Talk:Baidya

Recent addition of content (22 November 2023)

Hey Satnam2408, please share the full quote along with context for your recent addition of content! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey,Ekdalian Thanks for your query. Here is the relevant quote from the page number 242.

"There had been some controversy regarding the social status of the Baidyas in connection with the question of precedence in the arrangement of castes as made by Risley in his caste precedence list. The matter was of great importance to the Baidya community at large and demanded a speedy solution upon a rational basis. It should therefore be settled by a reference of texts like Ushana and Yajnabalka about the unquestionable authority as well as by a consideration of their character and occupation in recent times. As regards their origin, Manu states- From a Brahmin on a legally married woman of Kshatriya class is born a son called Murdhabhishikta; from a Brahmin on a legally married wife of the Baisya class is born a son called Ambastha; from a Kshatriya father on a legally married wife of the Baisya class is born a son called Mahisya; from a Kshatriya father on a Sudra wife is born a son called Ugra; and from a Baisya on a Sudra wife is born a son called Karana (Kayestha). The term “Baidya” did not occur anywhere in the texts. They were however identical with the Ambasthas. Being once born of their mothers, they become twice born by being invested with the sacred thread. For this reason, the Ambasthas were Dwijas and were called Baidyas. The terms Baidyas and Ambastha were therefore synonymous denoting the same caste. Thus the renewed interest in recovering old genealogies and editing and publishing became an integral aspects of caste politics in Bengal." I have added under WP:NPOV. As you know, in similar caste articles, multiple varna statuses are included, including their Shudra and Dwija statuses, but here the scope is limited. The varna status is merged with origin and history. Furthermore, there are too many Shudra remarks(20 to 21 times) , which is again an exception. I am trying to add neutralizers (if available in reliable sources). Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You need to find some other obsession. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, TrangaBellam, thanks for the advice. Yes, I have edited many articles and am currently working on Bhatera Copperplate. Regarding the Ambastha assumption by society, I will definitely provide a source with a quote. We have pinged you many times, but probably due to your busy schedule, you have not been able to respond in a timely manner.Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey TrangaBellam, why are you deleting reliably sourced content that is attributed to the author WP:INTEXT? Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I have paraphrased and attributed the interpretation to Bhaumik. You can check the content, following WP:EDITCON."Who is Bhaumik?" Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Whatever is written in footnote b is not related to Bengali Baidyas. The author has analyzed and interpreted Ambastha, whereas the interpretation of Bahumik is related to Baidya as he has equated Baidyas with Ambastha (like BrihatDharma Purana doesn't mention Baidya but mentions Ambastha) and has provided interpretation. If there are different interpretations available, then all can be added under the section. Please see WP:NPOVFAQ. Satnam2408 (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to reach a consensus by adding a more neutral version. I am providing the quote from the page number 33:–

The Baidyas had been referred in the Brahmanical texts like Ushana and Yajnabalka as offspring of a Brahmin father and a legally married Vaisya mother. Apart from these sacred texts, which assigned to them a very high origin, there arose a strong consideration in favour of their social status from their name, character and occupation which gave a fairly accurate clue to their caste and establish their precedence over the Kshatriyas. The words “Brahmin” and “Baidya” came from the Sanskrit roots signifying knowledge, whereas the word Kshatriya by its derivation simply gave an idea of physical force. As the names implies, the function of a Brahmin or a Baidya was evidently to cultivate knowledge, while that of a Kshatriya was to cultivate valour. In course of time, Brahmins who were the sole repositories of all kinds of knowledge found it rather expedient to divide labour amongst themselves and to delegate to the Baidyas, who were evidently regarded as one of their branches and were considered to be fit recipients of sacred knowledge, the function of studying the sacred science of medicine called Ayurveda and of teaching and explaining the same to others. As there were however no Kshatriyas in Bengal and as the Rajputs claimed to be the modern representatives of the Kshatriyas of classical tradition it is necessary to compare them with the Rajputs of the Bengal Presidency.
— Bhaumik, Sudarshana (2022-08-26). The Changing World of Caste and Hierarchy in Bengal: Depiction from the Mangalkavyas c. 1700–1931. Taylor & Francis. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-000-64143-1

Satnam2408 (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, and Ekdalian, I apologize for the interruption, but the edit summery here appears ambiguous to me. I haven't repeated similar information; my addition comprised a scriptural analysis by a latest scholar interpreting the 'Dwija' status. In Mukherjee's case, he represents one of those minority sources completely rejecting the Ambastha connection with Baidya, as added by TrangaBellam. I haven't reiterated that Ambasthas are Brahmin + Vaishya, etc., as written in footnote b. However, it is possible that the initial few words may contain some redundancy. Please review my edit; it was a new content, Later attributed (WP:INTEXT) to the author by Ekdalian. What are your thoughts? Was the entire information redundant? Ekdalian claims there are different views available, that can also be added. The problem is that Sitush is not active at this moment, Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)ent.

Satnam2408, I have no objection as such IMHO, though it could be a tough call! Let's see what LukeEmily says. Anyway, it would be best if this can be resolved through discussion with TB. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have an edit in mind after eliminating redundant information. Here it is

Bhaumuk, after equating Baidyas with Ambasthas, has asserted that certain Smriti texts grant them "Dwija" or twice-born status.

Other relevant interpretations would also be included there. By this, we can provide different Varna statuses to our readers like other related caste articles. You all are also welcome to suggest an edit. Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408:, I have no objection to your edit/addition since it is well sourced. I did not understand TB's reason for removal of the text. As Ekdalian says, best to discuss with TB. LukeEmily (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I really appreciate it. I'll make sure to discuss it with TrangaBellan and reach out to them again, even though I've already done so. Right now, I'm just exploring different opinions on other scriptural narratives. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 04:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Newly added content

Hey, TrangaBellam, Ekdalian, and LukeEmily, I have added Bhaumik after removing redundancy and getting acceptance from two other senior and experienced editors. As I have proposed in the above section, I have studied and added some relevant interpretations for which I have gained access. Thanks, — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 14:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Here are the relevant quotes:

[...] The Dharmasutras, Smritis and the works discussed earlier record a mixed caste, termed Amvashtha, who, according to Manu, practised the art of healing. Brihaddharma purana mentions them only as a group to study Ayurveda, to be in the manufacture and distribution of medicines. While Usanas and Brahmavaivarta purana distinguishes the Vaidika or Vaidya from the Amvashtha, the Skanda purana and Brihaddharma identifies the two. The identity of Vaidya and Amvashtha has been generally assumed throughout the mediaeval period.

— Saha, Sanghamitra. A Handbook of West Bengal. International School of Dravidian Linguistics. p. 57. ISBN 978-81-85692-24-1.

— Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 15:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We have then Vaidyas and Ambasthas in Bengal, but the former as a caste name is not found earlier than the 12th century. The Bhatera C.P. of Isanadeva refers to his minister Banamalikara as Vaidyavansa-pradipa. According to Usanas, as we have stated already, Vaidyaka is called a Bhişak, born of a Brahmana male and a Ksatriya female. Though a professional class in the beginning, Vaidyaka or Bhişak became in course of time a caste name at least before the close of the 12th century. We have, however, early reference to the Vaidyas as a caste name in some South Indian records of the 8th century, and it appears that at least Vaidya, if not Bhişak, stands as a caste name in Assam earlier than that of Bengal. Closely connected with the Vaidyas are the Ambasthas, and though Brahmavaivarta Purāņa distinguishes the two, according to both the Skanda and the Brhaldharma Puranas, both of them are identical. In the Dharmasastras, the Ambastha is found to have been born of a Brahmaņa male and a Vaiśya female, and Manu describes the art of healing as his profession. It is possible that the Vaidyas of Bengal were closely connected with the Ambastha.

— Choudhury, Pratap Chandra. Assam-Bengal Relations from the Earliest Times to the Twelfth Century A.D. Spectrum Publications. p. 207-208.

— Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 15:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

None of these is a RS. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Saha is a research scholar and has a distinction in Linguistic historiography. His book is used by eminent scholars, including Michael Grenfell, Hoogervorst, Prof. Dr. Michael Bergunder and WP:UBO should apply. Further, Dr. PC Chaudhury is also an eminent historian, and a quick search reveals that his many books have multiple citations, including the current one by David L. Curley. Thanks — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 18:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The publication you wish to use (by Sanghamitra Saha) has been cited only two times in its 25 years of existence. One of them is in a barely-known journal in India and the other one is by Hoogervost for an article on food! I can gather no additional details about Saha except that she is a linguist of some sort and wrote another book ("A linguist visits Bangladesh: a travelogue") which has been cited by nobody till today. Now, why a linguist ought be considered as an authority on classical Hindu texts by the virtue of her qualification alone eludes me. Grenfell is a Proffessor of Education and I do not see why his reliance on Saha confers any credibility on her reading of classical Hindu texts. Ditto for Hoogervorst, who the best of my knowledge, is a South East Asianist.

I won't engage with your antics, further. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's your choice; however, it's important to discuss and reach a consensus. If you think Saha is not a reliable source, you can remove it. But why did you remove the entire passage, which is also supported by Annapurna and Choudhary? Bhaumik is a reliably sourced content from a modern scholar. Have you clarified any reason in the edit summary of this removal? Your previous removal was also a matter of mystery for editors [1],[2], incuding me. — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 14:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

P. C. Chowdhury can be classed as an "eminent" historian only if we go back by about four-five decades. That said, he specializes in Assam. You are scraping at the barrel. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Assam? How can we judge the geographical boundary of the 11th century by looking at it in 2024? There was a significant overlap between the geographical areas of North Bengal and Assam. The Nidhanpur C.P. and The Kamauli inscriptions clearly indicate such intersections. Some of these inscriptions also mention Bengali Brahmins. Chaudhary was an eminent figure in the field and is considered a pioneer. His work laid the foundation for much of the subsequent research on the region's past. Western scholars have edited articles about the social class of India and we have used them in many articles, including this one. Furthermore, it is not so much about age, as many sources from the 60s have been cited in this article as well as in other relevant articles. Additionally, no modern sources have explicitly negated such associations. — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 12:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Do a RfC or whatever. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll definitely consider it as one option for moving forward. Let's wait for Regentspark's reply. I have asked for a simple resolution there. Thanks — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 08:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────┘
By the way, why was my compromised version of Bhaumik reverted? Infact my previous verson had approval from two other experienced editors. Please see here and here. Thanks, — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 08:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey TrangaBellam, why did you revert the compromised attributed information of Bhaumik? It had approval from other editors. — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 15:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Why are you restoring challenged information? My edit-summary is self-explanatory. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Skanda Purana

Footnote 1 — written by me — went,

Baidya authors of 19th and 20th century claimed Skanda Purana to have a description of the Baidya caste. They [such descriptions] cannot be located in currently available [extant] manuscripts.

Satnam2408 added a {{cn}} tag — my source was Majumdar (1941; p. 590) — and citing a couple of fringe sources, went on to add in Wikivoice —

[T]he Skandha Purana considers Baidya and Ambastha as equal.

In short, an 180° inversion is achieved; nice! So, we have someone who have not even read all the sources already cited in this page but is hellbent on scraping the barrel to push forward fringe caste-revisionist claims — while I have forgot to cite Majumdar in the footnote, the particular work is cited in the body about a dozen times. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, I stick with the sources. Where Mazumdar is explicitly negating? Let me first provide the full quote of Mazumdar from your mentioned source. "The Usanas Smriti refers to a caste called Bhishak (physician) born of illicit union between Brāhmaņa male and Kshatriya female, and designates it as Vaidyaka. A mythical account of the origin of the Vaidya caste is given in Brahma-vaivarta Purăņa, as noted above, and also in a passage, which is said to be a quotation from Skanda Purāņa, but does not actually occur in the printed text. The former distinguishes Vaidya from Ambashtha, but the latter identifies the two, as is the case also in Brihad-dharma Purana. Ambashtha as the name of a mixed caste, born of a Brahmana father and Vaisya mother, is well known, and occurs in [...]. "Manuscript" is a broad term, as Mazumdar is talking about the printed version of the Skandha Purana that was available at that time. Smriti texts have some dissimilarities in context in different versions. For an example, the Manusmriti itself has multiple recensions. A specific segment is missing in the Bombay recension of the Manusmriti. We can't assume from what perspective Mazumdar has mentioned it. Despite mentioning the absence in the printed text, Mazumdar claims in the very next line The former distinguishes Vaidya from Ambashtha, but the latter identifies the two, as is the case also in Brihad-dharma Purana which again validates my information. Do you have any other source that explicitly mentions that the Skandha Purana has no such information regarding the equivalence of Vaidya and Ambastha? — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 13:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The (cn) tag was not given by me; it was given by Sitush, see here — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 14:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Despite mentioning the absence in the printed text, Mazumdar claims in the very next line -- Yes, he is - in good faith - reproducing what Baidya authors claimed in their tracts. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

We cannot analyze their discretion as they have expertise in making decisions based on their judgment. It may be mentioned in some other scripts or any other sources. For example, please refer to the case of Indica by Megasthenes, which cannot be located but can be reproduced by collecting quotes from different sources. Mazumdar might be emphasizing the limitations of the "printed text" of their collections. That's all I can say. Thanks. — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 10:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not able to trace this information. Baidya authors of the 19th and 20th centuries claimed Skanda Purana to have a description of the Baidya caste, as mentioned in the footnote a. Have I missed something? — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 05:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This compromised version includes Mazumdar's information.

−

The Ushana Smriti mentions a caste of physicians called Vaidyaka or Bhisak and distinguishes them from the Ambastha. However, the Skandha Purana considers Baidya and Ambastha as equal

+

The Ushana Smriti mentions a caste of physicians called Vaidyaka or Bhisak and distinguishes them from the Ambastha. However, a passage believed to be a quote from the Skandha Purana (not found in the printed text as mentioned by Mazumdar) considers Baidya and Ambastha to be identical.

Thanks — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 13:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No, we are not writing a legal treatise. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you please refer to this section? I will come back to it later in the process of resolution. — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 14:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sought a third opinion on this disagreement, and the entire disagreement is based on Mazumdar's claim that the information is not presented in the printed text. However, in the disclaimer in the footnote, he clearly states that the information atleast has not been found in any of the printed texts in his collection. I am unable to find anywhere that it is merely a claim of the Baidya author (I have gone through Chattopadhaya (p. 889 - 893), and Chaudhury apart from Mazumdar). Printed texts and manuscripts are not the same. The Skanda Purana also has various dissimilarities among different recensions, as well as in various published sources. The critique is present in the footnote; however, its citation is absent, and the topic on which the critique is made is absent. Thanks. — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 15:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC for the usability and reliability of Pratap Chandra Chaudhury

Can I use the source?:- Choudhury, Pratap Chandra. Assam-Bengal Relations from the Earliest Times to the Twelfth Century A.D. Spectrum Publications. To get more context, you can go through Talk:Baidya#Newly added content. Thanks, — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 04:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This section should also shed more light to help understand the underlying issue. Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 09:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't really an RfC matter. If agreement can't be reached via the normal discussion process, you should try WP:RSN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Redrose64. An active discussion is open. It was started two days ago and has not received any replies. I have not received any replies, in the 3o as well. I have finally tried this. — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 12:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

From his biography, Chaudhury - "renowned scholar, anthropologist and historian", former "Director of the History and Antiquarian Depth. of Assam" can be treated as a RS on the said subject for Assam-related anthropology. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz, Thanks for your reply. — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 19:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As I have explained above , there was a significant intersection between Bengal and Assam during various dynasty rulings. In Assam, the Vaidya class or service group, or perhaps a caste, was also mentioned in some inscriptions.. One of these inscriptions is the Bhatera Copper plate of King Ishan Deva, in which the Baidya caste is unambiguously mentioned. They ruled the "Srihatta Rajya," which is modern-day Sylhet, a core area of Assam at that time (please also see the 1947 Sylhet referendum). The plate was found in this region as well as they ruled the Barak Valley region. Pragjyotishpura comprised modern north Bengal in their reign. Thanks, — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 08:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• I see that the RfC worked wonders. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Bhaumik

Footnote c which follows the line "The community claims a descent from the semi-legendary Ambashthas, mostly believed to be of Kshatriya origin in Hindu scriptures, but such connections are tenuous" goes,

Nripendra K. Dutt, Pascale Haag as well as Poonam Bala concur that the terms were synonymous. Jyotirmoyee Sarma hypothesizes both groups might have followed the same profession and eventually merged into one. Dineshchandra Sircar and Annapurna Chattopadhyay express skepticism on the connection but consider Sarma's hypothesis to be plausible. Projit Bihari Mukharji, however, rejects such an equivalence and notes "Ambastha" had meant different things in different contexts across the history of India; it was always a post-facto label claimed by different groups in their reinvention of themselves. R. C. Majumdar rejected such an identification, too.

Satnam2408, what allows Bhaumik to stand above all these scholars (esp. Mukharji) and gain a citation in the body itself? TrangaBellam (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I have explained why I restored Bhaumik. Projit Bihari Mukherjee has not explicitly denied any connection (although he does not seem to have endorsed it). I have not been able to trace where Mazumdar is denying the connection. — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 15:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This reviewer of Mukherjee has accepted the probability that Baidyas are Ambastha, and it is not surprising as there are many sources that have claimed the same. — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 15:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I have not been able to receive a response, but that does not mean I would ignore the Skanda Puran-related section in the footnote. I am currently busy with my work and may not be able to reply regularly. If you can, please provide the citations and quotes for the section. Thanks, — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 16:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey TrangaBellam, I have added a "quotation needed" template to verify the claim of rejection by Majumdar that you added here. Thanks, — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 08:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)