Talk:Baidya/Archive 2

Vellalar and Vellala
Look Mr. Majumdar is referring it the Vellalas of the Chola army here whom he says gave rise to the Vellala Vaidyas.

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

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.

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. He gives the etymology of Vellala, which is essentially they same as the etymological origin of Vellalar. He also talks about how being a physician was not their main occupation. They were basically officers of the Chola court. 

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 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. 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 ” 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 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. 

'''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 ? 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. 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. It’s EXACTLY the same as the etymological origin of Vellala that Majumdar has mentioned in the page number 51 of his book. 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 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)

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)

Riche's content
Mr. 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. 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. 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. 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)

I have seen here about '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. 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 .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. 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  Here Baidya and Baidya Brahman words are alternatively used. 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. 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. 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)

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

Dispute resolution for Advaita2222
Please discuss here Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 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)

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)

, 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)

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)

, 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)

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. 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. 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)

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 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Please read this 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 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. 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)

Thanks for your advice.Actually the source was once cited here and I have copied it.Here is another source 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)