Talk:Baidya/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Raja-Rajballabha and his works

hello fellow editors. I have gone through the entire article, the article is really well researched but there are some faults also, Raja-Rajballabha first started the sacred thread ritual among the baidyas is not fully right. He reclaimed the ritual for the fallen baidyas of Vanga and Varendra who tore away their sacred thread to the protest of Raja Vallal sena marriage with a Dom girl. except for this part of baidyas the whole community Traditionally had the right to wear the sacred thread. so Raja-Rajballabha first started the sacred thread ritual among the ALL baidyas is not right.and we should mention the division of baidyas(area wise and ritually) at the Mediaeval time of history section also. please go through this The People And Culture Of Bengal A Study In Origins Vol. 2nd Part 1st P.902-903 by Annapurna Chattopadhyaya the whole incident is described here. Nobita456 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Nobita456 I have read it.Do you have any other reliable source, which is claiming the same,although Nripendra Dutta has already indicated it.Please clarify exactly what you want to change? Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Satnam2408 I also have another source see p.162 that also indicates Rajballabha belong to that section of baidya community which does not wear the sacred thread in his time. with the help of brahmin pandits, he gave them the right to wear the thread, a ritual that they still maintain. thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Nobita456 please clarify exactly what you want to include? I am pinging @TrangaBellam:, @LukeEmily: and @Ekdalian: for their opinion. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Satnam2408

1.I want to mention the division of baidyas area wise in the medieval time

2. why vanga and varendra baidyas tore away their sacred thread along with that

3. how and why rajballab who also belong to the section of baidyas of Vanga and Varendra made them wear the sacred thread in colonial time

and I also want @TrangaBellam: to advise me in this.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

That a Baidya Samaj tore away their sacred thread to the protest of Raja Vallal sena marriage with a Dom girl is, at best, a folklore in the service of staking a Brahminic origin. Further, as I wrote elsewhere:

To attribute a modern caste to Senas as a matter-of-fact is ridiculously anachronistic [..] [Baidya kulanjis] claim the mythical Adi Sura and Ballāla Sena as their own — this is agreed upon by some Brahmin genealogies but rejected by Kayastha ones. Fwiw many other castes claim Sens to be one of their own.

TrangaBellam (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Adbhutasagara, a work by Vallal Sena is extant: I will consult it. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

James Wise (1883) has some interesting details. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey TrangaBellam I didt get it.as far I learned after reading Annapurna Chattopadhyaya ,dutt and Malcolm McLean I found ,rajballab made varendra and vanga wear the sacred thread,not all baidyas of bengal. rest vaidyas already enjoyed the right to wear the thread before this incident.Nobita456 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, who knows. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

this reply was really funny to me. maybe who knows what does that mean?? of course the scholars and historians who wrote the history of baidyas know it.Nobita456 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not engage with socks. That being said, please quote the lines from Malcolm McLean and dutt with page-numbers. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Plese don't do personal attacks on me.Ekdalian already filed a complaint against me. but he couldn't prove anything. surely I am going to give you the quotes along with the page number.

• TrangaBellam please rewrite this section or let me re-write it. that part was really wrongly described.Nobita456 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

see P.162 Malcolm McLean mentioned "Rajballah was also a great social reformer. In his days the section of the Vaidya - boidya community to which he belonged did not wear the sacred thread. At enormous cost he assembled the Brahman 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" Nobita456 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hardly supports your grandiose claims. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

How He clearly said a section of the baidya community not the baidya community.The whole incident is already covered by Annapurna Chattopadhyaya earlier in detail.Nobita456 (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian please raise your concern on why you revert my sourced edits. under WP:NPOV I want to mention that rajballab belongs to that section of baidya community which do not wear sacred thread at his times and he wanted to give them that right(source already provided earlier by me)Nobita456 (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: High quality source by R. C. Majumdar also mentioned the same see P.90 Nobita456 (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nobita456: you must be aware that Raj-era source is not applicable (not considered as reliable) for caste articles as per long term consensus. Ekdalian (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the WP:RAJ Discussion I have find that Mazumdar was not a Briton, or British administrator or Gazettes or a pseudo historian and the source I have provided is not a Raj era census. RC Mazumdar is one of the best historians of the ages.Rc mazumdar is an historian of having nationalist approch of historiography and most of the modern historians have used RC Majumdar as primary sources.hence his reliability is unquestionable. Nobita456 (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Also see here how RC Majumder's importance is described in the learning of the modern history of India and See his nationalist approch of historiography hence his reserch works are independent of British influence.Nobita456 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

RC Mazumdar is beyond doubt "one of the eminent and best historians of ages". Satnam2408 (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Satnam2408 and Ekdalian I also found another source by Ranjit Sen see here P.3 says the same about Rajballaba.So now we have enough reliable sources including Rc Mazumdar who is not qualified for any of the WP:RAJ categories that described rajballaba exactly the same. so Ekdalian revert your edits. Nobita456 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita456, let's wait for @TrangaBellam: Ekdalian (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Nobita456 I have already told you that, Majumdar is a reliable historian and his books are followed by many universities and Higher education institutions for study and reserch works.Ranjit sen is also seems reliable. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Satnam2408 got you. Ekdalin TB is not showing any interest in this topic, he already cited Majumder in this article before, so I don't think he has any objection on him also. we cant wait so long for him.Ekdalian revert your edits.Thanks Nobita456 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not consent. Details soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam we already waited for so long.please make it quick.Nobita456 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what to write since you won't read the latest of scholarship that is already there in the article:

In approximately 1750, Raja Vallabha (Rajballabh), from the town of Rajnagar (30 km southwest from Dhaka), invited 131 scholars from various places within and outside Bengal. Rajballabh (b. 1707) was from the Vaidya (Baidya) community and rose to political prominence in the eighteenth century. The reason that Rajballabh invited these scholars to Rajnagar was to adjudicate on an issue he felt was important to the Vaidya community—a highly professionalized, non-Brahmin caste. Rajballabh was keen to claim a high caste status for the community by arguing that Vaidya’s could wear the sacred thread, even though it was not the practice for the community to do so. In this meeting, the 131 invitees composed and signed a legal declaration (vyavasthāpatrikā) on this issue.
— Wright, Samuel (2021-04-01). "Scholar Networks and the Manuscript Economy in Nyāya-śāstra in Early Colonial Bengal". Journal of Indian Philosophy. 49 (2): 328. ISSN 1573-0395.

In the first, Rajballabh was successful in introducing the rites of wearing sacred threads (paita) in the Vaidya community of East Bengal.
— Dasgupta, Ratan (December 2011). "Maharaja Krishnachandra". Indian Historical Review. 38 (2): 231. doi:10.1177/037698361103800204. ISSN 0376-9836.

Chatterjee (2010) wrote:

Rajballabh is known to have tested the social and cultural configuration of early modern Bengal in other ways as well. He suggested that Vaidyas of his own immediate samaj should henceforth wear the sacred thread. Thus, professional and material ascendancy was paralleled by Rajballabh’s endeavour to leverage upwards his own social–ritual status as well as that of his immediate locality based samaj.

But, Chatterjee—despite spending pages on discussing the social status of Baidyas and their rise—is silent about whether the other samajs wore the sacred thread or not. (The silence is a reliable indicator of her not accepting the traditions at face value.)

Mukharji (p. 46, 2018) writes:

A fuller history of the Baidya jati's upward mobility will have to wait for another opportunity, but suffice it to say that the trend did not buckle after the sixteenth century. In fact, by the eighteenth century, Raja Rajballabh, a proud Baidya, had acquired enormous wealth and power under Bengal's post-Mughal nawabs. He used his power and influence to the fullest to formally convince a large body of Brahmins to accept the right of the Baidyas to wear the sacred thread. This act admitted Baidyas into the uppermost fold of the social and ritual hierarchy in Hindu society. For a jati that in the earliest hierarchic lists from the twelfth century had ranked among the Sudras (the lowest of the four ideal-typical Varnas), this was a massive ascent.

TrangaBellam (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Have you read the sources that I provided???They all mentioned that rajballab belongs to a Section of baidyas that does not wear the sacred thread. remember what Dutt said??? "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".and your source Dasgupta is a little correct as Baidyas of shrikhanda and Burdwan which fall under west bengal didn't abandon sacred thread as mentioned by Dutt. So Rajballav claims this status for Baidyas of the east Bengal sect only. Under WP:NPOV I want to mention the alternative views of Majumder,Ranjit Sen, and Malcolm McLean. Nobita456 (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  This is not social media: write in formal English and do not append three question marks at the end of a line. Your sources are too old, non-specialist (except Majumder) and anything other than a mention in end-note is non-NPOV. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

How you found Sen and malcom are non specialist ? Rc majumder is undoubtedly one of the most important historians of india(pointed out before) so if his sources are old doesn't make them not reliable as MODERN SPECIALIST HISTORIANS are still using it as their primary source.under WP:NPOV I have every right to mention them on this article.if you don't agree then we have to contact an admin for this case.Nobita456 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

McLean used to be a Lecturer in Religious Studies at the University of Otago. You cannot pit modern scholars like Mukharji against R. C. Majumdar, who is more renowned for communalizing medieval history of India. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

and what about Ranjit Sen?? and also you added a line at the origin of this article "however, a karana family used to serve as the royal physicians in 11th and 12th century Bengal" citing RC majumder but that time RC majumder didn't counte as "old" for you.so under WP:NPOV let me add this important information about rajballab. Nobita456 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

And this is not about piting Rc with Mukherjee.this is about WP:NPOV.we are not here to judge qualified historians.we editors can provide their opinions under WP:RS and let reader to judge the incidents.so I am requesting you again not to take this discussion even more far and let me add that incident under WP:NPOV. Nobita456 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Sen was a faculty in the Dept. of Islamic History, University of Calcutta. His later research interests include the history of Kolkata etc.

If you bother to understand my editing, rather than scoping for gotchas, you will see that I have not used Majumdar for claiming any extraordinary statement. Mukharji and other modern scholars assert that the Baidyas never had a premodern monopoly to medicine; so, the example from Majumdar has been used.

We do judge the reliability of sources: a reason why British Raj scholars remain under (what is effectively) a blanket-prohibition. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sen is undoubtedly WP:RS and RC Majumder is not category of any WP:RAJ(already mentioned them before) so starting this from beginning is not taking this discussion backwards?will you let me write this under WP:NPOV or not? I cant repeat the whole statement again and again.I would rather prefer an admin's decision.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  I am nobody to allow or disallow you. You need to establish a consensus in favor and an admin cannot wield magical powers to help you in the regard.

  Fwiw, I never claimed that Sen is not a RS. He is a RS but non-specialist unlike Mukharji et al. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

so what's the matter?? I am saying this again and again, RC Majumder is one of India's best historian.I am just wanting to mention his opinion which is also supported by sen and McLean under WP:NPOV. and admins do exist for situations like this.I am asking you for the last time don't revert my edits under WP:NPOV Nobita456 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You will be reverted if you insert edits without consensus. Bye, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion is different from me in this case.so thats why I would ask admins to review this matter,if you revert my WELL SOURCED edits. Nobita456 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Then, be warned that you are operating against consensus. You do not determine whether your edits are well-sourced or NPOV; the consensus does. That's my last word in this discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Sen offers no independent analysis or affirmation:

[..] Vaidyas in the eighteenth century found a unique leader in the person of Raja Rajballabh. R. C. Majumdar observes: "Rajballabh was also a great social reformer. In his days the section of the Vaidva communitv [...] "

TrangaBellam (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes see, he also used RC as his source.WP:NPOV allows me to add even only RC.Nobita456 (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

How does According to R. C Majumdar the section of baidyas which he belonged didn't wear the sacred thread in his times provide any additional information to a reader? We already note that he [Rajballabh] claimed a right of wearing sacred thread for the Baidyas of his own samaj.

Stop adding junk. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just like we mentioned the opinion of Dutt before, I want to mention Majumder's here.Nobita456 (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)]

• TrangaBellam I am still not satisfied with your edits. why you are providing half informations? you completely ignored the part where they were mentioned as a specific section including raja himself which didn't wear the sacred thread in his time.Nobita456 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think the "modern view" section does not reflect the status nor the quotes accurately. I am convinced based on sources that the social status of Baidyas(and Bengali Kayasthas) has always been quite high. That is why the three (brahmins included) are referred to as "upper/high castes". But it is also clear that the ritual status is disputed. It is clear from the sources that for both Baidyas and Bengali kayastha, some modern sources *still* call them shudra and some call them twice-born. Let us give all modern opinions (half Brahmin included) from academic sources. "Varna is disputed" does not mean much. Is the dispute between brahmin and semi-Brahmin or is the dispute between twice-born and shudra or something else? My personal opinion (irrelevant to wikipedia) is that Baidyas must have originated from Brahmins and possibly Kshatriyas. Only such origin would explain the high literacy of Baidyas that even overtook the Brahmins. They were certainly not peasants or pastoral communities or they would not be so educated even in earlier centuries. Due to some political reasons, Brahmins must have classified all non-Brahmins of Bengal as Shudras(an example of de-Sanskritization). Unfortunately, we cannot change the past. Hence my suggestion is to just write all opinions shudra, Brahmin claim and half-brahmin and leave it at that in the modern section. Anthropologist R._S._Khare in "Caste in Life: Experiencing Inequalities(2010)", Page 175 writes "Vaidya: A Shudra caste in Bengal. Also known as Baidya". Thus there are three independent scholarly sources that classify them as Shudra post-Independence and at least a few that classify them as twice born , half-Brahmin etc. Hence my suggestion is to simply give all opinions and end the discussion :-) If there is a source that states that Brahmins/baidyas were rivals hence the Brahmins classified them as shudras, it means a lot to a reader because it shows that the shudra classification was only due to rivalry and malice. They are definitely not shudras if one only considers their social status. A non-Hindu would not care about ritual status(thread ceremony) and would naturally give all the Bhadraloks the same respect based on their educational and professional status. The list of notables is quite impressive.LukeEmily (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  Pearson is not a reliable publisher for social sciences; they are mostly in the field of textbooks for school-students and undergrads.

  If there is a source that states that Brahmins/baidyas were rivals hence the Brahmins classified them as shudras, it means a lot to a reader because it shows that the shudra classification was only due to rivalry and malice. - We have an entire paragraph on it. You cannot expect a reader to appreciate all nuance and complexities by reading a single section.

  "Varna is disputed" does not mean much. - You have got a point. The current line reads,

  In modern Bengal, Baidyas' place in caste-hierarchy follows Brahmins — they wear the sacred thread, have access to scriptures, and use the surname Sharma (among others) but cannot conduct priestly services.[49][50] Whether they are Sudras or not remains disputed with claims to Brahmin status continuing unabated.[51][ak]

  I am convinced based on sources that the social status of Baidyas(and Bengali Kayasthas) has always been quite high. - Our article does not mount any claims to the contrary either. For example, we state:

  By the end of sixteenth century, Baidyas were occupying a position of preeminence in the Bengali social hierarchy.

  TrangaBellam (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, Thanks for the improvements. One minor concern. caste-hierarchy follows Brahmins — they wear the sacred thread, have access to scriptures. What does "have access to scriptures" mean in a modern context? In the 21st century, almost anyone irrespective of caste or religion has access to any scripture. BTW, Nobita456, Ekdalian, Satnam2408 do you agree with the changes made by TB? It looks quite WP:NPOV(neutral) IMHO now as he has incorporated all views. If you all agree, we can remove the disputed template. If not, please discuss. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. If I extrapolate a rights-based argument, anyone can wear the sacred thread etc. in 21st century. That being said, I am open to wordsmithing. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I am okay with the section now; the disputed tag may now be removed. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• It might be a junk for you but not for me.it means a lot, regarding what dutt mentioned earlier.as I told you if you think it is not important or reliable file complain again me. Nobita456 (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Rc majumder views

As Ekdalian and Trangabellam reverted my edits regarding Rc Majumdar view's I created this section to discuss about it.I wanted to add his views regarding Rajballab and his samaj that they didn't wear the sacred thread in their time,at the next line as his opinion.so please Trangabellam, Ekdalian,Satnam and Luke please give your opinion on that.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

How does According to R. C Majumdar the section of baidyas which he belonged didn't wear the sacred thread in his times provide any additional information to a reader? We already note that he [Rajballabh] claimed a right of wearing sacred thread for the Baidyas of his own samaj.

If they did wear the sacred thread, why would Rajballabh have bothered to claim the right? You are introducing redundancy. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough as you added "his own samaj word".my point is don't miss important words like this in your edits.Nobita456 (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You added the line (and then edit-warred to sustain it) after I have already incorporated these details. Some introspection is in order. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

you got me wrong here,I still want to add Rc views under NPOV as in the article it is written that "However with more lower castes entering into the order of Vaishyas, Baidyas then sought equality with the Brahmins and claimed themselves to be "Gauna (secondary) Brahmins leveraging the recently conferred right to upanayan", so the view of Rc is needed here for NPOV, because it is indicating,only that section of baidyas did't wear the sacred thread, not all baidyas.remember what Dutt said? many baidyas did't give up the right of wearing sacred thread. Nobita456 (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"recently conferred" word only applies to that samaj of baidyas, thats why view of RC is important. Nobita456 (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I won't be changing anything. Convince others or whatever. Countless authors—Haag, Mukharji and Chatterjee—note the Raj Ballabh episode to have catalyzed the Baidyas in their century-long efforts to ascend the social hierarchy. Majumdar does not state anything to the contrary. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Modern section of the article

Hey LukeEmily, Ekdalian, TrangaBellam, Nobita456 I have a little concerns about the latest edit.In this line Whether they are Sudras or not remains disputed with claims to Brahmin status continuing unabated--The dispute here is wheather Baidyas are Sudra or Brahmin. So I would suggest to replace the word 'not' by 'Brahmins' and make it like Whether they are Sudras or Brahmins remains disputed. The sentence,with claims to Brahmin status continuing unabated should be placed in the next line as a different sentences. The schollars, who enumerated them with Brahmin category do not mention that, they are Brahmin or semi-Brahmin, or Half-Brahmin or Probably Brahmin e.t.c. because they are claiming this status, so there should be no link between varna dispute and claim. It should be mentioned in the next line.Baidya's social status should be included.Schollars (including some of those, who have characterized Baidya and Kayasthas under Shudra category) have mentioned that these castes have a social status almost equivalent to Brahmin. This article is dedicated for Baidya, so here baidya status should be given as mentioned by Kanchiv Lochan. In the foot note Annapurna chatterjee's statement is given In 1960, Chattopdhyay noted Baidyas were still treated as Sudras in all orthodox religious occasions it emphasized on shudra hood. Many latest sources are contradictory to this. Either it should be removed(as it is mentioned in main article and it's disputed) or we have to include different views under WP:NPOV.Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Satnam got your point. the varna of Baidyas in modern era is really a mess and confusing. after going through some sources I have found they are categorized as both Brahmins(semi,half,full and even rajput also) and Shudras by different historians and scholars.Even I have a modern high-quality source that mentioned baidyas as 4 veda specialist and vaidyabipra(vaidya-brahmin) which I can also add under WP:NPOV at modern section if shudra part still remain mentioned here. So there are two options we have. we can put all the statements regarding their varna by different scholars and experts under WP:NPOV but this will make this article so big. where we have SO MANY sources regarding that. or we can clearly mention their varna status is disputed or debatable(which ultimately a common reader can relate reading all those SO MANY statements by different experts). We simply can avoid Both Brahmin and Shudra words as their varna for the sake of NEUTRALITY and respect(as they are one of the most RESPECTFUL castes of Bengal) and we can put them in footnotes. This line " claims to Brahmin status continuing unabated " should be there as they still claim themselves as brahmins.and please dont forget baidyas were even allowed to enroll at sanskrit College which was EXCLUSIVE for brahmins at its early stages.Nobita456 (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita456 is talking like a POV pusher (caste glorifier), sorry to say! Don't include / remove any such content without achieving consensus here. Responding to Satnam2408's 1st point, no, the dispute here is not whether Baidyas are Sudras or Brahmins. Actually, the dispute here is whether Baidyas are Sudras or twice-born. For the rest, let's wait for TrangaBellam and LukeEmily Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian I would not take any personal attacks on me litely afterwards,so choose your words carefully.How many disputes I already identified in this article?there are even more,I will come to them later. "the dispute here is not whether Baidyas are Sudras or Brahmins. Actually, the dispute here is whether Baidyas are Sudras or twice-born" ,Have you completely ignored the sources that mentioned Baidyas as Brahmins?there are even more that I can provide including where they mentioned as Vaidyabipra and 4 veda specialist.so let the section nutral and dont mention their varna as it is disputed and has many views.this is the best we can do in my opinion. Nobita456 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ekdalian if the dispute is wheather baidyas are shudra or twice born, then its also making the statement of Annapurnapurna chatterjee contradictory in which he literally claims that "Baidyas are treated as shudra".is it not? If I am not wrong when LukeEmily edited the modern section for the varna of Baidya, they deleted this footnote to avoid contradiction. I have seen many modern schollars who claimed Baidyas as Brahmin and absorbed in Brahmin.I would like to provide them here.Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Satnam2408, Nobita456, can I ask you a simple question! I am specific; no half-brahmin or semi-brahmin theories! Can you cite a reliable source which says something like 'Baidya is a sub-group of Bengali Brahmins'? If they were, then Baidyas wouldn't have been considered as a separate caste altogether since 11th/12th century. Ekdalian (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ekdalian see it

India's caste system is not static. It is a dynamic force in Indian politics and society

_see here. You probably got confused, we are talking about the modern section, see the topic of talk discussion and its about the modern schollars who enumerated Baidyas with Brahmins status according to their social and ritual position.Baidyas were not a part of Bengali Brahmins as per the purans,that's why we are talking about their disputed varna status here. If they were accepted in mediaeval era then Baidyas would not have seperate existence.Satnam2408 (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ekdalian it seems like you are going out of the track.did I say for a single time Baidya is a sub-caste of the Bengali Brahmin caste?? I mean from the medieval era they are a separate caste themselves.my point is what is their varna according to modern scholars?The brahmin caste of bengal's varna is brahmin, which is undisputed but in the case of baidya caste it is disputed where multiple scholars gave their different views on them.for some they are Semi brahmins, for some they are brahmins, for some they are Vaidya brahmins, for some they fall under the category of both brahmins and Rajputs even some still treat them as Shudras. so according to Wikipedia guidelines, we can add all these views or we can simply write the varna status is disputed and keep this article short and less confusing. Nobita456 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I am right on track, Nobita456. Please cite some reliable authors, who say clearly and categorically that the varna status of Baidya is Brahmin. Ekdalian (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• For Ekdalian, Caste In Mind Craving For Endogamy Reflection From The Bengali Matrimonial Columns Of The Higher Castes by Dr. Aparnita Bhattacharjee check P.160-161, where he mentioned

  "Baidyas are said to have mastered four Vedas along with the Ayurveda and thus are known as Baidyabipra"

  TrangaBellam and LukeEmily I am also urging you to read this.

• Also see The Indian Constitution--: A Case Study of Backward Classes by Ratna G. Revankar P.222 mentioned baidyas in the category of both brahmin and Rajput

  "Baidya, who come under the category of both brahmin and Rajput"

  this book also used here as a reference

• See Multiculturalism: Public Policy and Problem Areas in Canada and India by Christopher S. Raj, Marie McAndrew P.90 mentioned baidyas as semi-brahmins

  "There are semi brahmins castes like bhumihars and baidyas"

also, we already have sources cited in this article that placed them between brahmin and Kshatriya, Twice born, Shudra that's why I am saying to write only that their varna status is disputed without mentioning brahmin or shudra or twice-born . Nobita456 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Therefore, even none of your sources mention that the varna status of Baidyas is Brahmin. The first one doesn't mention about varna, second one is poor (no other reliable source relates them with Rajputs) and third one says semi brahmin. Ekdalian (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It is sufficient to describe their disputed varna status. in the first one they mentioned as Baidyabipra and Trija.do you know what bipra means?? learn here P.78,also she mentioned them as Trijas(thrice born and superior to dwija) so as per Dr. Aparnita twice-born(Dwija) varna is also disputed. In second are you questioning Ratna Ravankar's knowledge?? her book has been used as a primary source by many modern scholars and historians like these 1 2 3 4 5 6 and also check the publishing house of that book,it is Athabasca University Press so don't raise question on her academic knowledge or reliablity. In third they are referred as semi Brahmin because they do not conduct priestly services.Nobita456 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You cannot select a bunch of low-quality sources—Raj et al are a collection of conf. papers and their unreliability has been already discussed, Bhattacharjee's article was published at a non-indexed journal of no reputation, and Revankar's scholarship is in the genre of legal sociology—to push a particular POV that goes against modern historians. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

1. Bhattacharjee's journal used here as a primary source along with Sekhar Bandyopadhyay's book making it reliable 2. Revankar's book was already used by many modern historians, which I provided before even it was used here also 1 by Anand Yang 2 by govt of Gujarat and also here 3 in this journal, and She is describing the current status of Baidyas, not their history so she doesn't need to be a Ph.D. holder and WP:HISTRS does not apply on her here 3. semi brahmin part of that book was taken from Saumyajit ray which is already cited in this article. these sources are still used as primary sources in many high-quality journals and by modern historians and scholars. you cant say every source is unreliable which I provide, before looking at them carefully. and Bhattacharjee, ray both are modern historians.Nobita456 (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Scholars can cite anything and everything from Raj-era sources to premodern chronicles to street-side pamphlets to fringe journals etc. because they have the ability to separate wheat from the chaff; that does not empower us to use them as sources. Sources (Revankar) are not reliable for every damn word they write: reliability depends on context. You cannot hold an unindexed journal or a conference paper to be of the same merit as a monograph written by an UPenn faculty and published by University of Chicago Press: the relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE.

Fwiw, you are blatantly misrepresenting Bhattacharjee by attributing opinion of Ghosh (2011) to her. Her own opinion goes:

In Bengal, Brahmanas and Baidyas are considered higher castes.

[...]

In the present study, Baidyas are taken as the second highest class of the Bengali society following the above-mentioned practice as started by Risley [awarded Baidyas with the second position, after the Brahmanas, in 1902 census) and acquired right of the Baidyas [during the eighteenth century] to wear upabita. At times, the Baidyas are socially treated more or less alike the Brahmanas. However, in the matrimonial classified section, the advertisements of the Brahmanas and the Baidyas are arranged in separate columns.

[...]

Advertisers seek negotiations from only immediate two lower castes (in case of the Brahmins expecting negotiations from the Baidyas and Kayasthas) or both immediate higher and lower castes (in case of the Baidyas seeking negotiations from both the Brahmanas and the Kayasthas) ...

We already note that [i]n modern Bengal, Baidyas' place in caste-hierarchy follows Brahmins. So, using Bhattacharjee—who explicitly considers Baidyas to be distinct from and below Brahmins—won't gain us much on social or ritual status of Baidyas. However we can use her to note of the casteist nature of the Baidya community. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

TB you can add any line from aparnita bhattacharya.I don't have any objection.she used ghosh 2011 as reference,so what? we can still mention it mentioning ghosh. Nobita456 (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No, we cannot use random vernacular (non-academic) publishers especially when they run against the bulk of peer-reviewed scholarship in English. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I also did not cite Ghosh here,I am asking to cite Aparnaita's opinion.Nobita456 (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Aparnita Bhattacharjee's statements are based on Risley's work, which is considered as unreliable. Please check 'Writings of British Raj administrators' under User:Sitush/CasteSources. Ekdalian (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey I think you need to learn the rules again.I am not citing directly risley here.I am citing a modern scholar's opinion.So if you think Risley is not suitable for caste-related article why did you raise your concern in purans,ballalcharita,chandimangar which are also pre raj era??Nobita456 (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian, Bhattacharjee agrees with Risley (she can, by the virtue of being a scholar) and I think her conclusion is decently supported by other sources. We already state to such effects in body.

Nobita456, Aparnaita's opinion is that Baidyas are distinct from and below Brahmins. Her noting "Author X states A", "Author Y states B" does neither lend credence to the narratives of X and Y nor make A and B her own opinion. I do not understand the relevance of purans,ballalcharita,chandimangar to this discussion. Further, please reply below this post with appropriate indentation than at the end of section. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• All the sources that I provided here undoubtedly WP:RS.and follows every term of wikipedia and ready to be included in this article.if you still think they are unreliable,I would ask for administrative review at WP:RSN and after that I will put all of them here under WP:NPOV.to make this article short,neutral and less confusing I suggested you guys some ideas.but if that doesn't work or this article indicate only one side of their varna and violates WP:NPOV,I would put every scholer's opinion in this.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita456, let us wait for the discussion to end before making any more modifications. I agree that all scholars opinions should be entered. I think TB is saying that those particular sources are not reliable. Can we discuss more on the reliability of those sources? I have not investigated them yet. I don't any have objection to semi-brahmin etc. as long as the source is reliable.LukeEmily (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, WP:RSN is a good idea if you all still disagree.LukeEmily (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

TB is not always right,he even cited a direct census in this article,which he removed himself later after my objection.Please first verify the sources which I provided by your own(I gave enough information about their authers and gave the link of books and journals where they been used).if you still find them not reliable then we can go to WP:RSN. Nobita456 (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily, you had already agreed with me on the unreliability of Raj et al. What we are currently seeing is (mostly) a rehashing of the same sources that have been discussed to death. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• LukeEmily you think the dispute is only between two varnas? believe me there are many like semi brahmin, possible brahmin,only brahmin,bipra,in between brahmin and kshatriya,rajput,dwija,trija,shudra even some equated them with ambastha also.but in kayatsha case the dispute is between shudra and twice born.so that why I gave that suggestion to keep this section less confusing.the last edit of TB before your despite tag was good,where we only had to put different views on their varnas in footnotes.Nobita456 (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion is (1)Identify all reliable sources.(2)Add all opinions of reliable sources for WP:NPOV. For example : according to some they are x varna, others classify them as Y and others consider them as Z. BTW, I checked Revankar. The original is from "Report of the Backward Classes Commission" by the Govt of India. See https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/handle/10973/33678. It is written by Kaka Kalelkar in 1956 who was a lawyer and he put Baidya between Brahmin and Rajput. But if you study modern sources Rajputs are considered a mix of varnas including Shudras and even tribals(see books by Satish Chandra and others). Hence, even if we use the source(Revankar), it does not add anything except say that they could be of any varna. Will check other sources as you suggest. You can check the Bhumihar page - all opinions are given although the section is long. I think if Baidyas have similar reliable sources with semi-Brahmin, Brahmin, Trija, etc., we should just add opinions from all reliable sources. But we should use high quality sources only.LukeEmily (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, TrangaBellam and Ekdalian I have never opposed Ekdalian's suggestion that the dispute here is wheather baidyas are Shudra ot twice born see my argument. I am saying about the footnote where it is written that in 1960 till baidyas are treated as shudra or like that something. Shudra status is disputed. Many different schollars including the sage journal cited in this article including this one(cited in Kulin Kayastha) opined that Baidyas are inbetween Brahmin and Kshatriya. this onecited in Nath article p. 395 is saying

Ramprasad was probably born to a higher- caste Vaidya family of traditional physicians, possibly BRAHMINS. He was educated in SANSKRIT and in Persian in addition to Bengali

.He is socialist. this one p364 is saying

They were relatively small homogeneous groups and included the following: those jatis which were almost absorbed into the Brahmins (as the Baidya, who together with the Brahmins constituted the bhadralok in Bengal)

He is an anthropoligist.Its amazing a shudra caste were almost absorbed in Brahmin! Apart from these a modern review of a Booker Prize wining literally work also have described baidyas are Brahmin but not quite.see here its modern literally source against medieval literally sources. Satnam2408 (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not know whether it is amazing or not but you cannot extrapolate from sources.

And you are seriously proposing that we use a literary review with the line—she captures the larger Indian reality of the subtleties of caste system (a Baidya is a Brahmin, but not quite)—as a source in this article? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam I am just describing their disputed varna status. I am just saying about Annapurna Chatterjee's statement where he mentions Baidyas are shudra. It should be deleted as so much varrying opinions or You can add the source which is saying them as possibly Brahmin (non shudra) with chatterjee 's statement.Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that the article claims Baidyas to have been treated like Shudras till 1960; the footnote is only about how Brahmins treated them in orthodox religious spheres. Dichotomies between the sacred and the secular etc.

There is no scope of removing Chatterjee's statement but a rejoinder can always be added provided you find a source that explicitly notes their ritual position to be otherwise. Fwiw, I won't be surprised if their ritual status in the eyes of Brahmins has improved remarkably but we are beholden to reliable sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Ok I would search for it. I want to cite The journal of anthropologist that says " They were relatively small homogeneous groups and included the following: those jatis which were almost absorbed into the Brahmins (as the Baidya, who together with the Brahmins constituted the bhadralok in Bengal)" as his opinion.Social status of Baidya is not included in modern section.LukeEmily has included it in Bengali Kayastha page. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey TrangaBellam please include the social status of Baidyas (I mean how they are socially treated?) I searched for Kanchiv Lochan and found here about him. You can use S. N mukherjee as well as cited by LukeEmily in Bengali Kayastha page. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Luke I also dont have any problem with your suggestion also,as I already included that as an option.please do edit of yourself dont put any POV and give opinion of all,like bhumihar.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ballalcharita, chandimangal are they written in English? this is not original research.if you think it is then, revert it when I will add it.rest I can do. Nobita456 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• I do not know the relevance of this query or understand what you plan to revert. But I have cited neither the Ballalcharita nor Chandimangal. I have only cited modern scholars who had cited those texts in the context of our subject. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither I want to cite Ghosh directly here.I also want to cite modern scholars who had cited those texts in the context of our subject. Thanks Nobita456 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Satnam2408, please can you provide full quote from the journal that you wanted to include? I found this quote by the same author that Baidya's education surpassed the Brahmins.

  Three categories of jatis surpassed the Brahmins in terms of educational achievements. These were relatively small homogeneous groups and included those jatis that were perceived and acted as almost one group together with the Brahmins(as the Baidya together with the Brahmins constituted the Bhadralok in Bengal); the relatively rich jatis of landlords or merchants (such as the Baidya in Bengal, the Lohana in Bombay, and the Baniya in the Central provinces, Punjab, and the United Provinces); and the jatis of writers who considered education important to their profession(such as the Kayastha in Bihar and United Provinces)

  Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily here is the quote

Three categories of jatis surpassed the Brahmins in terms of educational achievements. They were relatively small homogeneous groups and included the following those jatis which were almost absorbed into the Brahmins (as the Baidya,who together with the Brahmins constituted the bhadralok in Bengal);the relatively rich jatis of landlords or merchants (such as the Baidya in Bengal; the Lohana in Bombay; and the Baniya in the Central Provinces, Punjab and the United Provinces); and the jatis of writers who considered education important to their profession (as the Kayastha in Bihar and the United Provinces).

. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The source is reliable IMHO (see [this link https://sociology.berkeley.edu/reuven-kahane-1967]). I personally have no objection to this source. We can add something like " Baidyas were one of the groups that were better educated than the Brahmins". However, he is talking about the Raj era, so we need to add it to that section. Is that OK with everyone? Satnam2408, what did you want to add? Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily How many times do we need to include this? We already have,

Notwithstanding these contestations, the dominance of Baidyas continued unabated into colonial rule when they proactively took to Western forms of education and held a disproportionate share of government jobs, elite professions, and landholding.^Note

Note: In the 1921 census, they were the most literate community in Bengal. According to David L. Curley, Baidyas were "serving in local revenue administrations, managing rent and revenue collections for zamindars, obtaining or providing short-term agrarian and mercantile credit, engaging in trade as agents or partners of the English and French East India Companies and acquiring zamindari estates."

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily undoubtedly we can.Trangabellam we mentioned that in a footnote, which I believe, it is hard for readers to see.We should add this in the main article because it is a High-quality modern source.Nobita456 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

From Reuven Kahane's statement we are getting two pieces of information related to Baidya 1.Baidya grouped together/absorbed in Brahmin and "Perceived" as almost same group atleast in colonial era. 2.They surpassed Brahmin in termes of education. I want these two information to be included here as his opinion in the main article.It is a modern schollarary article from a WP:RS source. Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC).

No, I understand "almost absorbed into the Brahmins" has been mentioned here in the context of 'bhadralok', which is already covered in the article. Ekdalian (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. This is literally grasping at straws. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As per your interpretation it means among Bhadraloks only Baidyas surpassed Brahmins in terms of education,as he did not mention Kayasthas.then this fact about the achievement of a caste is an important piece of information(especially when one became higest educated caste) and should be placed in main article.Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC).

You are mixing it up, Satnam2408. We have a reliable source (John Henry Hutton, 1961; Caste in India: Its Nature, Function, and Origins; Indian Branch, Oxford University Press) which says, Kayastha is an important caste "which ranks next to Brahman in Bengal". Since Baidya is missing in one particular source, does it mean they do not rank next to Brahmins? Anyway, the piece of information you have mentioned above, may be added if everyone agrees. Ekdalian (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Satnam source is Modern and the achivement is big,not everyone gets that,so I think it should be there in the main article. Nobita456 (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Nobita456 and Satnam2408 on this literacy issue. It is quite unique. We can add this source (Reuven Kahane) and simply change the foot note to main text if all agree. Initially I missed it as TB rightly pointed out. The issue with footnotes is that they are not visible in a normal reading unless one takes the cursor over the box. Generally, I use footnotes only for quotes from text but I guess it is a matter of preference. I found another source mentioning that the literacy of Baidya women was twice as that of Brahmin/Kayastha women (although these three were the best educated communities). I will add quotes from the sources on talk page, then we can decide how to edit and what text to add.LukeEmily (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Most noteworthy is the Vaidya caste(numbering about 110,000 - both male and female) which attained a high rate of female literacy. Vaidya women registered 38.34 per cent literacy in Bengali, more than double the male literacy level in the vernacular in Bengal's total population; again, literacy in English among Vaidya women, 11.29 per cent, was three times the percentage of male literacy in English in the total population in Bengal. The Brahmins(much more numerous, about 14.5 lakh) and the Kayasthas (about 15.6 lakh) also showed levels of female literacy much higher than the average female literacy level, though they were nowhere near the Vaidya caste. In these co called 'high' castes, men's access to education, employment, the professions, urban life and institutions, and so on constituted a resource that women could partly share - although that share was exceedingly small - and the associative activities among these bhadraloks appear to have created the higher caste norms different from that of the rest in respect of women's education. Brahmin women: Vernacular(17.53), english(2.69); Vaidya women: Vernacular(38.34), english(11.29);kayastha women: vernacular(16.96), english (2.87)

Thanks for the source. we should add this in the next line(women's literacy rate which is very hard to achieve for womens at that time) also, along with the last edit made by Trangabellam. What do you think?Nobita456 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added 1931 data in the literacy section. Also, since we all are discussing only the British era section now, does anyone still have any issue with the modern section? If not, can we remove the disputed tag? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Disputed section tag

Hello LukeEmily, please confirm if we can remove the disputed tag, which you had added, and I added it back since the dispute was going on. I am not worried about WP:SPA or equivalent. Nobita has now been warned by several admins regarding their excessive interest in this article (POV pushing). You had mentioned earlier regarding removal of the tag, and I had agreed; therefore I removed the tag, but it seems to have been reverted. Please confirm. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

we don't have any information related to social status of baidyas which is equivalent or as per with brahmins in modern era.and Aparnita Bhattacharya's source is not fully unrealiable and we can use it under WP:SCHOLARSHIP,we have to give her views also to make this article neutral.semi brahmin view of saumyajit ray is aslo missing.and the last source that Satnam gave, mentioned vaidyas as possible Brahmins.so please add those also,to remove that disputed tag.ThanksNobita456 (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ekdalian, as per my comment earlier here, personally I have no objections to removing the tag. Nobita456, those sources are not reliable for contentious issues as other editors have explained. I have the following suggestion: Check what sources they(the conference paper etc.) are using to cite semi-Brahmin status. If those sources are reliable, we should be able to add from those new sources. BTW, Mohyal Brahmin, does use the Christopher Raj source and possibly some unreliable sources like Russell.LukeEmily (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, LukeEmily. Ekdalian (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Literacy Data

1872

No relevant data was enumerated.

1881

~

1891

Brahmins_Male: (39148+460113)/(144783+39148+460113+706704) = 37% 1

Brahmins_Female: (653+2332)/(6601+653+2332+1330987) = 0.2% 1

Baidya_Male: (4563+14961)/(9523+4563+14961+10548) = 49.3% 2

Baidya_Female: (125+4406)/(1028+125+4406+34704) = 11.25% 2

So, Baidyas were far literate than the Brahmins by the time of 1891 census. I will be changing the date to 1891 absent opposition. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Data for 1901 is given here. P.9. I would also collect latter data from reliable sources. Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Point being? If they were already so ahead by 1891, it is safe to say that they did not fall behind. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

ok so write "from",if you think it is safe to say that they did not fall behind.Nobita456 (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Giving for your perusal, if it helps in your edit. Chaudhary, Latika; Gupta, Bishnupriya; Roy, Tirthankar; Swamy, Anand V. (2015-08-20). A New Economic History of Colonial India. Routledge. p. 258. ISBN 978-1-317-67432-0. It is comparative data of British Indian literary rates in 1931.Thanks; Satnam2408 (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

1931 Baidya 51.4, Brahmin 37.28, Kayastha 32.90 Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Baidyas were the most literate community at every census report. so TrangaBellam LukeEmily can we write "in that time" in place of the year? Nobita456 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita456, I checked your statement.Do you mean most literate in India or Bengal in all census reports? Baidyas were definitely not the most literate community in every census report(in India). TB had said something similar and he was correct. For example, if you compare the literacy of Baidyas in 1931 and some non-Bengal communities in 1931 from the Bombay Presidency, Baidyas fall far behind many hindu and non-Hindu communities. For example, please see this 1931 report. The values are per 1000 so if you look at the second column (male literacy, divide by 10 to get %), you will find at least 4 hindu communities above 70% - and the Zoroastrians at 85% literacy! Even the female literacy of many communities seems far more than the Baidya female literacy. The 1931 data given by Satnam does not include many communities in India. However, if you mean most literate in Bengal, I think you are correct. The table by Roy is misleading because it does not include many highly educated communities across India. Also, it is redundant as the highest literacy point in Bengal is already made by sources such as this shows Baidya 51.4, Brahmin 37.28, Kayastha 32.90. I think we can probably write using all academic reliable sources above(not the raw census reports) During the British rule, although all the three Bengal Bhadralok communities - Baidyas, Brahmins and kayasthas had much higher literacy as compared to the rest of the Bengal population, the Baidyas stood out amongst the Bhadralok because their literacy was much higher than that of the Brahmins and Kayasthas. Particularly, the Baidya women were several times more literate than both the Bengali Brahmin and Kayastha women. In my opinion, mentioning year is not really necessary as the pattern did not change. But let us wait for input from TB and Ekdalian and get their opinions before making any change. TB has already written that they were the most literate in Bengal.LukeEmily (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you lukeEmily for your opinion.yes you are right I meant to say only in bengal as many communities accross India has more literary rate than Baidyas.I am also happy with your proposed line as it is covering the whole fact and also the women's literacy part. Nobita456 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@EkDalian: @TrangaBellam:, @Satnam2408: are you also OK with the proposed change? Should we word it differently or is this OK with all of you? The only objection I can foresee is that we don't have data before 1880s. Other than that it is well sourced. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

See the very first census report of India was published in 1981,thats why we don't have data before that.after that till the last caste-wise literacy rate census, Baidyas was the most literate caste community of Bengal. there is nothing to object regarding your proposed line, Thanks.Nobita456 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. I will revert myself.LukeEmily (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Charaka Samhita & Trija

Hey Nobita, there has been a lot of discussions regarding these claims earlier in related articles. These claims have clearly been rejected. You are crossing the limit defined by senior admins specially for you. You are still adding contentious content without gaining consensus on talk page. The last edit has rightly been reverted by TrangaBellam; moreover, this edit clearly shows your similarities with previously blocked users. Please note meatpuppetry is as good as sockpuppetry here; both are not acceptable. Pinging senior admin Bishonen so that she is on the same page as well. Bishonen, I am not sure if you would be able to recollect the POV pushing we encountered in the article on Vaidyabrahmin; you deal with so many articles BTW. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian I don't know why you always try to complain against me.I edited with sources,I don't know what previous user did.Trangabellam revert my edits and I asked explanation regarding that at talk page(as advised by him in edit summary).did I edit war? or do something like that? Vaidya mentioned as Trija is quite common by historians and researchers. Nobita456 (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent revert

TrangaBellam may I ask you why you revert my sourced content? Nobita456 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think that we have two separate pages on Baidya and Vaidya? (Further, Sources do not guarantee inclusion.) TrangaBellam (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam got your point and I think it is fair enough.I will mention these in Vaidya article.by the way if bengali baidyas mentioned like trijas and something like these, can I write it here in this article? Nobita456 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)