Talk:Baidya: Difference between revisions

Too many Sudra remarks

Hey TrangaBellam, LukeEmily, and Ekdalian I am initiating this discussion to find ways to reduce the too much Shudra labelling. I agree with LukeEmily. The shudra labelling is used more here than in any other caste-related articles, related to Bengal. We can try to reduce these trenchant labellings by summarizing it better way without compromising quality. Further, It should also be noted that there are huge inconsistencies between these two Puranas regarding Baidya and are highly contested among scholars. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree; can you or LukeEmily suggest some ways? Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

We would try our best to find a middle path. I am waiting for LukeEmily for their proposals; They have a profound knowledge of editing other cast-related articles too. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, too much mention of Shudra in the article. Probably, the article on WP that has more mention of the word Shudra is the Shudra article itself. In my opinion, as the first step, we can add a section "Baidya as per scriptures of Bengal" and move most of the scripture related information there. As a second step, instead of having two or three sentences all which mention their varna in different places as per different scriptures, it would be better to combine them into a single sentence. Frankly, it will be a little difficult to do all this as it may break the flow of the article. Ideally, if TB agrees, it would be best if they do it. But if they cannot, I think we should get a "no objection" from TB or Sitush before we start any major changes. We can all contribute to a draft on the talk page first. If we simply rearrange so as to remove multiple mentions of Shudra without removing any information as such, then most other senior editors may not have objections. LukeEmily (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with LukeEmily. We can try to reduce shudra repetition as well as can do summarization, For example, The Purana portion can be written like this

The Brihadharma Purana, which is the earliest document to chronicle, doesn't mention Vaidya as a caste separately but identifies the Ambasthas as the clan born of a Vaishya mother and a Brahmin father who were known as Vaidyas for their profession as physicians. The Brahmavaivarta Purana, notable for a very late Bengali recession, separates Amabastha from Vaidya and describes Vaidya as being begotten by a Brahmin woman and Ashwini Kumara, the healing deity of Gods. In any case, the Vaidyas were branded as Sat-Shudras. It is worth noting that there were only two Varnas among the Hindus in Bengal: Brahmins and Shudras. Here I have reduced shudra repetition by one. In this way, we can proceed. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! I agree this would be the best way to proceed. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an example by only taking two Puranas, but as LukeEmily probably states, all literary sources will be enlisted within the Scriptures of Bengal category after discussion and achieving consensus. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey TrangaBellam, LukeEmily and Ekdalian I have tried only the Scripture section as guided by LukeEmily. May I request you to check it?. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408: please share the draft link here! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry in hurry I have forgotten to give link. Here is the link. I believe some deletion or addition can be done upon consultation. Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand that our article (relevant part) and your draft are essentially the same; you have tried to reduce the number of times the term 'Shudra' is mentioned, as suggested by LukeEmily. I have no objection provided there's no loss of information. Rest, let's wait for LukeEmily and TB. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add that once consensus is achieved, the article should be edited IMHO so that we don't miss any existing content! The draft should not ideally replace the part; rather, incremental edits will help us fetch the diffs easily & validate the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. It's just a sample for adding or removing content from the article. There is further room for addition or removal in the draft. There are some shudra labels in the medieval section as well, which can also be summarized without reducing the quality.Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I think We should not disturb TrangaBellam any further as they are busy editing another article. I have pinged them multiple times and have also communicated with them on their talk page. We can proceed based on the consensus of LukeEmily. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408 and Ekdalian:, I think lets focus the article section by section. TB may not have any objection as long as we don't remove information. We should take very small steps so that no information is lost since both TB and Sitush have reviewed the present version and Sitush did not have any major objections. Tomorrow, I can give an example on the talk page about the kind of changes I had in mind. Also, need to refresh my memory with what Sitush and TB said in early 2022 in their discussion about this article.LukeEmily (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408, Ekdalian, and CharlesWain:, please see suggestion by Sitush here. If we follow his suggestion, we will automatically get rid of the excessive shudra mentions on the page. Basically, a lot of religious scripture stuff will be copied to the new page and all the excessive shudra references can be removed from the Baidya page. It is much easier than rephrasing and rewording sections.LukeEmily (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, LukeEmily. Let's follow Sitush's directions. By the way, you are always accurate in providing suggestions and editing the articles. Thanks for that. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, LukeEmily! Let's ping Sitush and TrangaBellam. Ekdalian (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush: please share your opinion! LukeEmily, let's wait for Sitush, but you may suggest how we can achieve consensus (may be a draft?)! It would have been great if TB got involved, but she seems to be less active on this page nowadays! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Majumdar et al - History of Bengal

I think Majumdar was a Baidya and History of Bengal was published in 1943, which falls foul of WP:RAJ / WP:HISTRS and numerous discussions at WP:RSN. I know he has a stellar reputation, like Sarkar, but historians writing 80 years ago are fairly unlikely to cut mustard today. Even if they're still relevant, it would be unusual for a more recent source not to have made the same point.

I think that source needs to be replaced or removed. Replaced where it is the only one cited; removed if it is part of a refbombing exercise. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I suspected this; you are right Sitush. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why this source is being used. A later edition of Majumdar is available. I have used that edition in other articles.

This is the source -

MAJUMDAR, R. C. (1971). HISTORY OF ANCIENT BENGAL. G. BHARADWAJ , CALCUTTA. pp. 435–437.

Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408 Assuming that the 1971 book actually supports at least some of the statements for which we are using the 1943 one, will you have time/inclination to adjust the article? - Sitush (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes certainly I will try. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Sitush I have replaced the previous edition of Majumdar with the later one. I forgot about this part The origins of Baidyas remain surrounded by a wide variety of overlapping and sometimes contradictory myths and are heavily contested. Aside from Upapuranas and two genealogies (Kulajis), premodern Bengali literature does not discuss details of the caste's origins, nor does literature from outside the region. Majumdar didn't say it, he claimed this - The Vaidya as a caste-name does not occur in the old and genuine Smritis, The Usanas Smriti refers to a caste called Bhishak (physician) born of illicit union between Brahmana male and Kshatriya female, and designates it as Vaidyaka I asked TrangaBellam and their answer was this. I think we need a source that explicitly mentions such information nor does literature from outside the region to avoid WP:SYN and WP:OR. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408 We definitely need a source for it. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Famous Baidyas

Amartya Sen, Konkona Sen Sharma, Suchitra Sen, Sushmita Sen 94.209.101.120 (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Hena Basu (2)

Basu is a popular name among academics who work on the social history of Bengal. Her bibliography guides and referencing services have helped countless scholars including Chris Bayly, Jeffrey Kripal, Rachel McDermott, Brian Pennington, John Hawley, Hugh Urban, Tony Stewart, and others.

The particular catalog I cite is referred to by Haag (2012) as an admirable "compilation of Bengali chronicles and pamphlets on caste." And, I am not making an exceptional/controversial claim either. So, there's nothing to gain by purging the citation invoking SPS. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)