Talk:Baidya/Archive 3

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

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

Reliability comments: (please add your individual comments below)


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

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

Reliability comments: (please add your individual comments below)


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

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

Reliability comments: (please add your individual comments below)


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


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

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


 * Ekdalian: Not sure.

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


 * Ekdalian: Seems logical. Thanks for digging deeper!

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

8. A number of books mention sacred thread

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

12. Origin And Growth Of Caste In India Vol.2 71 "Brahmana legislators and interpreters of law to reduce the status of the Vaidyas and make them Sudras on the plea that in the Kali age there were only two varnas, Brahmana and Sudra. Thus the Brihaddharmapurana (Uttara, XIV. 44) directs the Vaidyas to observe the duties of a Sudra, Sudradharman." "The result was that many of the Vaidyas gave up the right of initiation as twice-born and began to observe the thirty days' rule for impurity like ordinary Sudras. But in places like Srikhanda in Burdwan district and Senbhum in Manbhum district the Vaidyas did not give up the right of wearing the sacred thread."


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

please understand baidyas are now considered as twice born. After several movement and sanskrit college incident they regain their status. I have given a number of Sources above. Please consider Nipendra Kumar Dutta. He is an eminent historian from Bengal. please help him to identify Niprendra kumar dutta. Baidya and Kayastha are two upper caste apart from Brahmin and they altogether form the Brahminchal society. Baidyas are Ambastha. Ambastha are Brahmin as well as Brahma-Kshatriya. It is written by maby authors including PB Mukherjee which was given by you. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Abhishek Sengupta 24, yes. They wear the sacred thread and that was approved by Brahmins. That means Baidya are considered twice-born now.. Some Brahmins may resent it now as the sources say. But that is not relevant as there are south Indian Brahmins who also resent the Kashmiri Pandits because the latter eat meat. But that does not make the Kashmiri Pandits "non-Brahmin". There might have been some issues in the past but those were resolved as per (8) and (9). Please can you also add the quote from Niprendra kumar Dutta. If I understand correctly, here is the summary." The Baidyas were BrahmaKshatriyas who were degraded by Brahmins in the 12th century. Later, since the 16th century they started fighting back about their ritual status and elevated their ritual status back to the original status. This is based on P.B.Mukherji's book. Is this correct? Please may I ask two questions for my own knowledge? 1)Currently, do Baidya's perform the sacred thead ceremony using a Brahmin priest? (I assume a Brahmin priest will always be required for this ceremony) 2)What is the mourning period for Śrāddha - for the Baidyas? If it is 10 days, it is a Brahmin custom. Ekdalian, please can you review P.B.Mukherji, he says that both the Kayasthas and Baidyas elevated their ritual status.LukeEmily (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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


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

I understand.Due to priestly Brahmins, Vaidya's identity is now on risk. I am urging to consider Nipendra Kumar Dutt because, He clearly mentioned what happened with Baidyas. But now Vaidyas are well within dwija group and Semi-Brahmin or lower Brahmin or almost brahmin (I have given). Many authors unanimously accepted that Baidya or Ambastha were Brahmin. Here concentrate on, Julius J. Lipner also saying baidyas are ex brahmin .The confussion is because of their degradation in Medieval era by Priestly Brahmins. But Now they are considered as lower Brahmin group.I would suggest to concentrate on Their history. Ambastha history.Their Varna status. Thanks.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Abhishek Sengupta 24, yes, we can focus on history. My suggestion is that we all can start editing the page based on reliable sources (such as the ones above). The ritual status of both the Bengali Baidyas and Bengali kayasthas is pretty confusing, especially for someone like me who does not have context of the caste system in Bengal. Out of interest, I did a google search on matrimonal advertisements and found pages like this (from 2001) and it seems like it is not unusual for Brahmins, Baidyas and Kayasthas to intermarry. For example, a brahmin bride is looking for a Brahmin, Baidya or Kayastha groom in the last listing. The ritual status seems to have secondary value in Bengal. Of course, that website is not a reliable source for wikipedia but just mentioning as part of the discussion. I will be back online after a few hours.LukeEmily (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * ,, yes I read about their degradation in Nripendra Kumar Dutt. That is very sad history. , please can you add in the talk section above the quotes from Nripendra Kumar Dutt that you think should go on the main page. Geir Heierstad seems to be talking in the present tense. Should we simply create a Varna section and add opinions of different scholars? Any suggestions?LukeEmily (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Dineshchandra Sircar is reliable, please feel free to add his quote in Bengali about the sacred thread and also add your own translation in english for the benefit of readers. The sacred thread mention is already there on the main page, you can just expand that.LukeEmily (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pls Click on the page no 124.I added it. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2021
I want to contribute in this article to make it better Safron710 (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for watchers
Does anybody know if the following texts have been yet digitized:
 * Candraprabhā by Bharata Mallika, edited by Binod Lal Sen, Kalikata, san 1299 sala [1893 A.D.] (British library, shelf-mark 14058.b.29.).
 * Rāmākanta Das Kavikaṇṭhahāra's Sadvaidyakulapan̄jikā, Dacca, Raghunātha Press, 1884 (India Office, shelf-mark 19.C.38; 2nd edition, 1913 23.D.11.).

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

Removal of sources
If you have any issues, please mention them. Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The journal Journal of Bengali Studies has ISSN 2277-9426 it's indexed in .It's a peer reviewed journal.You are not supposed to remove without talking here.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can check more detail here. The journal is edited by Professor Dr. Tamal Dasgupta. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


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


 * Thanks for your edit. May I request you to mention that Vaidyas were actually twice born. See the page 70 to 71 of Dutt, He mentions that they gave up the twice-born right( but not all). You seem to be well versed in Indian caste system. ThanksAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See page no 70 Nripendra Dutt mentions that "Vaidyas gave up right of initiation of twice born...." And mentions that Srikhanda, Bardhaman, senbhum and Manbhum they did not give up it. ThanksAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Vaidyas were actually twice born, nobody is actually twice-born. To the best of my knowledge, Baidyas claimed the status in around early 1800. Dutt is usually unreliable and Puranic studies have underwent a revolution since his days. He is also wrong about Rajballabha. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are better sources. I will add them. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I would urge you to stop editing this article. LukeEmily studied deeply about Baidyas. Let him review it first. thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why don't you indent your posts? Your request won't be paid any heed. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I urge both of you to read this: TrangaBellam (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You are editing without reaching consensus here. Vaidya intermarry kayastha but it degraded them. See. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to make coherent objections. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Welcome TrangaBellam! Thanks for your efforts. Please feel free to discuss as and when required. Thanks Ekdalian (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. If see anything concerning, flag. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You are pushing your POV by WP:SYN.Here for caste related article WP:HSC is applied. where the journal you have used is under payroll and not verifiable. Also you have edited some lines by assumption like you have used kayastha intermarry in a way that Vaidya had married to gain social position. Where as due to this intermarry their social position degrades(I have given the source above).ThanksAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If are alleging me of violating rules, please take the time to provide diffs.
 * WP:HSC states nothing about pay-walled sources. WP:PAYWALL is quoted verbatim :
 * All these incurred significant social mobility for the Baidyas and they had marriages with Kayasthas do not mean that kayastha intermarry in a way that Vaidya had married to gain social position. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Check Sitush for caste related article Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC) It should be Universal. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which of my sources are self-published or written by Raj-era authors or written by a member of Baidya jati? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You cited a journal which is not available for all.How can I verify it? Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Visit a real/virtual library? They are yet to be a thing of past. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please can you add quotes for some of the contentious new text? Also, please can you review the 12 sources and the quotes given in the "Ritual Status" above. Why is Dutt not considered reliable? What about Nair? I do not think that writing Shudra in the origin is accurate because they were degraded from their original "twice-born" varna as per Dutt.LukeEmily (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which parts are contentious? I have a general apathy against using quotes. They take up screen space.
 * Source (1) and (2) are same and reliable. They are used in the article. As is source (3). Source (4) is a collection of conference presentations and not reliable. Source (5) is about 120 years old and not reliable. I don't have access to source (6). Source (7) is by a respected author but his field of eminence is not social history of Bengal. Source (8) is reliable and I have used it. Source (9) is reliable but I am not certain in interpreting it. Source (10) is reliable but I have used two better sources. Source (11) is reliable but I am not sure what additional information/context it provides. Source (12) [Dutt] is reliable but old; I had expanded his views but shifted them to footnotes. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Nripendra Dutt in his book mentions that Brahmana legislators and interpreters of law to reduce the status of the Vaidyas and make them Sudras on the plea that in the Kali age there were only two varnas, Brahmana and Sudra. Thus the Brihaddharmapurana (Uttara, XIV. 44) directs the Vaidyas to observe the duties of a Sudra, Sudradharman." "The result was that many of the Vaidyas gave up the right of initiation as twice-born and began to observe the thirty days' rule for impurity like ordinary Sudras. But in places like Srikhanda in Burdwan district and Senbhum in Manbhum district the Vaidyas did not give up the right of wearing the sacred thread." In page no 70.You should mention it in the part where you mention that "Baidya wore sacred thread since ever". Under NPOV. It is necessary. You can't be selective. I am quite agree with LukeEmily that, In the origin you are telling them sudra. It's wrong they were Brahmin. Ambasthas were Brahmin accepted by many authors.It is to be mentioned there, what Dutt mentions. It should be in the article not on foot note. Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Get a better and recent source. Your source contradicts Gupta, Mukharji and Dasgupta. I am yet to have my hands on Haag but if she supports Dutt, I will bring it back to body.

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


 * Why are you reverting my sourced content. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Like? TrangaBellam (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * it seems like your intention is not good. I am providing reliable and verifiable source and you are reverting it! It was there in the lead section for many years. On my request LukeEmily moved it. can you say something? And Dutt is a good reliable source then what is your problem? Under NPOV it's necessary to mention it.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been already warned to not ascribe motives to editors. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not ascribing you. Why are you reverting My edits which is reliably sourced. Its against the Wikipedia policy.


 * See your revert here and what type of unreliable web site you are providing. Banglapedia is unreliable for caste related article. Banglapedia is also saying that they claimed Brahmin status. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Banglapedia is the first Bangladeshi encyclopedia and is published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh in collaboration with national universities and UNESCO. That is what our article notes and hence, the source is reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Banglapedia is also saying that Vaidya claimed Brahmin status. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You probably not got it. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See what Nirmal Kumar Bose is saying Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks grateful to you. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dutt's hypothesis does not make any sense. I will write a note once I have some time. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * you can use better source for the "Claimed Brahmin status" section of Nirmal Kumar Bose here . The content is unsourced. Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your source is a translation of Bose (1949) and very poor. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * can you please add quote WP:QUOTE  for some sensitive sections?For example Kayastha intermarry is used such a way that, for any ordinary readers it seems that Vaidya married kayastha and "Overally" They gained good social status. Thanks.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Dutt's hypothesis does not make any sense. I will write a note once I have some time. TrangaBellam. Please see WP:OR.LukeEmily (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you know that I will engage in original research? Dutt has got his dating wrong about two things. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Abhishek Sengupta 24, in response to your ping, I would like to say that TrangaBellam is doing a pretty good job here, and I feel he is editing in his own flow. Let him finish first; you can then come up with your concerns, if any. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Dutt
Please stop promoting Dutt's fancy non-evidenced hypothesis to body. It is from a book which is 60 years old and recent scholarship either does not bother engaging with him or contradict his views. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The book is a reprint of 1931 work. Owen M. Lynch notes, From a contemporary point of view, the book is marred by somewhat outmoded views about the Aryan (white) and Dravidian (black) races in India. It also suffers from not too concealed value judgments on the morality of ancient practices, especially marriage customs, and on the relative mental and cultural status of tribals and untouchables in ancient India.
 * What is your opinion on using such an old source to assert a view about Baidyas being ex-brahmins, which no modern source repeats? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * New scholarly sources should be preferred over older ones (ceteris paribus).--RegentsPark (comment) 15:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Other sources

 * See, Julius J. Lipner in his book herePage No 133 re-iterated it.Published in 2010.Dineshchandra Sircar also gives the history. I would give it here.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dineshchandra Sircar in his book page 107-108 tells baidyas as Ambastha and mentions Ambastha as Brahmin. Dutt is an eminent historian, whose book is latter used by many other historian. TrangaBellam also accepted him as reliable. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from these, this book in hindi language Page 176 also mentions it. Nripendra Dutt's book is important, because he mentions the history of degradation as well and also available online. He is an eminent historian. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The book in Hindi is not reliable. D. C. Sircar says something else and not about Bengali Baidyas. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you don't know properly about Baidyas. Baidya only found in Bengal and Sircar clearly saying about Bengali Baidya and Mahisya. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See here Baidya or Vaidya are same. Also written in the Baidya main article. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am astonished! Sircar clearly saying about Bengali Baidyas in page 107-108 and you not got it. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please quote the line where Sircar finds Bengali Baidyas to be Brahmins . As far as I see, he notes that Baidyas claim to be historical Ambasthas but declines to pass any judgment on the validity of the claim. Ambasthas are held to be an ancient tribe of warriors, who shifted to different professions. Kayasthas and Mahisyas are noted to be ex-Ambasthas, too. In pg. 112, he notes Ambasthas of S. India to be non-Brahmanas. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually this the main history of Ambastha migration to Bengal . Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In page no 107 he mentions about Ambasthas. He mentions "In Ambatta sutta Ambastha was mentioned as Brahmana" page 107. Then he started history of Ambastha migration in page no 108 he clearly mentions "Ambastha formed vaidya and Mahisya community in Bengal." He indicating Ambastha or Baidya as ex brahmin.Ambastha and Vaidyas are same. Let me give you some more references.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See Ambasthas are vaidya Thomas Alexander Wise on Ambastha and Vaidya Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Rejection of Dutt
TrangaBellam (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)