Jump to content

Talk:Baidya/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

To do

Sanskrit College

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

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

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

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 Unpublished letters of Vidyasagar.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

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

TrangaBellam, also as pointed out by LukeEmily, you may go through the following. Not sure about reliability.
Isvar Chandra Vidyasagar, a story of his life and work, by Subal Chandra Mitra..
[quote]. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not acquainted with Bidyāsāgara's life but the book is a hagiography. I came across my source from Bailey (1991). TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Bṛhaddharma Puraṇa

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

Bbv. P? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
All done. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiculturalism

From this copy paste, I think it is Saumyajit Ray. He is reliable (a PhD and a professor). The quote is correct, he uses the word "semi-Brahmin" to describe the Bhumihars and Baidyas. I had given this quote in (4) in the ritual status section above. Perhaps we should create a post-Independence section and add that In modern India, the Baidyas are considered twice-born and half-Brahmins as they do not do not conduct public religious services like the "full" Brahmins. I have to confess, I have no context of the Bengali society and it's complex caste system but this seems accurate as it discusses the current status. The other authors are simply talking of pre-Independence status. Comments? Thank you. LukeEmily (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4656821
New Delhi : Manak Publications, 2009 xvi, 345 p. ; 25 cm. ISBN 9788178311845 8178311844
Summary Transcripts of papers presented at a international conference.
Full contents
Machine derived contents note: Introduction xiii
Section Mticultcuralism: Concepts, Contours And Challenges
1 Canadian Discourse on Multiculturalism:Antecedents, Direction and Divergence 3 Christopher S. Raj
2. The Canadian Multiculturalism Programme: A Critique 32 Denise Helly
3. Doing Multiculturalism in Canada: Practices and Perceptions 51 Augie Fleras
4. Understanding Indian Multiculturalism 67 Saumyajit Ray
Section 2
Multiculturalism, Identity And Equality:Unfulfilled Promises?
5. Social Inclusion of Indian Immigrants in Canada:
Conceptual Issues 99
Paramjit Judge
LukeEmily, this statement seems to be conclusive, though in reality, as a Bengali living in Bengal, I can tell you that the twice-born status and semi-Brahmin claim is still disputed, especially opposed by the Bengali Brahmins. Though there's no doubt that all (including Brahmins) consider the Baidyas among the three traditional upper castes, and as you had pointed out earlier, inter-caste arranged marriages among these three castes are not uncommon at all. Therefore, this may be the view of the author, but the statement should not sound conclusive. This information is meant for you and TrangaBellam (since the Baidya editors here will obviously disagree, this will go against their POV). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Abhishek Sengupta 24, it's not about my personal opinion, it's all about arriving at consensus here before pushing your POV into the lead section of the article. Unlike LukeEmily or TrangaBellam, you have not edited other articles apart from glorifying your own caste, therefore we cannot expect you to be neutral as well. Please read WP:UNDUE; minority views will not be accepted in the lead section anyway. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Under WP:PAYWALL I can provide you reliable source apart from these, who claim Baidyas as full-fledge Brahmin. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Please provide a full citation of your source. It is impossible for an University to be the author of a journal paper. The journal is neither held in many libraries nor indexed in prominent databases. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abhishek Sengupta 24, What is the journal name? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: Caste in Mind: Craving for Endogamy Reflection from the Bengali Matrimonial Columns of the Higher Castes--- written by Dr. Aparinita Bhattacharjee Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Abhishek Sengupta 24, that is the name of the article. I am inquiring about the name of journal. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: it's "Anudhyan:An International Journal Of Social Sciences (AIJSS) " Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This? Non-indexed and unreliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

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

I have not cited Brh. P. or Ch. Ma. or Bv. P. but modern scholars who have cited them in the context of the subject of this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Directly or indirectly you are using puranas. Safron710 (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Directly or indirectly, our article need to depend on primary sources (like Puranas). If you have better sources, please bring them. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
R. C. Majumdar and most other scholars reject such claims.[15] can you provide the quote where he rejected the dutt's claim??Safron710 (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

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

BengHistory, I am glad to know that you had a discussion with me 4-5 years back. Probably, you have not understood what I meant. I clearly mentioned in my edit summaries and here as well that a minority view cannot be accepted in the lead section, read WP:UNDUE. I have not used the phrase 'Baidya editors', but this is applicable for all sensitive caste articles; read the general guidelines by possibly the most senior (for caste related articles) editor Sitush, [1]; hope this helps. You are a new editor, same for Safron710 (time will prove whether he is a sock!); I have already talked about Abhishek Sengupta 24; (hope you understand that the article's protection level has been increased yesterday by an admin closely watching this); needless to mention, we will depend more on the opinions of neutral editors, LukeEmily and TrangaBellam. Thanks. (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ekdalian I want to add this quote of Saumyajit Ray,

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

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

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

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

Okay, Abhishek Sengupta 24; add the same, we can review it later. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam Why are you deleting it? You gave aproval to it. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I had never consented to quoting him, verbatim. I don't believe that User:Ekdalian had consented to quote Ray in the article, either. I have now integrated Ray's points. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, TrangaBellam for integrating the same in an acceptable way and maintain neutrality and balance. Ekdalian (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
That AS24 has thanked my edit, I think it is fair to consider this issue as checkY resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't consider the issue to be resolved. While you and Ekdalian do not agree to quote Ray verbatim, others (LukeEmily, Abhishek Sengupta, Safron710 and myself) have agreed to put it there verbatim. I don't think some of us are more equal than others. You have removed the important word 'Semibrahmin' from the quote and that is entirely illogical, no matter how much Ekdalian thank you for that and talk of neutrality in a misplaced way. I still call it a dispute and ask @LukeEmily: and others to see to it that such important words are not removed (in order to suit one's agenda) while quoting a point. BengHistory (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:SPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The nature of my account has got nothing to do with this issue.BengHistory (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

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

  • The link with Ambasthas is itself disputed. We don't need a long-winded discussion on how fringe texts consider Ambasthas in this article. We have a separate article for Ambasthas. At best, this can be inserted in a note.
  • If you see recent sources contradicting my relatively old source that most scriptures hold Ambasthas to be Kshatriyas, I am willing to change it. I have not much idea. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding? All the sources mentioning Baidyas as Sudras are basing it on Brh. P and the identification of Baidyas with Ambasthas, and you are calling it fringe and irrelevant now? If you consider the Ambastha link to be doubtful, then all discussions regarding Baidyas being Satshudras fall apart and they should be removed too.BengHistory (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • You have missed Bv. P. There are three distinct points of discussion -
  • (1) Whether Baidyas of Bengal = Ambasthas of Hindu/Buddhist scriptures and/or Ambasthas of S. India inscriptions,
  • (2) Scriptural rank of Ambasthas, irrespective of the answer to (1), and
  • (3) Scriptural rank of Baidyas of Bengal acc. to local texts.

Julius Lipner - ex-Brahmin theory

Hi TrangaBellam, EkDalian, the ex-Brahmin theory as mentioned by Lipner was present earlier in the "Modern" section. Has it been described elsewhere or will it be added back? The source is no longer referenced in the article.CC:@Satnam2408: Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, LukeEmily. The source should be included, even if the point is already covered. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
DONE. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Areas of improvement

  • How are Baidyas treated (if at all) in Dāyabhāga?
  • How is Usanas Smriti/Samhita relevant to Bengal?
  • I don't have any idea. Sources are welcome.
  • What other pre-modern texts of Bengal (<~1750) cover Baidyas?
  • Factoids to be probed -
  • Surjanacharita identifies its author Candrasekhara as a Gauda-Ambastha.
  • Peabody, Norbert (2003). Hindu Kingship and Polity in Precolonial India. Cambridge University Press. p. 20. note that Surjana Charita of Candrasekhara was in praise of Rao Surjan Singh (1554-58) and completed during the reign of his successor Rao Bhoj Singh. The text has multiple recensions and the longest of them was already present in 1702 at the Court of Udaipur. Dr. J. B. Chaudhuri of Calcutta published (Prācyāvanī Mandira) a critical edition in 1951 — trusted by Cynthia Talbot and R. C. Majumdar among others.
  • Caitanya Caritāmṛta's Candrasekhara was a scribe in Banaras, in whose house Caitanya had stayed during a visit to Banaras; Candrasekhara went mad in his devotion. How did he shift to the royal courts of Rajasthan? I won't be surprised if the two are contemporary but different. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This Candrasekhara is mentioned as a Baidya in Chaitanyacharitamrta.

Ambasthas

Modern scholarship. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Very sparse. Nobody has been much concerned with them in the last few decades. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Final comments

I do not spot any secondary scholarship (except in Bengali language) which is yet to be tapped into. Apart from minor additions (Furui), I won't edit the page in any significant way. If you have issues, raise them. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TrangaBellam, you have done a great job indeed! Thanks LukeEmily for your contributions; this article looks complete now! Ekdalian (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello TrangaBellam. Thanks for your edit. Thanks LukeEmily for your excellent contributions, I have learned many from you.I have two issues
1 in the Inscription Part the shastri's interpretation in which he mention that "At any rate one of them regarded as brahmin" absent which was added there.It is present in the RC Majumdar's book.
2.I would urge you to remove this from modern section. It may be her own view or may be it was true at that time(1960). None of the modern schollars have repeated this. Highest Orthodox ritual is marriage. Even marriages are also not restricted in between these three caste. If it is present there in modern section then 'Semi brahmin' status mentioned by Roy should also be included. Satnam2408 (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I have requisitioned for the original source, quoted by Sarkar. What I receive will be refletced.
It is in note and she is a highly cited author. There is no ground for outright removal. Unless demonstrably proved to be false. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam if her statement is continued to be in the note section, then to maintain equal weight Roy's "Semi Brahmin" statement should also be present there in the note. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Roy is hardly cited by anybody. It was a conference paper. False equivalence. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Please clarify the baidya's current status. It's Between Brahmin and Kshatriya.see this page 166.

He was born into the Vaidya caste (a caste between the two top castes in a four tier hierarchy) and re- ceived almost no formal education.

apart from this the source cited in the modern section also explained it.Satnam2408 (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Satnam2408, it is clearly mentioned "Their current place in social hierarchy comes right after Brahmins" and this section is related to their current status only. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes Ekdalian it is present there. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • TrangaBellam ok I am writting issues here
    1.in Mediaeval Bengal section the information related to "Chandimangal", Badya are mentioned as above kayastha is now absent see here.It was present there. The cited source also mentions it.It should be there.
    2.I have already mentioned in Insctiption section everything of R.C. Majumdar's description present except the shastri's interpretation.Satnam2408 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    3.In colonial section, in the statement "Baidya social historians like Umesh Chandra Gupta and Dinesh Chandra Sen would support Risley's observation with a measured skepticism and forge a glorious Baidya past "-Forge a glorious Baidyas past seems like insulting. Can you provide quote for this? ThanksSatnam2408 (talk)
    I need to think a bit; the removal was spurred by an excellent Ph.D. thesis on Ch. M. from Leiden.
    Are you unable to understand English? Why do you ask the same questions in a loop?
    The next time you request quotes from an easily available source, I will ask for sanctions at WP:AE. Quoting verbatim from note 231, p. 184: This must have made him likeable in the eyes of the Vaidya writers like Umeshchandra Gupta and Dinescandra Sen, since they too were in search of a glorious past of the Vaidyas. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    I am also suspect of the accuracy of this translation (sixth plate, obverse, line 1). Majumdar did not know Vatteluttu and was reproducing Venkayya; I am more inclined to read kulam as "family" against "race", true to Aiyar and Subrahmanian. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello TrangaBellam,As you have expressed concern about Majumdar did not know Vatteluttu and was reproducing Venkayya, so here is the main source of H. Krishna Sastri,epigraphist with the Archaeological Survey of India. Majumdar mentions his interpretation.Please see here p.294-296.

In Page 294: Madavikalan Marangiri was from Vaidyaka family, the same is said about Mangalaraja Madhuratara.

In Page 295: Vaidyaka means Vaidya family.

In Page 295-296: Murti Eyinan, a brother of Marangari is listed as one of the 50 Brahmin sub-donees in Velvikudi plate. Now Doubt should be resolved. ThanksSatnam2408 (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC).

TrangaBellam what's your decission about shastri's interpretation, which is an integral part of Majumdar's statement. More than 21 days have elapsed.This is enough duration to go through Sarkar's book, as You told me, that you were in need of more clarification.Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Census Report

What is explanation for this new POV pushing? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

We already write, they were (probably) an occupational group of Ayurveds and drew people from various varnas including Brahmins. What is being discussed in that part. line is the current caste-status. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on on addition of "three traditional higher caste" tag in Baidya lead section

Ekdalian, LukeEmily and TrangaBellam I would like to add "among three traditional higher castes" tag in the Baidya lead section to make it consistent with other caste articles. Please share your advice. Thanks. Regards Satnam2408 (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

I am okay with it, since the same is in line with multiple reliable sources. But, I guess since we already have the same mentioned like, "have long had pre-eminence in society alongside Brahmins and Kayasthas" in the lead, either of these two will suffice. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Ekdalian for your reply. Yes The preeminence part is written there. Being Preeminent doesnt mean that one belong to the upper caste group. I am in favour of Aligning the lead section with other two upper caste articles and removing the preeminent part.Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I had carefully avoided the notion of whether Baidyas were traditionally a higher or lower caste [according to Brahminic pov, they weren't whereas according to their own view, they were; consult Vajpeyi's "Excavating Identity through Tradition: Who was Shivaji?" for s similar line on inquiry as to Shivaji/Bhonsles] and wrote, Baidyas [..] have long had pre-eminence in society alongside Brahmins and Kayasthas.
I do not see any reason to change the wording and I cannot care less about other articles. Fwiw, none of the sources supported that the Baidyas were traditionally upper castes, making the line a misrepresentation of source. They are commenting about the current situation. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
according to Brahminic pov, they weren't whereas according to their own view.-Can you please provide the source?none of the sources supported that the Baidyas were traditionally upper castes, making the line a misrepresentation of source. Have I claimed or written so. Please see the discussion topic.Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The sources are in the article, cease the sealioning. You indeed wrote I would like to add "among three traditional higher castes" at the start of this section? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes as I have told earlier Baidyas are along with Brahmins and Kayasthas regarded as among the three traditional higher castes of Bengal. It is written here in page no 20.

The other aspect of the pre-colonial Bengali society, which Niharranjan Ray's study had conclusively shown, was that since the Gupta period, as a settled agricultural economy expanded in Bengal, the linkages between caste and class became more visible, with those providing physical labour losing status to those who refrained from it, but controlled land, such as the Brahman, Kayastha and Baidya, the three traditional uchchajati (higher castes) of Bengal.

Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, you have one source. And? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
You may refere here.p. 6.

The basic and most rigidly maintained distinction between bhadra and abhadra, between high and low, the respectable and the others, was the bhadralok's abstention from manual labour and their belief in the inferiority of manual occupations. This stigma attaching to physical labour was a long-enduring proscription of the three upper castes of Bengali Hindu society, Brahmin, Baidya, and Kayastha, from which so many of the bhadralok were drawn that the term bhadralok was frequently used in the late nineteenth century as a synonym for high caste.

It's giving a little bit similer opinion.You may also take a look here p. 37.

At the top of West Bengal's power structure,as sociologist André Béteille has recently observed, all the chief ministers from Prafulla Chandra Ghosh to Mamata Bandyopadhyay have come from the three traditional upper castes of Bengal.

You may also refer to this p. 156.

In the late 1940s most Congress politicians in the state had upper caste background, they were mostly from the three traditional upper castes.The Brahmins enjoyed certain privileges for occupying top position in the caste hierarchy. The Baidyas and the Kayasthas prospered during the British rule as landholders and professionals. They held prestigious occupations in the administration. From these three castes those who attained higher education, white-collar occupation and economic prosperity, occupied the privileged position as bhadraloks.

Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks but those who have actually studied the evolution of Baidyas in depth avoid these statements. Traditionally is a weasel word: till how far back? The question also remains of perspective — they are indeed considered to be a higher caste in contemporary Bengal but if I go back by a century or two, the answer depended on whom you asked. When Sekhar B. use the word "upper caste", does he equate it to castes that had scriptural sanction or those who wielded significant power in political economy? Unlike in most areas of India, Bengal did show some extent of non-overlap.
You cannot bring authors who namedrops Baidya in their articles to dispute scholars, who have been used in our article and provide a nuanced and complex view. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
In Bengal caste system is a little bit different.Caste system depends on social position and acceptance. Baidyas were satshudra, that was Brahmin's view(Not alls). Remember Nripendra dutta in which he says that Brahmins tried their best to degrade vaidyas, or something like that. Ekdalian is a senior editor and has several experience in Bengali caste structure.He can explain it well.Any way,The line Baidyas, a caste (jāti) of Ayurvedic physicians, have long had pre-eminence in society alongside Brahmins and Kayasthas Is ok, But there would not be any dispute or any conflict that Baidyas along with Brahmins and Kayastha are regarded as among the top three upper castes of Bengal.This is undisputed.Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Satnam2408, TrangaBellam, Ekdalian If I understand the following source correctly, the "high caste" refers to the social status - i.e. education/profession- not the ritual status. This is from H.Sanyal in Chattopadhyaya(365)- quoted by Malcolm McLean(pg 163):

...there being no Kshatriya or Vaishya element in the indegenous population of Bengal. Ritually, the rank of the Baidya and the Kayasthas is the same as those of the Nabasakhs with whom they constitute the upper strata of the Bengali Sudras known as satsudra [sat meaning clean]. They are also referred to as jalacharaniya Sudras because of their right to offer drinking water to the clean Brahmans who can minister to them without defilement. However, in the secular context the Baidyas and Kayasthas, who were mostly landholders and professionals, occupy a much higher rank than the nabhasakshs, who are mostly traders, manufacturers, and agriculturists. It is due to this reason that Brahmans, Baidyas, and Kayasthas are usually combined together and referred to as uchchajati, i.e. higher castes

[1]. I think we probably just say that these three castes of Bengal held high social status without using terms like "high caste" or "upper caste" as their ritual status is low. BTW, Is their ritual status also currently disputed because Sanyal is talking in the present tense(modern, post Independence)? Anyway, the above text cleared up a lot of my confusion about high caste and shudra mentioned for the same castes. It is clear that High caste means high in terms of education and social standing, when ritual status is not considered.LukeEmily (talk)

Hey LukeEmily, Baidya's Ritual status is similar to Brahmins. I would like to refer you to this started from p.191. Yes high social status is synonymous to high caste. But majority of sources, I have seen, mention the word "high caste" instead of "High social" status.You may also see here p.110. Its saying Baidya's social status is on par with Brahmins. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
LukeEmily, since I have gone through several texts on Bengali castes all through these years, my personal opinion is, there should be no doubt that these three castes are "traditionally" considered as upper castes. The so-called low ritual status is also disputed; you may find enough reliable sources where their ritual status is considered as disputed and it is clearly mentioned that while some authorities consider them as higher (clean) shudras, others consider them to be dwijas (twice-born). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
How is high defined? Who defines the high? What would have Ānanda Bhaṭṭa replied to whether Baidyas were high or low castes? Or Mukundaram? Or Raghunandana? On the other hand, Bharata or Bijaya Gupta? The very notion is relative. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@LukeEmily, I agree with your observation and conclusion. For a parallel, to simply classify Sanskritised castes as higher or lower castes is to miss the forest for the trees. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey TrangaBellam, The Vallalacharit is not reliable,as Majumdar says.Regarding social status or else you should concentrate more on tradition of Bengal. This literary works, that you have referred here are contradictory to each other.I have gone through an excellent reserch paper of Nirmal Kumar Bose. If possible give a read here. I would also request LukeEmily to read it.Our claim is that, the Vaidyas along with Brahmins and Kayasthas are regarded as among the top three Upper castes of Bengal. Is it wrong? What the Majority of the sources are saying? Satnam2408 (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You are not getting my points - historical reliability of Vallalcharita is irrelevant. The very contradictory nature is an evidence to the fact that the position of Baidyas in caste-hierarchy was traditionally disputed. That might be nefarious Brahmins aiming to pull down Baidyas or something else.
If you wish to include that the Vaidyas along with Brahmins and Kayasthas are regarded as among the top three Upper castes of Bengal, I have no opposition. That is, as long as you do not insist on "traditionally". TrangaBellam (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
TrangaBellam, honestly speaking, I have a reliable source (Inden) which talks about Kayasthas along with Brahmins as the highest castes in Bengal since 1500 AD, even goes back to 1200 AD (when Kayasthas & Baidyas had just been possibly upgraded from professions to castes), but unfortunately the source doesn't talk about Baidyas; therefore I cannot cite the same here. But otherwise, these castes have traditionally been considered as highest castes in Bengal. I also understand your point of view, by the way. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes I am quite agree with Ekdalian. These three castes are the traditionally upper castes of Bengal.But as preeminent part is already given in this article so the word Traditionally can be removed.Vaidyas along with Brahmins and Kayasthas are regarded as among the top three Upper castes of Bengal can be included in the lead section.Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Done, since everyone agrees! - LukeEmily (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Notables

Hello Ekdalian I want to add some vaidya notables on this page as it is present in other Bengali caste articles but not on this. are you fine with that?? thank you Nobita456 (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am fine with it provided these are supported by reliable & verifiable sources. Ekdalian (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thank you Nobita456 (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Varna

Section for discussion of current varna which seems disputed for non-Brahmin Bengali castes

It seems that the Bengali Baidyas and Bengali Kayasthas are both ritually low but socially high. However, some sources call them twice born. Hence their varna is disputed. We need to show points from all modern sources for both these castes. We should probably start an RFC to get people who have more context on this involved. I was myself confused at first but now it seems clear after reading Sanyal.LukeEmily (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, The Varna status of these castes is disputed. We should mention all the views of many other schollars regarding their varna status. As fer as rituals, Baidyas are ritually almost similer to Brahmins in modern era. Satnam2408 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Satnam2408. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: awaiting your comments. Ekdalian (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, we cannot cherrypick sources on WP. Cherrypicking happens in research papers and is fine there but here on wikipedia it a violation of WP:NPOV. In addition, sources are allowed to be biased on wikipedia. Deleting high quality academic sources an editor disagrees with is not correct. This is acceptable in a journal paper as the author has the expertise to pick and choose based on his research. On Wikipedia we do not have this luxury as we are editors not researchers. And doing this will dissuade new editors.LukeEmily (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes LukeEmily I agree with you. Here in the modern section, the Baidyas are described as of shudra varna (in the foot note), However its true that in Bengal Baidyas and Kayasthas have disputed varna status.Even I have seen some modern sources are claiming vaidyas as Brahmin,some other sources are claiming semi Brahmin and twice-born. It will be confusing for readers, who don't have knowledge about the caste system of Bengal. Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey TrangaBellam, we are waiting for you. Satnam2408 (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
What is the underlying issue?
You wish to restore my endnote to the body and note that the caste-status remains disputed (absent a source)? And? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I have said earlier that, as the Varna status of Baidyas and Kayasthas is disputed, so we should mention other alternate views as well under WP:NPOV in each and every part (including end notes) of this articles.Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Everyone seems to be on the same page except TrangaBellam.
@TrangaBellam: do you have any specific objection (you reverted LukeEmily's edits), or you are "not happy" with the sentence and would like to rephrase the same? Please help us close this discussion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
What is your proposed text? My text goes:

In modern Bengal, Baidyas' place in social hierarchy follows Brahmins[aj]—they wear the sacred thread, have access to scriptures, and use the surname Sharma (among others) but cannot conduct priestly services.[49][50] However, claims to a Brahmin status continue unabated; as of 1960, inter-marriages between the Bhadraloks were common and increasing.[51][52] They wield considerable socio-economic power though in absence of rigorous data, the precise extent is difficult to determine.[44] Parimal Ghosh notes this Bhadralok hegemony to be complete to the extent of effectively disenfranchising the rest of Bengal from staking a claim to social capital.[53]

TrangaBellam (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I think Trangabellam did an excellent job to describe the current status of baidyas in the modern section.I also have some new high-quality and reliable sources that make these brahmin claims of baidyas even stronger.I would like to add them also in the modern section.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I am quite happy with your last version, TrangaBellam; it is crisp and concise and having all the relevant information. Therefore, in order to incorporate the points shared by LukeEmily and supported by Satnam2408, I would prefer not to change your way of presenting the information, and I would propose..

In modern Bengal, Baidyas' place in social hierarchy follows Brahmins[aj]—they wear the sacred thread, have access to scriptures, and use the surname Sharma (among others) but cannot conduct priestly services.[49][50] However, claims to a Brahmin status continue unabated, since the Baidyas are still considered by some as Shudras during orthodox religious occasions. Of note, due to the traditional two varna system (Brahmins and Shudras) of Bengal, the varna status of the two non-Brahmin upper castes, Baidya and Kayastha, still remains disputed. As of 1960, inter-marriages between these three upper castes, considered now to to twice-born by Inden, were common and increasing.[51][52] They are the main constituent elements of the so-called Bhadraloks, who wield considerable socio-economic power; though in absence of rigorous data, the precise extent is difficult to determine.[44] Parimal Ghosh notes this Bhadralok hegemony to be complete to the extent of effectively disenfranchising the rest of Bengal from staking a claim to social capital.[53]

Ekdalian (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add the line. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Ekdalian TrangaBellam Please wait a little,I also have some modern and high quality sources that gave completely different views.Vaidyas in modern times doesn't considered as shudras and socially they are treated approximate to brahmins.Nobita456 (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I have removed some redundancies. I did neither spot Inden in your draft: what does his work state? The current source is not optimal. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
TrangaBellam, it's already there in the quote; check the reference, The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India. University of Chicago Press, page 124. It says, "And Ronald Inden confirms, after spending 1964 and part of 1965 in Bengal preparing a dissertation on Kayasthas, that intermarriage is becoming increasingly frequent among the urban sections of the Kayasthas, Brahmans, and Vaidyas, that is, among those Westernized and educated twice-born castes dominating the modern, better-paying, and more prestigious occupations of metropolitan Calcutta and constituting perhaps half of the city's population". Ekdalian (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam:, I edited the article only after arriving at consensus here; anyway, it's always possible that you missed the Inden part. But, the concern is, the issue raised by LukeEmily still persists, and the section remains disputed. Ekdalian (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Does Inden hold Baidyas and Kayasthas to be twice-born? Please quote from Inden himself, than a summary from a chapter which was not concerned with these specifics. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The reference along with the quote was there in your last version, and you have cited the same, TrangaBellam. I don't find any reason to argue on the reliability of the same, since there was a detailed discussion and we all had agreed. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
How is this an answer to my query?
that is, among those Western-ized and educated twice-born castes dominating the modern, better-paying, and more prestigious occupations of metropolitan Calcutta and constituting perhaps half of the city's population is not Inden's opinion but Rudolph's interjection. Attributing it to Inden is obviously an error and a ground for reversal in itself. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Ekdalian Baidyas branded as Shudras was a past. they are considered high caste now, which is also there in the lead section. so giving the shudra tag in modern section does not make sense.They are also been branded as brahmins, semi brahmins, equivalent to brahmins by modern sources(I provided them in this section below if you want more I can also provide more).in kayastha case, they are also branded as dwijas by many modern sources. but very few sources mentioned them as Kshatriyas(I didn't find any) which they claim.so I think mentioning baidyas(who are a very respected caste in Bengal supported by scholars) as Shudras in the modern section of this article is not right(we can add footnotes in that case, like TB already did).Nobita456 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey Ekdalian I have never given consensus to restore the section of foot notes to the main article.If we started restoring foot notes in the main article then the article wold soon become boaring and giant sized.In this case, TrangaBellam has avoided the disputed shudra varna status by adding it to the footnote.Many schollars have given alternative views which is making the current status disputed and contradictory.Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Got it, Satnam2408.
@TrangaBellam: you are right! It's an error on my part; it is not exactly Inden's opinion. Let's work towards a consensus version. You may propose the text after addressing the concern raised by LukeEmily and supported by others. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Please go through this

1. see The Indian Constitution--: A Case Study of Backward Classes by Ratna G. Revankar P.222 mentioned baidyas in the category of both brahmin and Rajput "Baidya, who come under the category of both brahmin and Rajput"

2. see Multiculturalism: Public Policy and Problem Areas in Canada and India by Christopher S. Raj, Marie McAndrew P.90 mentioned baidyas as semi-brahmins "There are semi brahmins castes like bhumihars and baidyas"

Regarding Current social status

TrangaBellam The social status of baidyas are more or less equal to brahmins(source already provided).I am not saying that baidyas are brahmins, that part is debatable.I just described the current social status of them along with the source.in the footnote, the verdict of the shudra tag is also there, though I have also provided sources where scholars mentioned them as brahmins but you didn't put them in footnotes alongside shudra.Nobita456 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Malcolm McLean (1998). Devoted to the Goddess: The Life and Work of Ramprasad. SUNY Press. pp. 163–. ISBN 978-1-4384-1258-0.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baidya/Archive_5&oldid=1086271574"