta Ambastha was mentioned as Brahmana" page 107. Then he started history of Ambastha migration in page no 108 he clearly mentions "Ambastha formed vaidya and Mahisya community in Bengal." He indicating Ambastha or Baidya as ex brahmin.Ambastha and Vaidyas are same. Let me give you some more references.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  See Ambasthas are vaidya Thomas Alexander Wise on Ambastha and Vaidya [71]Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit College

In his letter No. 79, dated 7 January 1851, F. J. Mouat, Secretary to the Council of Education requested Vidyasagar to report on the question of admission into Sanskrit College of students belonging to castes other than Brahmanas and Vaidyas, and to ascertain and submit to the Council of Education, the opinion of the principal professors of·the Institution on this question.

The principal professors (Joynarayan Tarkapanchanan, Bharatchandra Seromoni and Premchandra Tarkabagish) opined: We object to allow Kayasthas and other mixed castes, who rank with Shudras, to study, in this College, Grammar and other Shastras which are allied with the Vedas. The study of the above named Shastras by Shudras is forbidden by Manu and other Law-givers and is contrary to custom...

In spite of such opposition by the principal professors, Vidyasagar, in his letter No. 702, dated 28 March 1851, to the Council of Education stated: I see no objection to the admission of other castes than Brahmanas and Vaidyas or, in other words, different orders of Shudras, to the Sanscrit College. But as a measure of expediency, I would suggest that at present Kayasthas only be admitted... The reason, why I recommend the exclusion of the other orders of Sbudras at present, is that they, as a body, are wanting in respectability and stand lower in the scale of social consideration...

Vidyasagar's suggestion was accepted by the authority.
— Bidyāsāgara, Īśvaracandra (August 1971). Guha, Arabinda (ed.). Unpublished letters of Vidyasagar. Calcutta: Reba Guha.

TrangaBellam (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam, also as pointed out by LukeEmily, you may go through the following. Not sure about reliability.

Isvar Chandra Vidyasagar, a story of his life and work, by Subal Chandra Mitra..

[quote]. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not acquainted with Bidyāsāgara's life but the book is a hagiography. I came across my source from Bailey (1991). TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bṛhaddharma Puraṇa

Develop. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbv. P? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiculturalism

• TrangaBellam, Abhishek Sengupta 24 , Ekdalian , User:BengHistory Can we add the missing author of Multiculturalism : public policy and problem areas in Canada and India / edited by Christopher Sam Raj, Marie Mc Andrew

From this copy paste, I think it is Saumyajit Ray. He is reliable (a PhD and a professor). The quote is correct, he uses the word "semi-Brahmin" to describe the Bhumihars and Baidyas. I had given this quote in (4) in the ritual status section above. Perhaps we should create a post-Independence section and add that In modern India, the Baidyas are considered twice-born and half-Brahmins as they do not do not conduct public religious services like the "full" Brahmins. I have to confess, I have no context of the Bengali society and it's complex caste system but this seems accurate as it discusses the current status. The other authors are simply talking of pre-Independence status. Comments? Thank you. LukeEmily (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4656821

New Delhi : Manak Publications, 2009 xvi, 345 p. ; 25 cm. ISBN 9788178311845 8178311844

Summary Transcripts of papers presented at a international conference.

Full contents

Machine derived contents note: Introduction xiii

Section Mticultcuralism: Concepts, Contours And Challenges

1 Canadian Discourse on Multiculturalism:Antecedents, Direction and Divergence 3 Christopher S. Raj

2. The Canadian Multiculturalism Programme: A Critique 32 Denise Helly

3. Doing Multiculturalism in Canada: Practices and Perceptions 51 Augie Fleras

4. Understanding Indian Multiculturalism 67 Saumyajit Ray

Section 2

Multiculturalism, Identity And Equality:Unfulfilled Promises?

5. Social Inclusion of Indian Immigrants in Canada:

Conceptual Issues 99

Paramjit Judge

LukeEmily, this statement seems to be conclusive, though in reality, as a Bengali living in Bengal, I can tell you that the twice-born status and semi-Brahmin claim is still disputed, especially opposed by the Bengali Brahmins. Though there's no doubt that all (including Brahmins) consider the Baidyas among the three traditional upper castes, and as you had pointed out earlier, inter-caste arranged marriages among these three castes are not uncommon at all. Therefore, this may be the view of the author, but the statement should not sound conclusive. This information is meant for you and TrangaBellam (since the Baidya editors here will obviously disagree, this will go against their POV). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily yes sure it's no doubt a reliable content hence,must be added in the main article. Ekdalian I red your past conversation with an editor in this talk page of 'answer to Ekdalian' section.I got it from Bishonen's talk page. I noted your statement back to 2013"As far as Baidyas are concerned, my personal opinion is that they are brilliant as a community, and equivalent to Brahmins in Bengal in terms of social status. Even if the Brahmins refuse them Brahmin status in Medieval Bengal, that hardly makes any difference. But, when it comes to this article, we need to cite reliable sources as per our policies, and not Mahabharat or the Puranas." Here we find a reliable source apart from your personal opinion. Ritually baidyas are also similer to Brahmin.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC) Yes, LukeEmily, this statement is descriptive in nature ('conclusive' to some extent, one might say ) and anyone conversant with Bengali social norms would recognize it as a sound description. Since the source is reasonably reliable, it should definitely be included. Unlike what Mr. Ekdalian is suggesting (I had discussions with him here 4-5 years ago, by the way), Brahmin priests in Bengal do officiate in Baidya social functions (upanayana, marriage etc.) and they do it in the (primarily) Yajurvedi Brahmin customs. Their disagreements over Baidyas mainly centre around the status of Baidyas as full-fledged Brahmins, and in general they do maintain a semi-brahminic treatment of Vaidyas when it comes to priesthood. The common folks of various non-brahmin castes still call Baidyas as 'Baidya brahmins' (or 'Boddi Bamuns'), as reflected in Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyay's short stories or the historian Tapan Roychowdhury's autobiography Bangalnama (Ananda Publishers). The opposition Mr. Ekdalian is referring to comes from authors (Brahmins and others) writing articles about the ritualistic evolution of the baidyas (i.e., whether they were ex-brahmins or satshudras in past), and all of them invariably cite Brihaddharma Purana (written in late-13th or 14th century, after the decline of Sena empire), directly or indirectly. Since they do not delve into the other sources and often have caste-interests themselves (rivalry does play a part, sometimes), they ignore (or remain silent on) issues like the continuity of sacred thread rituals among Vaidyas in West Bengal (documented not only in Kulaji-texts but also by Sanyal, Dutt and others) from pre-Rajballabh times, or how the social reality of Bengal did not always follow Brihaddharma Purana. Even then, we have Brahmin scholars like Shibkali Bhattacharya or Dr. Debipada Bhattacharya who accept that Vaidyas were originally full-fledged brahmins.[reply]

@Ekdalian: Your personal opinion would not be heeded here. I have provided many reliable sources which prove Baidyas are Ritualistically similer to Brahmin and their rituals are performed by Brahman priests. Many sources claim them to be equivalent to Brahmins. Here I am providing two reliable sources.You have to prove it false here with reliable source. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, it's not about my personal opinion, it's all about arriving at consensus here before pushing your POV into the lead section of the article. Unlike LukeEmily or TrangaBellam, you have not edited other articles apart from glorifying your own caste, therefore we cannot expect you to be neutral as well. Please read WP:UNDUE; minority views will not be accepted in the lead section anyway. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:PAYWALL I can provide you reliable source apart from these, who claim Baidyas as full-fledge Brahmin. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a full citation of your source. It is impossible for an University to be the author of a journal paper. The journal is neither held in many libraries nor indexed in prominent databases. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the sources not my POV. And please don't break WP:NPA.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have to consider my edit as good faith.WP:GOODFAITH Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, is there any way other than looking at an user's contributions in order to evaluate his/her capabilities, interests, neutrality, etc, and as far as caste articles are concerned, there's one group of users who use Wikipedia only to promote / glorify their own caste. Anyway, coming back to the point, if 2-3 sources say, the Baidyas are semi-Brahmins, then there's hundreds of sources which mention them as the highest among the Shudras; we don't even mention that in the lead section considering the disputed nature of their caste status, peculiar varna system of Bengal and the sensitivity of the same. So, why should this be mentioned in the lead section?? Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: sure, I would provide it. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian: I can understand. But You know that, I don't oppose you when you added negative point about Baidyas, rather I thanked you. Now according to you many sources mention baidyas as sudra, now it's also applicable for other castes as well who were classified under sudra category. You know that there is no Kshatriya in Bengal. I have seen other caste article, it's written in their lead section. I have no problem with this but the rule should be universal. I an not mentioning in lead section. If you have problem then can I mention it on the name of professors? ThanksAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, please provide the details to TrangaBellam, as mentioned above, discuss here, and if it's reliable, the same can be added to the relevant section (not lead) of the article as the opinion of the author. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily You would look after it, As you have detail about the source(I have also provided detail in the Ritual section).Please Feel free to mantion it. Thanks Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about "Multiculturalism" Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian I dis agree with you. I have right to edit any article of my choice. What ever I edited here were properly sourced. I was not pushing my POV. I don't have any record of vandalism.How can you accuse me as caste glorifier. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC) I would humbly like to know if calling someone 'caste-warrior', 'caste-glorifier' falls under the category of personal attacks or not. I noticed that one editor defended another editor by saying that pointing a mistake (intentional or not) of the latter was a personal attack on latter, and they even exercised their power to threaten the ones pointing the error of imposing blocks. Does the law act differently for different editors here? Similarly, sources by authors belonging to Baidya caste are summarily being rejected here on pretext of non-neutrality (and editors are being mocked as 'Baidya editors'), but it is the ones protesting against that who are being served notice saying that they should not judge any author on the basis of their caste. This is becoming a joke.[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, I have already explained above, and any neutral editor would agree with me; I don't think I should further explain the obvious. Anyway, I would like to inform you that even admins use this as the basis in order to identify caste glorifiers, and the next level (when they violate the norms and engage in edit war, etc) is what we call caste warrior. Ekdalian (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam LukeEmily In this journal Caste in Mind: Craving for Endogamy Reflection from the Bengali Matrimonial Columns of the Higher Castes--- written by Dr. Aparinita Bhattacharjee,the History professor by quoting ghosh, mentions that Baidyas were proficient in four veda apart from Ayurveda and called as Baidyabipra. Baidyas are trija and equivalent to Brahmin.page no 160-162.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, What is the journal name? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: Caste in Mind: Craving for Endogamy Reflection from the Bengali Matrimonial Columns of the Higher Castes--- written by Dr. Aparinita Bhattacharjee Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, that is the name of the article. I am inquiring about the name of journal. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: it's "Anudhyan:An International Journal Of Social Sciences (AIJSS) " Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This? Non-indexed and unreliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: you are using purans which were written in the 13th century by some priestly brahmins to write this article???? and Mukundaram Chakrabarty is a 16th-century author.is that right to quote him in this very sensitive article??? I urge you to use sources that have no connections with purans.Safron710 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not cited Brh. P. or Ch. Ma. or Bv. P. but modern scholars who have cited them in the context of the subject of this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Directly or indirectly you are using puranas. Safron710 (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Directly or indirectly, our article need to depend on primary sources (like Puranas). If you have better sources, please bring them. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. C. Majumdar and most other scholars reject such claims.[15] can you provide the quote where he rejected the dutt's claim??Safron710 (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Mr. Ekdalian opined that there are hundreds of sources mentioning Baidyas as Shudras. Well I guess no one is stopping him from adding them if they are found reliable (an issue about which he is more conversant than most of the people here, being a senior editor). At the same time, that is no ground for not including a source holding a different opinion if it is reliable (which even Mr. Ekdalian has confirmed). I guess here almost all the editors (LukeEmily, Abhishek Sengupta, myself, Safron710) have agreed on its reliability. So instead of classifying the editors on the basis of their castes (which Mr. Ekdalian did by using the phrase 'Baidya editors'), this reference should be included being identified as reliable and unproblematic by the majority of the authors. I request LukeEmily and others to see to it that it is incorporated and not removed. Thanks[reply]

BengHistory, I am glad to know that you had a discussion with me 4-5 years back. Probably, you have not understood what I meant. I clearly mentioned in my edit summaries and here as well that a minority view cannot be accepted in the lead section, read WP:UNDUE. I have not used the phrase 'Baidya editors', but this is applicable for all sensitive caste articles; read the general guidelines by possibly the most senior (for caste related articles) editor Sitush, [72]; hope this helps. You are a new editor, same for Safron710 (time will prove whether he is a sock!); I have already talked about Abhishek Sengupta 24; (hope you understand that the article's protection level has been increased yesterday by an admin closely watching this); needless to mention, we will depend more on the opinions of neutral editors, LukeEmily and TrangaBellam. Thanks. (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Mr. Ekdalian, You did mention 'Baidya editors', see for yourself. In the very first reply to LukeEmily's opening statement, you wrote "...since the Baidya editors here will obviously disagree, this will go against their POV". And I think it goes against the norms to name certain editors as neutral, and thus implying that the others are not. I have never named anyone as non-neutral and I am open to take anyone as neutral. I have every reason to believe that you are a Bengali Kayastha and Trangabellam is not perfectly neutral, but I would never go on to claim such personal beliefs as open statements (as you are doing by using phrases like 'Baidya editors', 'Caste-warriors' etc.) as these are only speculations and should not find a place in official discussions. I request you to think in these lines. Thanks[reply]

BengHistory, yes, I mentioned. I thought you are mentioning about my statement related to the guideline provided by senior editor Sitush regarding caste specific authors. Yeah, I mean, this is not fair though, but such terms are used here in the talk pages of admins as well. Probably, caste articles are the most sensitive ones, and we need to identify the ones whose motive here is to glorify their own caste only, and not to build an encyclopedia! And as I have explained, once it crosses all limits, we usually call them 'caste-warriors', and they usually get blocked, as per discretionary sanctions on caste articles; read WP:CASTE. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: I have given page needed tag. Please provide page numbers and remove it. According to Admin's decission, You have to provide quotes for all sources, behind Paywall,which are controversial.ThanksAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to provided quote and pages for the source behind this

R. C. Majumdar and most other scholars reject such claims

Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ekdalian, TrangaBellam, LukeEmily, Safron710. I saw that TrangaBellam accepted to add the Multiculturalism. It's all details are provided above by LukeEmily. The source was also accepted by Ekdalian.May I request you to let me add the statement on the name of the author in relevant section? Thanks Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, can you please mention the statement here that you would like to add. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian I want to add this quote of Saumyajit Ray,

There are semi-Brahmin castes like Bhumihars (in Bihar and U.P) and Vaidyas (in west Bengal) who, like Brahmins, have access to the scriptures, the sacred thread, and the right to use the 'Sharma' caste surname. But neither Bhumihars nor Vaidyas have the right to conduct public Divine Services.

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam, LukeEmily, can you please check whether this minority view can be added, and share your opinion. Thanks, Abhishek Sengupta 24 for providing the quote. Ekdalian (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian: TrangaBellam in the Dispute section of the talk page already gave his approval(infact he himself quoted it in the talk page). LukeEmily, himself added this section and express interest to add this.It seems that you don't have objection. I want to use it, Because different views should be added here. May I asume it that, as all editors have already given aproval, so now I can add this.ThanksAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, Abhishek Sengupta 24; add the same, we can review it later. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam Why are you deleting it? You gave aproval to it. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had never consented to quoting him, verbatim. I don't believe that User:Ekdalian had consented to quote Ray in the article, either. I have now integrated Ray's points. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TrangaBellam for integrating the same in an acceptable way and maintain neutrality and balance. Ekdalian (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That AS24 has thanked my edit, I think it is fair to consider this issue as Y resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Abhishek Sengupta is repetitively asking to be allowed to include a reliable source. Neutral editors out there, kindly see to it.[reply]

I want to contribute in this article to make it better Safron710 (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Safron710 (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you here to make this article better?? Without discussion anything with your felleo editors you are editing this article which is very sensitive. Safron710 (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to first question. Yes to second question, I am editing quite sensitively. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally ignoring other editors and editing this sensitive article with some sources which is very hard to verify.please cooperate with everyone Safron710 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might accuse you of the same charges. This section notes WP:PAYWALL to run as:

Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives.

TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Literally Mukundaram chakraborty said vaidyas are ranked between Vaisyas and kayastha.but you wrote a different thing here that vaidyas are bellow kayasthas?can you explain ??? Safron710 (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• and he is a 16th century author. is it right to cite him for this article?? Safron710 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hiteshranjan Sanyal is from the 16th century? That is surprising. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @TrangaBellam: You added wrong information here.It's contradicting with the source.page319 of the Source is saying Baidyas were in between Vaisya and Kayastha.You added Baidyas as bellow kayastha.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

What does between mean? Yeah, I flipped the two and have inserted additional details. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You added baidyas were below kayastha. It's wrong according to your own source. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kayastha are sudra Not Kshatriya. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the calcutta college incident. You added in footnote. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Nirmal Kumar Bose here [73]. They claimed Kshatriya. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See here as well.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the page 319 of your own source, which you have added. Cleared written karan identical to kayasth are under sat sudra. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's happend with this source, then I am worried about the Paywall sources, which are non verifiable for commoners.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are also other views available, which says Vaidyas inbetween top two tiers.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What type ot wrong interpretation you are doing about the sensetive caste article? Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the positive contents are added in footnote, which would have less view, And all the negative contents are added in the main article.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

223.223.149.110 (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC) 1) What is the action taken against an editor if he/she is found to be misquoting/misrepresenting (intentionally or not) a vital piece of information in a sensitive article so that it flips the argument? I am eager to know. I request @LukeEmily (*@LukeEmily:) and others to take a look into the Chandimangal source incident above and enlighten me. Also note that the editor has removed the word 'probably' (regarding sudra status of Baidyas) from Hiteshranjan Sanyal's interpretation. I see an editor treating others almost as subordinates (as visible from his tone which is highly impolite, informal and curt) and then he comes with such 'errors' which renders all his brouhaha about neutral sources as a sheer joke. 2) Moreover, who gets to decide as to what goes under 'Notes' and what comes in the main article? One look at the tone of the present article makes it clear that it is antagonizing the claim of a community as a false one (by putting all the relevant details in notes and the opposing ones in the main section) and that is hardly neutrality. If you are discussing a disputed claim, treat the arguments for and against it in an unbiased way and leave it to others to judge; rather than favouring one on the basis of one author. If there is PB Mukharji who denounces the Baidyas' claim, there are others like Nripendra Dutta (whom an editor had the audacity to term as fanciful) to be quoted too. Finally, is it justified to mention the Bengali Kayasthas in every second line in a page related to Baidyas? I hardly see Baidyas being mentioned in the Kayastha page (and that is perfectly logical). Here, irrelevant comparative status and other factoids are being mentioned seemingly glorifying the Kayasthas repetitively. Earlier an editor removed all details of Ambashthas citing that there is a page devoted to that. By the same logic, the details about Kayasthas being at a par with Brahmins and Baidyas in the Bhadralok stratum can be discussed in the Bhadralok page. Why mention it so many times here? The introductory paragraph mentions Kayasthas in every line practically. Is this at all logical? BengHistory (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Baidyas and Kayasthas jati rivals in Bengal? My flip had granted Baidyas a higher status than Vaishyas when M noted them as Sudras!

Every scholar discusses Baidyas and Kayasthas together. That's why we are following the same standards.

You are undercounting sources. Projit Mukharji, Swarupa Gupta, Hitesh Sanyal, Banglapedia, and other sources note Baidyas to be Sudras or reject their claims to Brahmin status. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mukundaram's Chandimangal is a literary piece. There are other post raj-era literary texts (Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhay's short stories, for example) which describe Baidyas as Brahmins. If the latter is rejected as not being a historical text, why make an exception for Chandimangal? And I am still perplexed about the raj-era clause. Brihaddharma Purana can be quoted, but not Mahabharata. Interpretation of Brahminical texts in raj-era cannot be quoted, but indirect and interdisciplinary interpretations can be quoted if it is post-1947. Is this reasonable in a page related to the history of a Hindu community?BengHistory (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use WP:PRIMARY sources. I have not cited Brh. P. or Ch. Ma. but modern scholars who have cited them. If any scholar cites Mbh or Bankimchandra's articles in discussing Baidyas of Bengal, we can use them. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam should not justify his flip by appearing to favour Baidyas. A misquotation is misquotation, and neutrality should be mentioned. It may be contended that the flip was intended to place Vaidyas below Kayasthas, instead of placing them ahead of Vaishyas (because Sudra status was mentioned, thus making the higher than Vaishya a meaningless argument). And Nripendra Dutta was a modern scholar whom you chose to remove and even called fanciful, something you are hardly entitled to do. BengHistory (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is justifying the mistaken flip. It was you (and others) who ascribed motivation. Bengal has weird caste/jati rivalries.

I have every right to term Nripendra Dutta's 60 year old scholarship as fanciful. He was not removed but shifted to footnotes because all recent scholars contradict him. WP:FRINGE.

Fyi, I have never edited the page about Kayasthas but agree that the page shall discuss parallels with Baidyas. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it certainly smacks of motives (I am not suggesting any) when one who claims to be so choosy and selective makes a blunder like that about an article under paywall, and which makes the argument misleading. And no, you have no right to call anything as fanciful, be it 60-year old or 600 year-old. YOU GET THAT? BengHistory (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You are giving precedence to Swarupa Gupta (a guest faculty and young research fellow) rather than Christopher S Raj and McAndrews (senior and reputed academicians). You are quoting Banglapedia which hardly has and credence since it is written by some unknown bloke called Hiralal Bala. This is all but a joke. And Hiteshranjan Sanyal and PB Mukharji, both Bengali Brahmins, simply quote Brihaddharma Purana (not only Kayasthas, all the three castes are rivals of each other, something you pretend to be ignorant of, or at the best surprisingly ignorant of); whereas GS Ghurye and others describe Ambashthas with references from Mahabharata and Manusmriti, something which you again chose to ignore. So you are basically quoting one source, and ignoring other vital sources. What is worse, you are being helped by another editor who has allowed discussions on Vaidyas' sudra status on a single interpretation of the Ambashtha (as per Brihaddharma purana) but not allowing the nuances of the status of Ambashtha in this page, thus making the argument a one-sided one.BengHistory (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Banglapedia is published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. WP:RSN is a venue to dispute its reliability.
• Hitesh Sanyal and PB Mukharji might be Brahmins but they are reliable. Again WP:RSN. So is Swarupa Gupta, who was an Assistant Professor of History at Presidency University, Kolkata since July 10, 2012.
• If you see GS Ghurye discussing Baidyas of Bengal, please provide it. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rajballabh seeking 'Vaishya' status, if not categorically described in any of the reference cited, should be removed. It is a common knowledge that he was seeking 'Dvija-status' and Pandits conferred Baidyas the same by identifying them as Ambashthas (variously considered as Brahmins or Vaishyas, but a Dvija nonetheless, cf. discussions on Ambashtha vide Mahabharata and Manusmriti by Muir, Ghurye and others).BengHistory (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you read Curly L David? Our articles are not dependent on common knowledge. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I see Curly L David mentioned in the reference list. So I guess he is not fanciful or something at this moment. He has cited a medieval text which distinguishes Brahmin and Baidyas from Sudras. Can that be quoted? If not, something is seriously wrong here. BengHistory (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea what are you taking about. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• BengHistory (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC) Curley L David cites a text that distinguishes Baidyas from Sudras, I am asking if I can cite that. If you understand English I don't see why you are not getting the idea. And if Swarupa Gupta and PB Mukharji are reliable, then so are Christopher Raj, Nripendra Dutta and Vaidya authors like Sengupta and others. If you question the neutrality of an author because he/she belongs to that particular community and treat it as unreliable in a prejudiced way, then by the same logic authors belonging to rival castes (i.e. castes engaged in pamphlet-wars with the former for centuries) should be considered as less neutral.[reply]

• I am a native speaker of Dutch and not highly fluent in English. You can cite David's reading of the text but not the text directly.
• I have never said that Vaidya authors shall be discounted. Please provide diffs. What is the the source by Sengupta? I have never rejected using Dutt. WP:WEIGHT
• Someone notes Raj's volume to state - There are semi-Brahmin castes like Bhumihars (in Bihar and U.P) and Vaidyas (in west Bengal) who, like Brahmins, have access to the scriptures, the sacred thread, and the right to use the 'Sharma' caste surname. But neither Bhumihars nor Vaidyas have the right to conduct public Divine Service . Bhumihars and Vaidyas have nothing else in common. You can use that, if the quote is correct. Gananath Sen's activism was successful.
• From now onward, do not tag acclaimed women scholars as young and go on to denigrate their professional achievements. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam The above book, which you gave approval I copied there in Modern Bengal section. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• BengHistory (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC) Ghurye discusses Ambashthas. BrihaddharmaPurana-based identity of Vaidyas (the single source of all the authors being accepted by you) is totally dependent on identities of Ambashthas. So Ghurye is important/relevant in any discussion about Vaidyas. Hardly Rocket Science.[reply]

• WP:SYN. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• BengHistory (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC) Please do not twist my statements. I have made no reference to anyone's gender. I have seen you making arguments about reliability of authors on the basis of one's academic recognition, and I merely pointed that you are disregarding senior and acclaimed academicians like Christopher and Mcdrew (or ridiculing Dutt because he wrote 60 years ago) but relying on someone who has hardly written a significant number of articles or book chapters. Do not move the discussion in that way in a shrewd way and do not put words in my mouth. And for someone whose native speech is Dutch and who claims to be an Indian by birth (saw your page), you are showing a surprising amount of commitment towards banglapedia and towards establishing Baidyas as below Kayastha Sudras (your misquote).[reply]

• Nowhere did I comment anything on Christopher or McDrew. They do not make any exceptional claim like Dutt and you can use them. Please read my replies or provide diffs. If you attack me one more time without accompanying evidence, I will ask for a block.
• I have shown the same commitment at Rathore, Bhonsle, and Cinema of Turkmenistan. I think Banglapedia to be reliable because of ASoB, which ought to be as good as Asiatic Society of India.
• I do not know if Baidyas are below or above Kayasth Sudras. If you have sources, that information belongs here.
• Swarupa Gupta has written 3 entire books. 2 have been published by Brill and one by Manohar. Besides that, there are edited volumes and journal articles. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "They have claimed Brahmin status but such claims remain disputed" Are you sure about that??? because baidyas are allowed to enroll in the Sanskrit college along with brahmins.Sanskrit college is exclusive for brahmins. and please can you quote the line which gives you the verdict to write that line??Safron710 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How is Sanskrit College relevant? They were products of sustained activism.
• Banglapedia is there. I can add PBM. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, I see a lot of personal attacks on TrangaBellam; this is not acceptable here, that too for a human error, which has been rectified. Stop this nonsense, and engage in constructive discussions. Also, a note for new users suddenly active here; I am here for years, and can easily differentiate between a genuine editor, and a sock of an indefinitely blocked user. Be cautious, or else you will be blocked again. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! That was an inadvertent error and now there's a swarm of new users trying to make the most of it. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC) May I ask why certain exclamatory marks are being put regarding certain claims? Is this article intended to ridicule the activists of a particular community and their own accounts? Neutral editors out there, make sure those derogatory exclamatory marks are removed as soon as possible. And remember, one may exercise one's power here and serve infinite number of notices and what not. But one should be very cautious when one is inserting one's opinions garbed in misquotations, cherry-picking sources and altering the sentences of the original source. Please also refrain from identifying editors on basis of their castes (e.g.- calling them 'Vaidya editors', or 'caste-warriors').[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Requesting neutral editors here to apply logic and to stop certain editors from expressing their own opinion by altering the sentences of the source being referred to. The varna status of caste is not rejected or accepted by any author, it is the arena of socio-religious institutions. It is meaningless to say that R.C. Majumdar 'rejected' any castes' claim. An author can at best express his/her doubts about the validity (on basis of socio-religious traditions and norms) and antiquity of such a claim, or say that certain institutes reject those claims. Unless there is any specific line in the referred source about R.C. Majumdar 'rejecting' any claim, then it should be deleted. And if the phrase 'other authors' are not there in the source quoted, then that should be removed too. I ask the ones who incorporated that line to provide the page number and quotation, failing which it should be removed.[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC) The phrases 'forbidden union', 'had a pilgrim raped' and 'illegitimate son' have been used regarding Ambasthas (vide Brh. P.) and Baidyas (vide Bv. P). I would like to know if these exact words appear in the sources being referred, or in any reliable source. Please provide the page no. in each case.[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Asvins have been mentioned as if they were any historical persons. Asvins are Vedic dual-deities, and a divine myth is being narrated. So that should not bear a quasi-historical allusion, as evident from the style of writing in that paragraph. Kindly quote the references properly, and include (or allow the editors to include) a scholarly interpretation of that myth. Thanks[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC) @LukeEmily: Dear Editor, please look into my above four concerns. Also please check if there is any bias in putting certain sources in (small-fonted) notes and not allowing them in the main section. Thanks[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC) @LukeEmily: Apart from the above concerns, please also note that regarding Sanskrit College, the line 'Baidyas were granted the right to study Sanskrit texts alongside Brahmins' should be changed to 'Baidyas were granted the right to study in Sanskrit College alongside Brahmins' (if it not being quoted verbatim from some source), because Baidyas have been studying Sanskrit since ages before; one example has already been included (viz. Bharat Mallik).[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC) The word 'other' has been curiously put before 'lower castes beginning to infiltrate into Vaishyas'. This is a quote taken from D.C.Sircar and the word 'other' is not there. The said word seems to have been purposefully added to suggest that like those castes, Vaidyas too were from a 'lower caste'. Same applies for the phrase 'rivalry with Kayasthas', as far as I could see. I request @LukeEmily: and others to take note of a visible and systematic pushing of POV, sometimes by misquoting, sometimes by adding words or exclamatory marks, and by putting important points (such as Vaidyas being the most literate Bengali community) in small-fonted notes. I would like to know the rules regarding note section. On what basis is something as important as literacy rate goes in the note section?[reply]

Does anybody know if the following texts have been yet digitized:

Candraprabhā by Bharata Mallika, edited by Binod Lal Sen, Kalikata, san 1299 sala [1893 A.D.] (British library, shelf-mark 14058.b.29.).

Rāmākanta Das Kavikaṇṭhahāra's Sadvaidyakulapan̄jikā, Dacca, Raghunātha Press, 1884 (India Office, shelf-mark 19.C.38; 2nd edition, 1913 23.D.11.).

Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. TrangaBellam please add quotes or links of every citation you add as advised by the admin Mr. RegentsPark.thank you --Safron710 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I won't provide them at articles. I can provide quotes here. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you have to provide quotes and readable links of every sensitive line you add in baidya article as noticed by Mr. RegentsPark.Safron710 (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sarma, Jyotirmoyee (1987). Caste Dynamics Among the Bengali Hindus, Firma KLM" add the quote or the readable link along with the page no of that. and also quote the line where Rocher, Ludo in "Mixed Castes in the Brahmavaivartapurāṇa"  mentioned vaidyas as satsudras.Safron710 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"R. C. Majumdar and most other scholars reject such claims" in which line they said or mentioned that we reject the claims of MR. Dutt?? kindly help your fellow editors including me by quoting that line or give us the readable link along with the specific page no. thanks Safron710 (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam and Safron710: While not required, when offline material is controversial or challenged, it is a good idea to make use of the quote= parameter (see WP:OFFLINE). That said, it is not a requirement or policy and, in principle, verifying the material on the talk page is fine and will satisfy WP:V. Safron710, I also urge you to WP:AGF and not assume that other editors have a POV. Taking a combative stance and making excessive demands on sourcing is rarely helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BengHistory (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC) @RegentsPark: I request you to ask the editor to provide the exact quote regarding the line 'R. C. Majumdar and most other scholars reject such claims' because the line is doubtful. Even if we leave aside the fact that an author is not entitled to 'reject' the claim of a caste-community (as only the socio-religious institutions are entitled to do that, and authors can at best can only question the validity/antiquity any such claim), taking the name of an all-important author like R.C.Majumdar and using loose phrases like 'most other scholars' for such a sensitive issue is problematic if it is not quoted verbatim and page numbers are not quoted. I request you to kindly consider this.[reply]