Talk:Baidya

No Reference

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)

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)

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?

Serious distortion of truth

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)

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)

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.

Answer to ekdalian

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Misrepresentation of sources

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well-known Baidyas

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)

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)

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)

Inden

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)

Regarding Upanayan or Sacred thread Sanskar

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Connection between Vaidya and Mohyal clan

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Regarding Vaidya Kulaji text information.

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Vellalar and Vellala

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Regarding new added sources

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

Permission to add different views

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Lead section is in past tense where as it should be in present tense.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Riche's content

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Ambastha and Trija

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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???

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

low quality sources - needs cleanup

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Vaidyas are rituestically similer to Brahmin check here

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dispute resolution for Advaita2222

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

Ritual status

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.

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!
• Athur1277: In social status baidyas and brahmins were the same.we provided many sources regarding this matter.

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.

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!
• Athur1277: some baidyas who were outcasted by the baidya community for some reason started to wearing the thread again at that time. Mr Abhishek Sengupta already provided a source regarding this. but the source is in Bengali language.

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...

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).
• Athur1277: yes because baidyas were considered as brahmins that's why only baidyas were allowed to study there along with other brahmins. Even Kayasthas were not allowed to study there because it was exclusive for brahmins only. and MR ekdalian don't give your POV here. if you have a source to prove that brahmins have no problem with the enrollment of Kayastha in Sanskrit college then provide it here.

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.
• Athur1277: semi brahmin term is ok for me as baidyas dont do any priestly duties because of their medical profession.but according to some sources provided by Mr Sengupta, they were the priests also.

---

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)

Nipendra Kumar dutta is an eminent historyan and principle.please check it [41] page no 70.He writes that Brahmins degraded them. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

yes because of the rivalry of priest brahmins and baidyas they never formed the same community in Bengal.but that doesn't mean they are not brahmins or not considered as brahmins. Arthur1277 (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)