(raibatak sen gupta) abstract - bengali vaidyas -...

www.bengalibaidyas.co.in

(http://www.scribd.com/doc/292425503/Journal-of-Bengali-Studies-Vol-4-No-2) of 27

Vaidyas of Bengal (Raibatak Sen Gupta)

Abstract:

In this article, different theories regarding

the origin of the Bengali Vaidya community

are considered. First, the traditional Vaidya

accounts, which are based on Vaidya Kulaji-

texts and other later texts, are discussed.

Some interesting observations are also

mentioned in this regard. Aferwards, many

supposed theories (some of which are

popular in mainstream historical discourses)

are discussed. Some inconsistencies of

these varied theories are pointed out. Next, certain important events in the course of Vaidya

history are touched upon and some possible reasons of the social change of the Vaidyas are

considered. After giving a brief outline of the different Vaidya lineages and locational clusters,

the paper concludes with a discussion about the importance of studying Vaidya history from a

traditional perspective.

Keywords: Vaidyas, Ashtavaidyan, Kulaji, Ayurveda, Brahmin, Ambashtha, Dvija, Kayastha,

Vellala, Mohyal, Saraswat, Siddha, Sadhya, Gotra, Samaj, Sen Kings, Ballal, Lakshman,

Rajballabh, Adishur, Bopdeva.

Introduction:

History of the Bengali Vaidya community marks an important aspect of the social, cultural,

political and religious history of Bengal and Bengali people. The Bengali Vaidyas are a

miniscule clan, but they have visibly made significant impact on the various spheres of life.

Together with Brahmins (i.e., caste-brahmins who have traditionally been priests and

scholars) and Kayasthas (the scribe community), Vaidyas form the so-called “Bhadralok”

stratum, occupying arguably the most important position of Bengali social structure. The

popular perception about the Vaidyas is that they are a very intelligent and clannish people.

Vaidyas have significantly contributed in shaping the present Bengali society and have

provided leadership in different Bengali movements, which is notable given that they form a

negligible part of the whole Bengali population.

Vaidya history has not been systematically studied in the post-independence era. This is not

surprising since caste-history has never been a popular subject among the modern historians.

Universalist paradigm and simplistic views regarding the caste-system (i.e., it is something

which is entirely despicable, forgettable and should be annihilated for good) have made the

present generation uninterested about caste-history. In the present Bengali society in

particular, people get extremely careful not to get involved in any kind of “Jater name Bojjati”

(casteism) and consequently, are not comfortable in discussing caste issues in public

discourses. However, in the case of Bengali Brahmins (This denotes the non-Vaidya Rarhi,

Barendra, Saptashati and Vaidika groups, taken together) and Kayasthas (both Kulin and



Moulik), old books were made easily available. For instance, Nagendranath Basu’s ‘Banger

Jatiya itihas’ (discussing Brahmins and Kayasthas) is still available in printed form (Dey’s

Publications), and other texts like ‘Kshitish Vangshavali’, ‘Sambandha Nirnaya’ can be found in

many libraries. Even in general historical books, the accounts of the Brahmins (and

Kayasthas) get prominence and there is scant information about the Vaidya caste in general.

All the old texts on the history of Vaidya caste (these texts, unsurprisingly, were written by

authors who were Vaidyas themselves) are now out of print (some of them, fortunately, are

now available in digitized form). As a result, one is compelled to search in various books (on

different subjects) to infer certain things about the history of this clan. However, after

consulting not more than four or five mainstream books, one is bound to discover that there

are huge inconsistencies in the opinions of the different authors regarding the origin and

accounts of this caste. Some places them at the bottom of the varna-hierarchy, while some

proposes a connection with communities of incomparable and unrelated background. The

speculations are often counter-intuitive and contradictory to the social position of the Vaidyas,

and to the different recorded facts. Again, some historians take a regional Sanskrit text as the

only authentic source of Bengali caste-history and that text is blindly cited in almost all

modern textbooks.

In the modern Eurocentric paradigm, too much importance is given on finding a so-called

unbiased source when it comes to community history. The only thing they take into account to

ensure neutrality is that the text should be authored by someone not belonging to the

community being discussed. This is seriously problematic for the following reasons. Firstly,

there is a possibility of antagonism if the author bears any personal grudge against (or is from

a community which is historically antagonistic to) the community being studied. Secondly, the

members of the community being discussed are expected to keep a more precise account of

their own roots and lineages, compared to others. Also, this disregard for oral traditions and

familial texts (which were authored by themselves in the case of Vaidyas) have made things

very much difficult for people who value genealogical history or caste-history, since the

veracity of their writings is questioned every time they refer to some old texts, unless they

quote some foreign scholars or some ‘recognized’ Indian scholars. One wonders if it is at all

possible do new research in this field if the discoveries are mocked at as something having no

historical value. This is the very reason behind history of India becoming the history of only

the kings; coins and inscriptions have been considered the only source of authentic

information in post-independence historical studies.

The origin of the Vaidyas has become the most confusing topic in these circumstances.

Vaidyas have excelled in many fields and many would even argue that the origin accounts

have little value in this jet age, since Vaidyas are part of the topmost layer of the Bengali

Hindu society (as we know, they are generally considered to be placed 2nd in the Bengali

caste-hierarchy, following the Brahmins; although ritualistically they are Brahmins

themselves) and are educationally, economically and socially affluent. However, one has to

keep in mind that obscuring the origin of a community creates many problems in analyzing

many aspects of our past, and in answering many questions and claims. This even stands in

way of persons getting their due credits. The Vaidya kings were directly involved in events

leading to two massive changes (viz., the establishment of Sanatan dharma and the Islamic

invasion) in the Bengali social and political structure. The social status of the Vaidyas seems

to have been targeted by certain groups for different socio-political interests, which is



reflected in this seemingly contradictory nature of the different opinions regarding the Vaidya

history.

In the present article, the focus shall be on the written accounts of the history of Vaidyas

(including the origin accounts), as stated by the old Kulaji (familial) texts and the subsequent

texts (in early 20-th century) which were written primarily by Vaidya authors. The various

theories propounded by the modern scholars (and in some cases, of those belonging to the

earlier centuries) will also be analyzed. Different social changes will be mentioned. We shall

also have a brief outline of the lineage accounts and different samajs of the Vaidyas of Bengal.

Finally, the importance of these old texts (and of an honest study of caste-history) shall be

stated, and a conclusion of the identity of the Vaidyas in the Varna-scheme by weighing

different theories will be aimed at.

Origin: Vaidya traditional views:

Vaidyas are the traditional Bengali community involved in studying, teaching and practicing

medicine. They have mainly restricted themselves to the traditional vocation and the studies

of other academic disciplines (e.g., Nyaya, Vyakarana etc.), but at the same time they have

been kings, ministers and big land-owners from the very beginning. The existence of a

community solely devoted to Ayurveda is seen in only two other places in India. One is Kerala,

where a sect of Nambudri Brahmins, called Ashtavaidyans (eight families of traditional

Vaidyas) forms a sub-caste[1]. Another is Bihar, where Shakdwipi Brahmins (with a supposed

Iranic past) practice astrology and Ayurveda in a traditional manner [2]. There is a community

called Bez (Bezbarua) in Assam which was traditionally involved in healing arts[3], but now

they are an indistinguishable part of the larger Brahmin caste. In other places, medicine is

mainly practiced by Brahmins[4] (and in the surgical cases, by some barber-groups), but that

is usually not done in a traditional manner. One might come across Vaidya familes, but a

Vaidya community of considerable size is not found elsewhere.

First, let us concentrate on the word Vaidya. Etymologically, the word has its root in the word

‘Veda’ and ‘Vidya’. Charaka says that “after completion of Vidya (education), a physician

attains a new birth and only then he is conferred the title Vaidya, it is not obtained by merely

taking birth in some family. The completion of the Vidya ensures that the physician gets

enlightened with the knowledge of the Brahma and attains a Rishi-hood, because supreme

knowledge manifests in completion of Vidya and thus makes Vaidya a twice-born” [5].

Chakrapani Dutta, in his treatise of Charaka, says “Vaidya is one who has a remarkable

knowledge”. Durgachandra Sanyal, in his “Banglar Samajik itihas” writes that Sanskrit ‘Vaidya’

(and Kaviraja), English ‘Doctor’ and Arabic ‘Hakim’ all denote both a scholar and a physician,

which shows that the practice of medicine in ancient times was confined to the most erudite

scholars[6]. Mahabharata states that “Dvijeshu Vaidyang shreyangsha” (i.e., the ones

completing the Vedas are the best among the twice-born men) [7]. Let us now look at some

more definitions of Vaidya as mentioned by Vaidya scholars in their texts. Maharshi Shankha

defined that Vaidya is one who is born of Vedas (Dharanidhar, in his commentary, explains

that this means that one attains the title of Vaidya by proficiency in Vedas) [8]. Maharshi

Ushana says that a Vaidya is one who is proficient in all the Vedas, is a master of different

shastras, and is excellent as a physician[9]. Let us now look at this ‘completion of Vidya’

mentioned by Charaka more closely. Dallan Acharya, in his commentary of Sushruta, states

that after completing Rig, Yajur and Sama, the students must go through a second upanayana



ceremony before studying Atharva and Ayurveda, although they have already had a first

upanayana before the beginning of the regular course[10]. Thus, a student of Ayurveda had to

first study Rig Yajur Sama before studying Atharva and Ayurveda (note that Ayurveda,

although sometimes called an upaveda of Rigveda, is generally considered to be a

Vedanga/Upanga of AtharvaVeda[11] and Chakrapani Datta opined that Atharva itself is

Ayurveda[12]. Charak instructed his students to remain adherent to Atharva[13]). This explains

why a student completing the study of Ayurveda is called a Vaidya, i.e., one who has

completed the Vedic curriculum (called Vidya, comprising of 4 Vedas, Vedangas, Darshanas,

Puran, Smriti, Ayurveda, Arthashastra etc. [14]). According to the vaidya scholars[15], the

Charakasamhita verse mentioned above uses the word “Trija” (thrice-born), but the versions

available now show the words dvija instead of trija (eminent Sanskrit scholar Devipada

Bhattacharya mentioned this verse in his foreword to Shivkali Bhattacharya’s “Chiranjivi

Banoushodhi” [16] to opine that a Vaidya is a Brahmin versed in Ayurveda). Brahmins,

Kshatriyas or Vaishyas were all accepted as students of medicine, but the full philosophical

details were explained to the Brahmins only[17], and the privilege of teaching in ancient times

was also restricted to Brahmins[18]. Anyway, such stringent rules regarding the use of the

word Vaidya probably ensured that medicine does not become a family vocation in most of the

places, as the son of Vaidya would not become a Vaidya unless he completes the entire Vedic

curriculum (a ‘Brahmin’ physician, i.e., who did not attain Vaidya-hood and is a caste-

brahmin, was generally despised[19]) ending with Ayurveda. However, he may become a

Pande, Dwivedi, Trivedi, or Chaturvedi after completing 1, 2, 3 and 4 vedas (respectively)

without the Ayurveda part. In fact, all these hierarchical titles starting from Pande to Vaidya

are found in Sanadhyay Brahmins[20]). Brahmins adept in Atharvaveda are rather rare in

present times. Shakadwipis might have been helped by the Atharvan tradition they brought

from their Iranic ancestors, whereas in case of Bengali Vaidyas, the Sankhya philosophy

(prevalent in Bengal) seems to have played a part in keeping the Ayurvedic tradition dynamic

(Vedic Ayurveda evolved into the present Classical form due to many theoretical influences of

Sankhya[21]).

In fact, use of the word Vaidya as a reference to a physician can be seen in Vedas itself. Verse

4.26.3 of Rigveda describes Indra destroying 99 cities in Asur Shambar’s kingdom and gifting

the 100th to the Vaidya Divodasa. Vaidya Divodasa seems to be a prototype of the Kashiraj

Divodasa Dhanvantari[22], who taught surgery to Sushruta and others. The medical profession

is mentioned in Vedas not only while praising the Ashwins, but also while praying for the

success of a Vipra/Brahmin Bhishaka (physician) (cf. verse 10.97 of Rigveda). Also, one of the

nine shakhas of Atharvaveda was called Caranavaidya (which is assumed to be followed by

wandering physicians) [23], which has now become extinct.

Let us now look at the origin of the Bengali Vaidyas specifically. The earliest reference to

Vaidyas in Bengal that has been found so far is in the famous scholar Bopdeva’s ‘Shatashloki’.

Bopdeva (7th century AD[24]), famous for his Vyakarana text ‘Mugdhobodha’, discussed his

own family history in Shatashloki. He wrote that in Mahasthan region, thousands of Vedapada

Dvijas (Veda-abiding twice-born men) resided, and among them were born Bopdeva’s father

Vaidya Keshav and teacher Vaidya Dhanesh. In the concluding parts of ‘Mugdhobodha’ too, he

described himself as a Vedapada Vipra and mentioned his father Keshav Bhishaka (Bhishaka,

as mentioned earlier, denotes a physician). RG Bhandarkar and Sakharam Ganesh Deuskar

had opined that Bopdeva was a Maharashtrian Brahmin since his descendants are now part of



the Maharashtrian Brahmin clan. But Yadaveshwar Tarkaratna (in his article “Bopdeva”

published in the periodical “Archana” [25]) conclusively proved that Bopdeva was a Bengali

Vaidya born in the Mahasthan Desh near Bagura district[26]. Apart from many Vyakarana and

Smriti granthas, Bopdeva also wrote some books in Ayurveda.

Next, we come to know about some Vaidya physicians belonging to the Pal era. The foremost

among them is Chakrapani Datta, who is famous for his ‘Chakradatta’ and other medicinal

texts. Madhav Kar was another physician whose familial texts identify him as a Vaidya[27]. It is

worth noting that both Datta and Kar (along with Dhar) are found among the surnames of the

Vedic Brahmins of Deccan and Orissa (Dhar is found in Kashmir and Datta is found in Punjab

also). Now according to the Vaidya oral traditions[28], the first cluster of Vaidyas (i.e., Vaidya

families other than the Dhanvantari Sens, Moudgalya Dash’s, Shaktri Sens and Kashyap

Guptas) reached Bengal from the Karnataka region (old Karnata desh) via Utkala (Orissa) and

Rajmahendri (present Rajahmundry in Andhra). The Sen (also written as Sena) kings have

been described as Dakshinatya Vaidyaraja in the old text Viprakula-kalpalatika[29]. So it

sounds reasonable that after settling in Bengal, some of the Vaidyas practiced medicine and

studied other disciplines like Nyaya,Vyakarana etc., while some became feudatories (and

gradually turned into powerful independent rulers) in Rarh region and later in Bikrampur. It is

worth noting that Chakrapani Dutta’s father was a Patra (minister) of the king

Nayapaldeva[30].

Bengalis Vaidyas are predominantly followers of Kanva shakha (branch) of Yajurveda[31].

Compared to Bengal and North India, this shakha has been more prevalent in Orissa and

Deccan since the time of Shankaracharya. Did Vaidyas come to Bengal as Chalukya kings’

Dandanayaka/ Senadhipati (who were also Brahmins residing in Karnata[32]) then? More

evidence is needed to reach any conclusion on this, but the supposed Chalukya connection of

the Senas (Ballal married a Chalukya princess[33]) make this a hypothesis worth consideration.

In fact, there were ministers and court-poets in Deccan who identified themselves as Vaidyas

(e.g.,- Vajravarma, Sattan Ganapati, Maran-kari or Madhurakavi)[34][35]. These Vaidyas were

considered as Brahmins, and physicians in general were described as suvarna/savarna (an

intermediate between Brahmin and Kshatriya) [36]. Probably this (together with their

functioning as ruler Brahmins) led to the Brahmakshatriya designation of the Vaidyas in

Bengal and Deccan alike.

It is interesting to note that Vaidyas often migrated to Maharashtra from Bengal. Bharat

Mallik, a Vaidya Kulajikar (i.e., author of familial texts) says that many Nandi Vaidyas had

settled in Maharashtra[37]. For example, Bopdeva migrated to Devagiri (Atul Krishna

Mukhopadhyay, in an article in the periodical ‘Mandarmala’, 1916, Vol 3. No.10, opined that

the Buddhist groups of Bengal were antagonistic towards Vaishnavas of that time, and that is

why Bopdeva Goswami settled in Maharashtra[38]) and his family had assimilated into

Maharashtrian Brahmin clan. Also, Vaidyas had marital alliances with Dash and Mishra

Brahmins of Orissa (although it was not preferred, as indicated by the word ‘Durdaiba’, i.e.,

misfortune, mentioned by Bharat while discussing this) [39]. These settlements and marriages

probably indicate that Vaidyas still had a link with their previous homelands. In this

connection, it should be pointed out that this Bengal-Maharashtra movement was also seen in

the case of Gaud Saraswat Brahmins. The Gaud Saraswats belong to the larger (and ancient)

Saraswat clan, of which Vaidyas are presumed to be a part, according to Kulajikars like Durjoy



Dash and later authors like Basanta Kumar Sengupta (in some cases, this seems to be

acknowledged by the Saraswats themselves. For example, the Census report of 1931

discusses reports of Vaidyas being invited in the All India Saraswat Conference in Lahore[40]).

Apart from Durjoy Dash, Jay Sen Biswas was another Kulajikar who highlighted this Saraswat

connection. The following points are to be noted in this regard:

1) Firstly, Saraswat, in practice, became the denomination of any Brahmin clan hailing from

the Northwestern India (the other northern denominations being Kanyakubja, Maithila, Utkala,

Gaur). Now the Ambashtha region, which is unanimously accepted as the ancestral homeland

of the Vaidyas by almost all the Vaidya historians and Kulajikars, was situated in northwestern

India, as per Vishnupurana and other sources[41]. Durjoy Dash said that the Ambasthas

(another name for Vaidyas) belonged to two branches – Saraswata and Saindhava (i.e., those

residing on the banks of Saraswati and Sindhu river respectively) [42].

2) Secondly, the Saraswats migrated eastward and southward (reaching as far as Trihuta in

east and Karnataka-Kerala in south[43]), may subclans like Rajapur Saraswat or Gaud

saraswats were created in the process.

3) Thirdly, Saraswats often had a non-vegetarian diet (as seen in Punjabi, Kashmiri and

Konkani Saraswats).

4) Lastly, the Vaid subclan of the Saraswat Mohyal Brahmins (of Punjab) is evidently the only

other clan (apart from the Vaidyas) in India which belongs to Dhanvantari gotra. Mohyals

maintain an identity markedly distinct from common Brahmins (and do not have marital

alliances with other Brahmins), do not take part in priestly duties, and have always been

powerful kings and landlords. All these characteristics are seen among the Vaidyas to some

extent. T.P. Russel Stracey suggested a connection between Bengali Vaidyas and Mohyal

Vaids[44]. It is also worth noting that Bharadwaja gotra Dattas are found in both the clans.

Moreover, the Lau clan of Mohyals has an oral tradition that they have an eastern origin and

one Ballal Sen was one of their ancestors. Panchanan Raya suggests that Laus descended

from the Sen kings[45]. The use of the surname Sen among the Laus even in 18th century[46], is

interesting to note.

The above points are all consistent to the proposition stated in the Vaidya Kulajis (and in later

texts) that Saraswata Vaidyas (as mentioned by Durjoy Dash and Jay Sen Biswas) went

southward from the Ambashtha region and then eventually reached Bengal.

A second stream of Vaidyas, comprising of four gotras viz., Dhanvantari, Moudgalya, Shaktri

and Kashyap, came possibly during King Adishur’s rule. As per Vaidya scholars they had taken

a northern route (via Kanyakubja, Magadh and Mithila) from the Ambashtha region[47]. The old

text ‘Bhavabali’ (by Jagannath Gupta) states that four Vaidyas were brought in Adishur’s court

from the Ambashtha region whose names were Shaktidhar (of Shaktri Gotra), Kabidash

(Moudgalya gotra), Budha (Dhanvantari gotra) and Sumati Gupta (of Kashyap gotra) [48].

Regarding these new migrants, Durjoy Dash writes “Ambasthas consolidated their power in

Bengal after coming from Aryavarta”[49]. These Vaidyas were proficient in many shastras and

poetry, and they wrote a letter to the Kanyakubja king on behalf of Adishur, requesting to

send Yagnika Brahmins for officiating in Adishur’s Yagna. It is worth noting that Adishur



himself is described as belonging to Dhanvantari gotra in Vaidya and Brahmin kulajis alike

(e.g. Debibara’s Kulaji) [50], and his ancestral home was in Darad region according to

Dhruvananda Mishra[51]. ‘Bhavabali’ also says that Adishur had a Navaratna sabha (court

adorned with 9 gems) with these 4 Vaidyas and 5 Yagnik Brahmins.

Dhanvantari and Shaktri lineages had the surname Sen, Moudgalya lineage had the surname

Dash, whereas the surname of the Kashyapas is Gupta. These four lineages played the most

prominent part in subsequent Vaidya history, and seem to form the bulk of the present Vaidya

population. They obtained the designation Siddha (whereas the other lineages were called

Sadhya and occasionally, Kashta. This Sidhha-Sadhya-Kashta nomenclature is observed in

Brahmins as well[52]) and many branches of these families were recognized as Kulinas by

Ballal and Lakshman (It is worth noting, however that Sadhya Chakrapani Dutta described

himself as a Lodhravali Kulina, i.e., a Kulina belonging to the Lodhravali region). This Kulina

status was often lost (and in some cases, regained) due to many issues related to marriage

(with a non-siddha family), personal enmity, shift of residence etc.

Almost all the Kulajikars belonged to these Siddha lineages, and as a result the Kulaji texts

almost singularly discuss accounts related to the Siddhas only. Sadhyas were mentioned only

when some marriage took place with Sadhyas (which became a rare event as time passed

on). As a result, we have many facts regarding the family-trees and marital details of Siddhas,

but there is a paucity of information regarding the Sadhya clans. Royal patronage, along with

other reasons (e.g., Siddhas’ strict disapproval of the occasional Buddhist/Pal associations of

Sadhyas in earlier times), gave birth to a condescending attitude towards Sadhyas in Siddhas’

minds (much like how Kulina Brahmins disregarded the Shrotriya and other Brahmins). This

proved costly as many lineages were lost by assimilating into other communities, as they

could not continue marital alliances with Siddhas, specially in regions like Chattagram and

Sylhet.

The Siddhas, evidently, first came to Bikrampur as it was the capital of Adishur. However,

‘Bhavabali’ suggests that they had quickly shifted to Baidyabati (in the bank of the Ganges) of

Rarh[53] and then to Manbhum (except Shaktri gotra Siddhas) after the end of Shur rule.

Sriharsha Sen, the person with whom all the available Dhanvantari gotra family-tree starts,

was a king in Manbhum region (which was called Senbhum also) [54]. His capital was named

Kanjigramnagara[55]. The Shaktri founding father Shrivatsa Sen lived in Tehatta in Rarh.

Moudgalya Dashes resided in Gonagara whereas Kashyap guptas lived in Karankakotha (last

two places were situated in Manbhum region) [56]. Later on they moved to Katwa-Nabadwip

region in Rarh, from where many branches migrated to Eastern Bengal during and after

Lakshman Sen’s rule.

The Ambashtha angle must be studied regarding the origin of the Vaidyas. Vaidya Kulajis

maintained that Ambashtha was the name of the region from where Vaidyas moved to

different place (as seen in the Bhavabali verses mentioned above). It is a common thing to

use the name of ancestral place for denoting a community. We thus have Mathur Brahman,

Kanyakubja Brahman, Rarhi Brahman etc. Vaidyas seem to have described themselves as

Ambashtha due to this geographical reason. Any caste having its roots in Ambashtha region

can be called Ambastha (just like we have Rarhi Brahmins and Rarhi Kayasthas). For the

Vaidyas, however, there was a second connotation of the word Ambashtha. The word

Ambashtha, according to ‘Prakritivada’ dictionary edited by Sarat Chandra Shastri[57] and



Saral Bangala Abhidhan edited by Subal Mitra[58], etymologically denotes one who stays near

someone like a caring father or mother. Thus this was naturally used for physicians as they

cared for a patient just like the parents do for their children. This parental aspect is visible in

the ancient use of the word ‘TAta’ (father) while addressing Vaidyas. In Rigveda verse 4.26.3,

Indra describes Vaidya Divodasa as sarvatAta (i.e., father of all). Again in Ramayana, Ram

asked Bharat to honour ‘TAtavaidyas’ (along with other Brahmins) [58]. In Mahabharata, when

some Vaidyas reached Kurukshetra to treat Bhishma during his Shara-shajya (i.e., bed of

arrows), he requested others to do proper ‘Archana’ (adoration) of the Vaidyas[59]. So this

tradition of denoting physicians as fatherly Ambashthas is quite old. It is very much possible

that the Vaidyas’ ancestral homeland was named Ambashtha because many famous

physicians lived there (Northwest India is the homeland of many ancient Ayurvedic luminaries

like Charak, Drirhabala, Bagbhatta etc.).

Now in Manusmriti, the offspring begotten by a Brahmin in the womb of a Vaishya wife is

called an Ambashtha and is stated to have the vocation of medicine[60]. Ushanasamhita lists

agriculture, cooking, warfare and medicine among the duties of this Ambashtha. This

Ambashtha was a Brahmin in the varna-scheme, as Vyasadeva said that a children begotten

by a Brahmin in the womb of a wife belonging to any of the first three varnas, is a

Brahmin[61]. The present version of the Manusmriti, although not being clear on the varna-

status of an Ambastha, has a verse saying that the six types of offsprings born of parents

belonging to same dvija varnas or born of anantara marriage between dvijas would be a

dvija[62]. Medhatithi, a commentator of Manu, equates anantara with anuloma (i.e., where the

varna of the father is higher than the varna of the mother)[63]. This Ambashtha was in some

cases called as Vaidya, as mentioned in the Haritasamhita’s verse saying that among the five

dvijas viz., Brahmin, Murdhavishiktha (Brahmin-Kshatriya anuloma offspring), Vaidya,

Kshatriya and Vaishya, the comparative status is determined in the mentioned order, i.e., A

Brahmin is superior to a Murdhavisikhta, A Murdhavisikhtha is more respectable than a Vaidya

and a Vaidya is superior to a Kshatriya, and so forth[64].

However, there is nothing that definitely proves that the Bengali Vaidyas are the Ambashthas

mentioned in Manu and other texts, except the common medical professional link. However,

medicine was not a ‘profession’ of Vaidyas per se, the tradition of the Vaidyas was to take a

Dhanvantari Bhaga (a token for the preparation of medicine) and a Dana or Pranami[65] (this

finds mention even in recent literary works like Sharatchandra’s “Obhaagir Sworgo”). Vaidyas

usually didn’t take any money for cure, unlike subsidiary healers like Barber-surgeons (also

called Ambattan in southern India) or Snake-charmers. The physicians of the Ambastha clan

might have worked in subsidiary healing, medicine-preparation and in some cases might have

assimilated with Vaidyas, but there is no credible evidence to conclude that the whole Bengali

Vaidya clan is a part of the Ambashtha sect mentioned by Manu. Umeshchandra Vidyaratna

opined that the surnames of Sen, Gupta etc are Vaishya surnames and it probably indicates a

Vaishya maternal link. However, Sen was historically used a military title by various varnas,

Gupta was used by a Brahmin like Chanakya or Abhinava, and Dash, Datta, Dhar are Brahmin

surnames in many parts of India. Brihad-dharma Purana does not mention the Vaidya clan but

mentions Ambashtha as a Sudra clan (we shall see the inconsistency involved in this, very

shortly). The Vaidya scholars using the word Ambashtha (for Vaidyas) have all pointed to

either its fatherly aspect or the locational aspect. Also, agriculture and cooking have never

been the vocation of the Bengali Vaidyas.



Brahma-Vaivartya Purana, an Upapurana, distinguishes the Vaidyas from the Ambasthas and

comes up with a new story regarding the origin of Vaidyas. It narrates that a Brahmin’s wife

was once impregnated by Ashvinikumars (the Vedic twin-gods of medicine) and a son was

eventually born. When the angry Brahmin deserted both the wife and the child, Ashvins

taught the son Ayurveda and other mantras with great care. This verse is followed by the

accounts of Grahavipras and Agradanis[66]. The regional nature (and the language of the

verses) makes it plain that these were interpolations aimed at fabricating origin myths for

non-priest Brahmins like Agradani, Grahavipra and Vaidyas (this connection between

Agradanis and Vaidyas is later seen in Mukundaram Chakravarty’s work Kabikankan Chandi,

also called Chandimangal, where they are shown to be seated together), which is a quite an

old tactics of priestly authors, as mentioned by Jogendranath Bhattacharya[67]. In any case,

Vaidyas being descendants of gods is undoubtedly allegorical in nature and holds no

genealogical significance.

The oldest Kulaji of the Vaidyas, according to Umeshchandra Vidyaratna and others, is

Rishisutra, which is not available in any form since the last few centuries. Chaturbhuj Sen,

another Kulajikar, gives a version of Vaidya origin by probably combining the Rishisutra

(which, as the name suggests, discussed the origin of different Vaidya lineages according to

their gotra) and the myth of Amritacharya mentioned in Skandapurana. As the Skandapurana

story goes, once Maharshi Galava was wandering in a forest. Suddenly he felt thirsty and after

a long search for water, he could finally quench his thirst with the help of a Vaishya girl

Birbhadra who was carrying a pitcher. The sage blessed him, wishing that she gets a male

offspring. Since Birbhadra was unmarried at that time, Galava created a child from a stack of

Kushagrass with the power of Vedic verses. The child was called Vaidya (born of Vedas) and

Galava instructed him to stay in his maternal residence. The child went on to become a

master of Shastras and Ayurveda and came to be known as Amritacharya, i.e., an incarnation

of Vishnu-Dhanvantari who brought Amrita (Ambrosia) nectar during the

Samudramanthana[68]. The following is what Chaturbhuj added: Amritacharya resided in the

plains between Ganga and Yamuna and married the three daughters of Ashvinikumars. 25

daughters were born from his three wives. He managed to convince 25 renowned Rishis from

various regions to marry his daughters, and the different Vaidya lineages came into being

from these marriages between Rishis and Amritacharya’s daughters[69]. This myth has certain

underlying points. First, it aims to allegorize the notion of Vaidyas being born of Vedas.

Secondly, it tries to explain the title of Ambashtha by suggesting that Amritacharya had

stayed in his maternal home (Ambashtha=ambakule sthita i.e., belonging to the maternal

clan). Thirdly, this too connects Ashvinikumars with Vaidyas. And lastly, the genealogical

history of the several Vaidya lineages is connected by mentioning the name and residence of

the ancestral rishis of the respective lineages while describing them as husbands of

Amritacharya’s daughter. So although the account is legendary in nature, it is important since

it has preserved the names and old residences of Vaidya founding fathers.

Some contradictory theories on origin:

In this section we shall look at several origin theories that are at variance with the Vaidya

tradition that Vaidyas are a community of Ayurvedic physicians/scholars belonging to the

Brahmin varna and having an ancient Sanskritist Ayurvedic heritage.



In general history books concerning Bengal/Bengalis, the most cited theory regarding the

Vaidyas is that they are Ambashthas belonging to the sat-shudra varna. The only sources of

this notion are the Brihad-dharma Purana and, to some extent, Smarta Raghunandan’s

‘Shuddhitatva’. Interestingly, both of them are silent about the specific clan of Vaidyas and

have used the word Ambashtha as a sat-shudra clan, but later authors have freely equated

Ambashtha with Vaidya and described Vaidyas as sat-shudras (it is worth noticing that no

verse of Brahma-vaivartya Purana describes Vaidyas as sat-shudras or varnasankaras either,

but many historians adamantly suggest that Vaidyas are among the sat-shudras, for reasons

better known to them). First of all, the argument behind declaring Ambashtha as Shudras is

illogical, since Mahabharata clearly indicates that the offspring of a Brahmin and a Vaishya

wife is a Brahmin, and Manu also hints that anuloma marriage within dvijas begets a dvija

offspring, as we discussed before. Brihad-dharma Purana (Uttarakhanda, verses 9.34 to 9.36)

in fact mentions that Ambasthas, as sons of Vipras, are worthy of having dvija sanskaras

(rituals), but then it comes up with a strange argument that since Brahmins mercifully gave

Ayurveda to Ambashthas, that itself washes away the sins of having a mixed birth[70]. One

wonders what is the logic behind acknowledging the washing away of sins of some sons of

Vipra and still listing them as Shudras. Raghunandan on the other hand argued that

Ambasthas, along with Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, became Shudras due to not staying in

contact with Brahmins for a long time[71]. This is also preposterous, since Bengal always had a

Brahmin (priest) population, even in pre-Adishur times. Only the number of Brahmins was far

less than in other places and the Bengali Brahmins often had non-Vedic inclinations. Still,

Ayurvedic physicians, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas have traditionally followed Brahminical religious

rituals both in Bengal and in other places like Deccan etc. In fact, kings from the Vaidya clan

(which is supposedly being denoted as Ambashtha by Raghunandan) in fact endeavored

sincerely to revive Brahminical religion in Bengal. One may presume that this supposed

perception of Ambasthas being impure, is somehow linked with the post-Manu smarta

tendency to hold the medical duties with contempt. However, it might also be the case that

there were some community interests, personal grievances or political tactics behind such a

distortion regarding the varna-status of the Vaidyas. Brihad-dharma Purana is not among the

18 authentic Puranas, and it was not even considered an Upapurana until it listed itself as the

last of the upapuranas. It was written by some Bengali individuals (as evident by its language

and topics[72]) in late 13th century[73]. One cannot help noting that the period when it was

being written was the time when Sen era had just ended and some Brahmins (together with

Kayasthas in some cases) were colluding with Muslim rulers to create a new power equation

(Raja Danujmadhav Deva had made an alliance with Mamluk sultan Ghiyas-ud-din Balban[74],

and later Raja Ganesh or Danujmardan Deva assisted the Muslims so much that his son

converted to Islam). In this connection it is worth noting that the first available printed

versions of both Brihad-dharma Purana and ‘Ballal Charita’ (to be discussed shortly) were

edited /introduced by Haraprasad Shastri.

It is logical to assume that it was necessary for certain groups to prevent Sen kings from

regaining any social and political stronghold in Bengal. Later, Raghunandan and others may

well have tampered with the text further due to their neo-smarta inclinations. It is surprising

to see that the historians never took a note of any of these points and blindly followed the late

13-th century Brihad-dharma Purana as their only source to conclude about the history of

Vaidyas, a clan which has an ancient past and has been residing in Bengal since 7th century or

earlier.



As said before, equating Ambashthas with Vaidyas is problematic on many accounts. One

important point in this regard is that some important Vaidya gotras like Dhanvantari, Shaktri

etc. are not found among priestly Brahmins anywhere in India (note that they are not non-

Aryan gotras since they are found in the list of gotras given in Baudhayana and elsewhere).

They are not found in other castes also. Had Vaidyas been the offsprings of priestly Brahmins

(with a Vaishya maternal line), they would have belonged to common priestly gotras (in this

regard note that Mohyals never officiated as priests so the possibility of Vaidyas deriving their

gotras from Mohyals is ruled out. Rather, it is reasonable to presume that Dhanvantari

Vaidyas and Dhanvantari Vaid Mohyals, both being non-priests, have a common root, as

discussed before). Vaidyas did not act as priests in usual circumstances. That explains the fact

that the non-Brahmins, who acquire their gotras from their priests, do not belong to gotras

like Dhanvantari, Shaktri etc. In fact, this also strengthens the supposition that Vaidyas are

from Brahmin varna, because otherwise they would again have priestly Brahmin gotras.

The Shudra supposition is not supported by the literary works of Bengal as well. Kabikankan

Chandi describes the Vaidyas as sporting an Urdhafota [75] (a tilaka mark in forehead

identifying a Brahmin[76]). Bankimchandra also mentioned in his articles that Vaidyas are not

Shudras (e.g., in Bange Brahmanadhikar- Dwitiya Prastaba) and protested against Vidyasagar

who had opined that Vaidyas are from the Shudra varna[77]. In fact, Vaidyas of Rarh region

always had a continuous tradition of Upanayana[78] (which had been discontinued by East

Bengali Vaidyas for a certain period due to a particular incident, until Raja Rajballabh brought

back the ritual among them). Durgachandra Sanyal mentions that the Vaidya king Ballal used

to wear the Upavita (sacred thread) [79]. In Calcutta Sanskrit college, Shudras were debarred

from getting enlisted (until the time of Vidyasagar), but Vaidyas were always allowed to study

in that college[80] along with other Brahmins and Ramkamal Sen (the grandfather of eminent

Brahmo leader Keshabchandra Sen) acted as principal of Sanskrit college for some time. Also,

Jogendranath Bhattacharya mentions that in feasts, Vaidya guests were made to eat at the

same time with other Brahmins, which was not allowed for Kayasthas or other Shudras[81].

The Grahavipras, or astrologer Brahmins are described as born of Ambashtha father in texts

like Parshurama Samhita[82]. It is impossible that a caste coming out of Shudra lineages would

be accepted as Vipras.

The Ambastha hypothesis was also used to suppose that Vaidyas belong to the Vaishya varna.

This theory depends on the notion that Ambastha Amritacharya had stayed in his maternal

clan, and Vaidyas, being his descendants, are also Vaishyas. However, Amritacharya was only

the maternal grandfather of the Vaidyas (according to Chaturbhuj) so his being Vaishya has

nothing much to do with the status of the Vaidyas who were sons of Rishis. Furthermore,

Amritacharya, as the suffix Acharya suggests, was a Brahmin. Some proponents of this

Vaishya theory mention that anuloma offsprings always have the varna of their mother

(before marriage), which is contradicted by Mahabharata and Manusmriti alike, as we have

discussed. There is a saying that Vaidyas were Pitritulya (fatherly/Brahmin) during SatyaYuga

and TretaYuga, like Kshatriyas in Dvapara, and are like Vaishyas in Kali, but that is clearly an

allegory suggesting the decline of the philanthropic mindset of the Vaidyas through a war-

ridden Dvapara and sin-dominated Kali. A verse by Nulo Panchanan (an old author who wrote

on Bengali social history) mentions that the Vaidya king Adishur belonged to Vaishya “Jati”

but in the very next line goes on to state that he was a Vedic scholar ruling like a

Kshatriya[83]. It is almost improbable that Vaishyas could become proficient in Vedas (Adishur)



or Smritis (Ballal Sen) at that time. Actually this Vaishya theory got popular when Rarhiya

Vaidyas started to perform 15 days of Ashoucha (mourning period) as per a directive issued

by Raja Ganesh who was reportedly coaxed into issuing the directive by some Brahmins who

had held a long grudge against the Sen kings. This will be discussed later.

Probably, some authors could see the problem of equating Ambashthas with Vaishyas or

Shudras. Some new claims were being made suggesting an even more inglorious origin of the

Vaidyas. For instance, a modern edition of the text Ballalcharita (written by some

Anandabhatta) stated that the Vaidyas were sons begotten by Ambasthas in Vaishya wives[84].

Needless to say, this did not have any scriptural support and could not become popular.

Again, Nagendranath Basu in his “Biswakosha” claimed that some commentator of Manu had

said that Ambashthas are of two type, the first coming from a Vaishya father and a Kshatriya

mother, while the second from a Shudra father and a Kshatriya mother[85]. This again, is a

statement not supported by any scriptural reference or evidences.

Next, we consider the theory involving the Ambashtha Kayasthas. Ambashtha Kayasthas are a

clan of Kayasthas residing in Bihar and eastern UP. As per their tradition, they have been

named Ambashtha since they lived in the Ambashtha region. Jogendranath Bhattacharya

connects the Vaidyas with these Ambastha Kayasthas[86], totally disregarding the facts that

Ambashtha Kayasthas never had a tradition of Ayurveda and that Kayasthas were placed

below the Vaidyas in caste-hierarchy, as he himself had stated. It is reasonable for any caste

migrating from the Ambashtha region to use the name Ambashtha, just as any caste hailing

from Rarh region uses the tag Rarhi. In this regard, it is worth noting that Mathur was a sect

of Brahmins living in Mathura, but the Kayasthas of that region also use the surname Mathur

and the Vaishyas of that region are called Mathur Vaishyas. Jogendranath, even after stating

all the Brahminical features and heritage of Vaidyas, connected them with Kayasthas because

according to him the Vaidyas had non-Brahminic surnames. At this point, it needs to be

mentioned again that Dash, Dutta, Dhar, Kar, Nandi/Nanda are all found among Brahmins

(even in Bengal we once had non-Vaidya Brahmins using Dhar or Kar, as seen from the family

history of Ashutosh Shastri or Ramnarayan Tarkaratna), whereas Sen and Gupta (Guput) are

still found among the Gayali Brahmins[87]. Dash, with the talavya ‘sha’, specifically denotes a

Brahmin noted for his Dana (donation), as stated by Panini and others[88]. Interestingly,

Vatsya gotra is found among Dash’s of both Bengal and Orissa. Also, Vaidyas in some cases

had titles like Pande (in Bankura’s Tiluri village[89]) or Dube (i.e., Dwivedi. Murari Sen Dube of

Japsa village was a well-known Vaidya). Furthermore, Vaidyas had the privilege of giving

Diksha to even Brahmins, for example the Thakurs of Srikhanda or the Goswamis of

Bhajanghat have been the dikshagurus of many Brahmin families, as seen in Vaishnava texts

like Chaitanyacharita[90].

Another popular theory regarding the Vaidyas is that they are the descendants of the Vellala

chieftains of Tamilnadu. Bijay Chandra Majumdar claimed that Vellala (also called Vellalar)

communities had been Vedic scholars and the word Vaidya is related to Vedic studies only, not

medicine. According to him, the Vellalas became Vaidyas due to their Vedic studies and they

often practiced medicine. He strongly suggested that Bengali Vaidyas are originally Vellalas

since many of them came from southern India and were adept in Brahminical/Vedic

disciplines[91]. Let us now see why this assumption is very difficult to accept. Firstly, Vellalas

did not have an Ayurvedic heritage of teaching, studying and authoring Classical medicinal



texts. They are mainly an agricultural community which sometimes acted as local chieftains.

In the orthodox Brahminical tradition of Tamilnadu, no non-Brahmin (especially if he belongs

to an agricultural Shudra caste) can be expected to be a Vedic scholar, there is no evidence of

Vellalas being Vedic scholars either. Secondly, Bijaychandra is clearly wrong when he says

that the word Vaidya had no connection with medicine. We have already discussed the

definition of the word Vaidya, and all over India Ayurvedic scholars are known by the name

Vaidya. Thirdly, Sen kings came from Karnataka, not from Tamilnadu.

Again, Dineshchandra Sircar was of the view that Vaidyas are a union of local physicians and

Ambastha (Ambattan) barber-surgeons coming from the Deccan[92]. Clearly, the Vaidyas’ oral

tradition of two clusters coming to Bengal at different times and Sen kings’ southern

connections have led the historians to connect them with many clans of Southern India

(Sircar, in any case had a ‘curious and persistent southern complex’, as opined Dr. RK

Ghoshal[93]). The basis of DC Sircar’s claim is that the Sen Kings came from Deccan and

Ambattan barbers act as physicians in Tamilnadu. He seems to have interpreted the existence

of two different clusters (Sadhya and Sidhha) as the crystallization of medical profession by

the assimilation of Southern barbers with Bengali local healer population during Sen dynasty.

He also equated Daman (Sen), the name of a Vaidya individual with Tamil Dommana.

What DC Sircar missed is that it is the first cluster which is believed to have taken a southern

route to Bengal during the Pal era, not the second one. Moreover, during the Sen dynasty,

Siddha and Sadhya became socially distant gradually, so the question of assimilation does not

arise. The Siddhas were there in the Shur courts and had come via Aryavarta. Thus the

hypothesis that Pal era Vaidyas (Bengali) assimilated with Siddha Vaidyas (southerners)

during the Sen dynasty, does not hold water. Moreover, barber surgeons did not have the

heritage of writing volumes of Sanskrit texts on Classical Ayurvedic topics and on other

disciplines. The Bengali Vaidyas (both Siddhas and Sadhyas) never had a barber-surgical way

of treating either. Equating Daman (a Sanskrit word) with Dommana is not only unreasonable,

but also irrelevant (since Dommana is not confined to Barber castes alone). It is interesting to

note in this regard that an anthropological paper had found out that the head-structure of a

Vaidya individual (Neem Chand Dasgupta) was Caucasian in nature and was markedly

different from that of a Barber-surgeon or that of a Kayastha[94].

Some authors claim that in Mahabharata, the offspring begotten by a Shudra male and a

Vaishya female is called a Vaidya. Ramsharan Sharma, in his Sudras in Ancient India[95],

opined that this is a reflection of the contempt towards medicine. This often leads some

authors to infer that physicians were among the first untouchables. One wonders how one can

explain the incredible phenomenon of an untouchable touching the pulse of the dvijas and

having the exclusive right to prepare medicine (often in cooked form) for Brahmins.

In the authentic version of the Mahabharata (Kisari Mohan Ganguli’s translation) [96] as well as

Manusmriti (verse 10.12), the Sudra-Vaishya pratiloma offspring is called an Ayogava, not a

Vaidya. Both the texts state that the profession of an Ayogava is that of a carpenter. It is not

possible to link the medical profession with carpentry in any manner. This is clearly a case of

interpolation, as neither the profession nor the profile/status of an Ayogava is comparable

with an Ayurvedic physician.



Let us consider another theory which aims to dissociate the Bengali Vaidyas from the classical

Ayurveda heritage (as opposed to Buddhist “Tigiccha satta” or Tamil Siddhai medicine). It

suggests that the Vaidyas were Buddhist healers/magico-healers appointed by the shramanas.

The theory that Vaidyas are casteless or shudras became popular mainly due to endeavours

by certain writers like Nagendranath Basu, Kailash Chandra Singha, Fakirchand Basu etc. At

that time, the Kayasthas endeavored to be designated as Kshatriyas (Nagendranath Basu’s

book ‘Kayasther borno nirnoy’ was a part of that endeavour). Proving Vaidyas as casteless

would have definitely helped them (who are often identified with Karanas, i.e., Shudras with a

Vaishya paternal lineage) to at least climb up to the second position in the Bengali social-

structure, following the Brahmins (in case their bid for Kshatriya status failed). UC Vidyaratna,

among others, discussed about this at length in his ‘Jati-Tatva-Baridhi’. The mentioned group

and their associates (Shobhabajar Rajas, for example) even suggested that Vaidyas were born

as illegitimate sons of Ambashthas by changing the words of a well-known verse of

Amarkosha[97], as seen in the ‘Shabdakalpadruma’ encyclopedia compiled by Radhakanta

Deb[98].

The proposition that Vaidyas were earlier casteless local healers was propounded by

Byomkesh Mustafi (who, unsurprisingly, was a close associate of Nagendranath[99]). He opined

that Bengali Vaidyas took the surnames of Bengali Kayasthas (the reason given by Byomkesh

for this is that Kayasthas are Kshatriyas, but he did not explain why it became necessary for

the Vaidyas to assume Kshatriya surnames in the first place) like Sen, Dhar, Kar, Datta etc.

and added ‘Gupta’ since they wanted to conceal their past [100]. Rajanikanta Chakrabarty, in

his “Gourer Itihas”, expressed a similar opinion, though he specified that these physicians

came from Brahmin and Kshatriya lineages. It is this Buddhist association, Rajanikanta says,

which lowered their status compared to the other Brahmins.

However, this theory is seriously problematic on many accounts. Firstly, the Vaidya kings

(both Shurs and Senas) were antagonistic towards Buddhism, and the four Siddha (note that

this Siddha has no connection with Siddhai medicine as the word Siddha was used for the

Shrotriya Brahmins as well, as we have seen) clans were patronized and looked up to by the

Vaidya kings. The Vaidya scholars who were associated with the Pal kings or who predate the

Vaidya kings also showed no Buddhist leanings. Bopdeva describes his family as ‘Vedapada’

(devoted to Vedas) and ‘Dvija’ (Twice-born), it is improbable that a Buddhist would give such

a self-description. Chakrapani Dutta, the court-physician and minister of Nayapaladeva, didn’t

write a single Buddhist text and concentrated on Brahminical Nyaya, Vyakarana etc. in his

non-medical writings. Bengali Vaidyas always used Sanskrit for their texts (instead of Pali),

started the texts with salutations to Shiva, Vishnu, Saraswati, Parvati etc., discussed

Astrology and performed/instructed Shantihoma-Valikarma-Yagna etc. All these

characteristics are contradictory to the Buddhist hypothesis. Also, Dhar, Kar, Dutta etc. were

not only Kayastha surnames (as we have discussed) and Vaidyas had these surnames during

Buddhist era itself. Moreover the appendage of Gupta is a very recent phenomenon and there

is no evidence of it being used in pre-Rajballabh times, so the argument that it was a mark of

concealing the Buddhist connection is unreasonable. Amusingly, Mustafi connected the word

‘Vaidya’ with ‘Bouddha’ (Buddhist), totally disregarding the fact that the word Vaidya has been

used to denote physicians since pre-Buddha times.



So the opposing theories discussed above describe Vaidyas variously as Ambashtha Shudra, a

mythical caste born of deities, Ambashtha Vaishya, Ambashtha Kayastha, Ambastha-Vaishya

varnasankara (mixed caste), Shudra-Kshatriya varnasankara, Vaishya-Kshatriya

varnasankara, Vellala agriculturalists, Tamil Barbers, Illegitimate offsprings of Ambashtha,

Shudra-Vaishya varnasankara Ayogava carpenters and casteless Buddhist local healers (add

to this one online article by one KK Debnath which claims that Vaidyas are illegitimate

offsprings of Tantriks as suggested by the suffix Gupta, or the various articles that supposes

Vaidyas are Shudras from the surname Dash). So many different, problematic, contradictory

and counter-intuitive claims probably suggest that all these are outcomes of Vaidya history

being systematically obscured at some point of time. The varied and incongruous claims also

indicate that there were collective efforts to hush up the true history (and obscure it further)

of the Vaidyas for some reason.

Some important events leading to social changes among Vaidyas:

The Vaidyas experienced certain social changes, which has resulted in the peculiar social

position of the Bengali Vaidyas of recent times. The Vaidyas now perform their rituals as

Brahmins, including Upanayana, 10 days of mourning and using of the title Sharma. They

maintain a distinct identity than usual Brahmins, as it is done by Mohyals, Ashtavaidyans,

Shakadwipis or in some cases by Gaud Saraswats/Shenvis also. The taboo related to issues of

purity (influenced by both post-Manu neo-smritis and Buddhist views) definitely played a part

in this segregation, but that largely remained a theoretical question and Classical medicinal

groups were always socially accepted as Brahmins (only that other Brahmins did not prefer

marital alliances with them in some cases, as it happened with Ashtavaidyans). But what is

different in case of the Bengali Vaidyas is that they underwent stages where they had to

perform rituals as Vaishyas or Shudras, and are still not considered as Brahmins in non-

ritualistic social life. Shivkali Bhattacharya in his “Chiranjibi Bonoushodhi” opined that the

Vaidyas were demoted from the Yajurvedi Brahmin status because they had started to

demand money as fees for their service[101]. This again seems to be inadequate to explain the

phenomenon because many Brahmin sects remained Brahmins even after taking up vocations

totally prohibited for Brahmins. Let us now look at the few significant events which have

shaped the Bengali Vaidya history in many respects, and are probably the main reason behind

the apparent dillema regarding Vaidyas’ social status.

(1) Vaidya king Adishur had brought five Yagnik Brahmins (along with five Kayasthas) from

Kolancha (assumed to be a part of Kanyakubja, or present Kannauj) to perform a Vedic

yagna, according to the Kulajis of Brahmins and Vaidyas. They resided in Bengal afterwards

and were honoured by the kings. This created discontent among the other Brahmins living in

Bengal from an earlier period. Later, Ballal conferred the Kulina status to certain lineages of

Rarhi Brahmins, thus infuriating Barendra and Shrotriya Brahmins. Ballal in fact had sent

certain Brahmin families in exile to places like Assam. As a result, a large section of Brahmins

were very much antagonistic towards Vaidyas. When Sen dynasty ended, they got the

opportunity to target the social position of the Vaidyas. As we said, the Brihad-dharma Purana

was written in this period. According to some Vaidya authors, Colebrooke’s Rituals of Bengal

(Asiatic Society) mentioned a letter which was addressed to Raja Ganesha by some Brahmins.

The letter requested the king to demote the Vaidyas from Brahmin status to Vaishya status,

as the Vaidyas had become fallen. The letter also requested that Vaidyas be debarred from



Brahminical privileges and are forced to observe a 15-day mourning like the Vaishyas. The

book also contained a declaration where Raja Ganesha directs the Vaidyas to observe 15-day

mourning and not to take part in Brahminical duties[102]. This declaration, if authentic, seems

to have created the apparent contradictory social stand of the Vaidyas viz., producing

scholarly works in various disciplines of Brahminical curriculum, teaching at Chatushpathis as

Pandits (note that apart from the scholarly titles, some families even had titles like

Bhattacharya[103] and Mishra[104]) and yet not being recognized as Brahmins.

(2) Ballal Sen had enraged the Suvarnabaniks by demoting their status in connection with a

dispute between a Brahmin and Suvarnavaniks regarding the case of a golden cow-statue.

Padmini, the daughter of a Suvarnavanik named Ballabhananda Sheth, decided to create a

scandal which would bring disrepute to the king. She posed as a Dom/Haddika woman and

succeeded to have an affair with Ballal[105]. Ballal eventually decided to marry her, which

angered his son Lakshman very much. Lakshman persuaded Ballal not to bring disgrace to the

Sen clan, but Ballal was already head over heels for Padmini. Lakshman decided to leave the

Sen capital Bikrampur and started to reside in western Rarh. Ballal, meanwhile was arranging

for a grand feast where Vaidyas would have to eat food served by Padmini. Many unwilling

Vaidyas went away with Lakshman. Those who could not move away were advised by

Lakshman either to hide in distant regions like Chattagram or Sylhet or to pose as Shudras by

removing the sacred thread[106]. Some Vaidyas, however went to the grand feast. Lakshman,

on returning to the capital after the death of Ballal, punished the Vaidyas loyal to Ballal by

demoting them to Shudra-hood. Thus, a great majority of the eastern Bengali Vaidyas lost

their dvija status and the right to wear the sacred thread. This is mentioned in Ramjiban

Sharma’s poem recorded in Lalmohan Vidyanidhi’s text “Sambandha-nirnaya” [107]. In places

like Sylhet or Chattagram, they had to start marrying Kayasthas to conceal their identity. In

this connection, Parbatishankar Roychowdhuri opined that this social change of Vaidyas

(something which did not happen with any other community) due to the affair of Ballal and

Lakshmana’s subsequent instructions alone proves that Sen kings were Vaidyas[108] (there are

many more evidences for this, however they are outside the scope of the present article),

which a section of authors like Rajendralal Mitra refused to accept, despite existence of

traditional Kulaji-records (of Brahmins, Vaidyas and Kayasthas) identifying them as

Vaidyas[109].

Thus, Rarhiya vaidyas were made to observe 15-day Vaishya-like mourning (although the

Upanayana was continued among them) and Eastern (Bangaja) Vaidyas were demoted to

Shudra social status by the two acts of Lakshmana, and the latter group had to forego sacred

thread. This had a lasting impression in the Bengali social perception and probably that is why

Vaidyas are socially not perceived as Brahmins in non-ritualistic level.

Later, Raja Rajballabh, who was a Bangaja Vaidya, invited Brahmins from different places to

decide about the possible return of Bangaja Vaidyas to dvija-hood. After a long discussion, the

Pandits concluded that since Vaidyas of Rarh and of places outside Bengal (this point is indeed

worth noting) perform the Upanayana ceremony in a traditional manner, and since Bangajas

lost the dvija status due to a particular event, they have the right to return to dvija-hood[110]

after organizing a Shuddhi-yagna. This is again narrated in Ramjiban’s poem mentioned in

Sambandha-Nirnaya[111]. Raja Rajballabh performed many significant yagnas in his lifetime

including Vajpeya, Agnishtom, Kiritkona[112] etc., however this yagna was probably the most



significant one if its importance is considered. After this Yagna, Vaidyas of eastern Bengal

started following Brahminical rituals again. This event is described by some as the beginning

of the Upanayana ritual among the Bangaja Vaidyas, but in reality it was merely the return of

Bangajas to dvija-hood, as evident from the earlier accounts of Bangajas losing their sacred

thread by Lakshmana’s directives.

Raja Rajballabh also tried to start Widow-remarriage, but his effort failed due to a cunning

plan by Raja Krishnachandra who wanted to become more famous and powerful than

Rajballabh[113]. Supposedly, there was also a plan to reestablish the Hindu kingdom after the

fall of Siraj, and Rajballabh reportedly was the first choice to ascend the throne (probably his

Vaidya roots played a part, along with other reasons). The killing of Rajballabh and his son

Krishnadas by Mir Kashim strengthens this proposition[114]. This indicates that the Vaidyas

were perceived as the natural claimant of the Hindu kingdom people were trying to re-

establish (probably because Vaidyas were the last Hindu kings before Muslim rule began in

Bengal). One sees why some interest groups seemingly worked to keep Vaidyas in check by

different means. Fortunately, Gangadhar Roy Kaviraja started to look into scriptural

references and other recorded history to ascertain the history of the Vaidyas, and after him

many authors in 19th and early 20th century wrote texts in Bengali discussing about the many

aspects of Vaidya history. Sadly, almost all of them are now out of print.

A brief outline of the Vaidya lineages and locational Samajs:

The oldest Kulaji (familial text) of Bengal Vaidyas, as the later authors like Umeshchandra

suggest, was Rishisutra. The name of the author of this Kulaji could not be known. Chaturbhuj

Sen wrote a Kulapanjika in which he discussed the origin of the Vaidya lineages in light of

Rishisutra and Skandapuran’s Amritacharya legend. The other famous Kulajis are Ramkanta

Kabikanthahar’s “Sad-Vaidya Kulapanjika”, Durjoy Dash’s “Vaidya Kulapanjika” (Durjoy was

an ancestor of eminent poet Ishwarchandra Gupta), Jay Sen Biswas Thakur’s “Sad-vaidya

Kulachandrika”, Jagannath Gupta’s “Bhavabali” and Bharat Mallik’s “Chandraprabha” and

“Ratnaprabha” [115]. In recent times, Tribhanga Mohan Sensharma wrote a text called

“Kuladarpanam” which discusses mainly the Shaktri Gotra trees, and Dinendra Kumar

Sengupta complied a “Vaidyakula Panjika” in 5 volumes (published by Kolkata Vaidya-

bandhab Samiti) which discusses mainly the Rarhiya lineages.

We first discuss the Siddha lineages according to Chaturbhuj’s text[116]. Shaktri Gotra Sen

Vaidyas are descendants of Shaktidhar Rishi who lived in Kanyakubja and was adept in four

Vedas. Dhanvantari gotra Sens sprung from Agnihotri Rishi Dhanvantari who resided in

Madradesha i.e., Northern Punjab (It is interesting to note that Mohyal Vaids of Dhanvantari

gotras are also from Punjab). Moudgalya Dash’s are descendants of Mudgal Rishi of Koshala

desha and Kashyap Guptas are descendants of Kutsya Rishi. The verse also mentions Kashyap

Dutta, Kashyap Deva and Shaktri Raj lineages which had shifted to other places like southern

India and had become fallen as they could not continue the study and practice of Ayurveda.

Sadhya lineages like Jamadagnya Dhar (descendants of Samavedi Santapa Rishi), Vaishwanar

Sens (they are descendants of Vaishwanar rishi of Avanti. Sen kings belonged to this gotra

according to Vaidya texts), Shalankayan Dash, Adya Sens, Krishnatreya Duttas are also

mentioned.



Let us look at the Vaidya gotras according to the surnames. Sens have Dhanvantari, Shaktri,

Vaishwanar, Adya, Mudgal, Kaushik, Krishatreya, Angiras as their gotras. Dash Vaidyas have

6 gotras viz., Moudgalya, Bharadwaj, Shalankayan, Shandilya, Vashistha, Vatsya. Guptas are

of three gotras – Kashyap, Savarna and Gautama. Duttas have Kaushik, Kashyap, Shandiliya,

Moudgalya, Adya, Atreya, Krishnatreya and 12 other gotras like Parashar etc. Kar vaidyas

have Kashyap, Vatsya and Moudgalya gotra whereas Nandis are of Kashyap Gotra. Dhar

vaidyas belong to Jamadagni gotra. Deb vaidyas have Atreya, Krishnatreya, Shandilya and

Alamyan gotra. Vaidyas also had Kunda (Bharadwaj gotra), Raj (Vashistha and Kashyap

gotra), Rakshit (Bharadwaj gotra) lineages, which seem to have become extinct now, or

probably has assimilated into Kayasthas into regions like Chattagram[117]. In Chattagram and

Sylhet, new settler Vaidyas used to marry with Vaidyas who had turned into Kayasthas, this

gave birth to the notion that Vaidya-Kayastha marriages are allowed in a traditional manner in

Sylhet (and parts of Chattagram). Shyamacharan Kaviratna, in his book “Bangiya Baidyajati”

discussed about this at length.

In this respect it must be mentioned that evidently, Vaidyas either used the root surname

(Sen, Dash etc.) or academic titles like Vidyaratna, Bachaspati, Kabibhushan, Shiromani,

Sarbabhouma etc[118]. The practice of writing Sengupta, Dasgupta seems to have started since

the time of Raja Rajballabh (he used to sign as Rajballabh Sen Gupta), as a way to distinguish

the Vaidyas from other castes bearing surnames like Sen, Datta etc (as the title Gupta is

found in no other caste in Bengal). There is no evidence of this Gupta appendage being used

by Vaidyas in earlier times other than those whose root surname was Gupta. Rajballabh was

from Dhaka, probably that is why this Gupta appendage is seen among Bangaja vaidyas

mainly. During rituals, Vaidyas use Sen Sharma, Dash Sharma, Gupta Sharma (there is an

old inscription mentioning a donation of land to one Pitabas Guptasharma[119]) etc. as it is

customary to end the name with Sharma for the rituals of a Brahmin. Some Vaidyas use

Sensharma, Dash Sharma as surnames as well, which theoretically is more appropriate than

Sengupta, Dasgupta (as Brahmins can always use Sharma but it is historically illogical for

non-Gupta Vaidyas to use Gupta). It is worth noticing that Dash Sharma, Duttasharma etc are

still used by Brahmins in other provinces too, (this is seen in an Utkalakarika mentioned in

Sambandhanirnaya[120] too). In some cases, Vaidyas like Nandi, Deb etc. change their

surname to Gupta to avoid being identified as non-Vaidyas.

Siddha vaidyas are often known by the respective sub-branches named by the founding

fathers of the subbranches. The branches Rosh, Goyi, Ram (for Dhanvantari gotra), Chayu,

Pantha (for Moudgalya gotra), Kashi Sen, Kushali Sen (Shaktri gotra), Tripurgupta, Kayugupta

(for Kashyap Guptas) are well-known lineages. In this regard, Kashi and Kushali are two sons

of Dhoyi Sen – the court-poet of Lakshmana Sen and the author of ‘Pavanduta’. The lineages

of Kashi and Kushali have been discussed in details in Tribhanga Mohan Sensharma’s

‘Kuladarpanam’.

There were 5 Samajs (clusters) among the Bengali vaidyas, based on places of residence.

These are the following[121]:

(1) Panchakot Samaj (Manbhum and Birbhum region).

(2) Rarhiya Samaj (Hooghly, Burdwan, part of Nadia and Jessore) – further divided into

Srikhanda, Satshaika, Saptagram and Goyash Samaj.



(3) Bangiya Samaj (Khulna, Dhaka, Faridpur, Bikrampur, Barishal, Mymensingha, Pabna,

Parts of Nadia and Jessore) – this was divided into 27 samajs according to 27 places in

eastern Bengal like Bikrampur, Senhati, Payogram, Chandanimahal etc.

(4) Purbadeshiya samaj (Chattagram, Sylhet, Noakhali, Tripura).

(5) Barendra samaj (Rajshahi, Dinajpur etc).

Each Samaj had certain characteristics but they were not permanently attached with

respective familes. If a family migrated to Chattagram, gradually it became a part of

Purbadeshiya Samaj, irrespective of its earlier Samaj association. Siddha Vaidyas (apart from

Shaktri gotra) were residents of Panchakot Samaj during the rule of Raja Sriharsha Sen in

Manbhum (a small ruler belonging to Dhanvantari gotra who was evidently allowed to rule the

region by the Vaishwanar Sen kings). Later, Sriharsha’s grandson Binayak came to Malancha

(in Rarh) with Kulina status bestowed by probably Lakshman Sen (Lakshman was staying in

western Rarh at that time). Similarly, Moudgalya Dash Vaidyas (Chayu and Pantha, two

descendants of Adishur’s court-poet Kabidash) moved from Gonagara of Panchakot to Tehatta

(Chayu) and Balinachi (Pantha) of Rarh. Kashyap Guptas resided in Karankakotha in

Panchakot, from there the Kayu branch went to Barahanagar whereas Tripur branch went to

Chourala. Shaktri Dhoyi Sen, the court-poet of Lakshman resided in Rarh’s Trihatta from the

very beginning. Later, Srikhanda village went on to become a centre of Vaidyas (Rarhiya

Samaj was often called Srikhanda Samaj) as almost all non-Shaktri Siddha familes stayed

there at some point of time. Srikhanda Vaidyas were famous in the Vaishnava world as many

scholars and dikshagurus of Chaitanya movement came from this village. After the end of the

Sen dynasty, Siddha clans started to migrate to different places in eastern Bengal including

Khulna, Bikrampur and Barishal. Sadhya vaidyas were already residing predominantly in

Bikrampur. As a result, almost two-third of the Vaidyas have Eastern Bengali roots in present

times (There were 67654 Vaidyas in east Bengal compared to 35216 Vaidyas in west Bengal

as per 1921 census[122]). Many Vaidyas had moved to Srihatta and Chattagram from Rarh

during the Bargi raids, although the first Vaidya settlers in Chattagram came during the Ballal-

Padmini incident mentioned before. Differences in ritualistic status in pre-Rajballabh Muslim

era stopped marriages between Rarhiya and Bangaja Samaj, but Rajballabh restarted the

alliances by marrying one woman each from Rarhiya, Barendra and Bangaja Samaj.

According to the census of India, 1921, there were 102870 Vaidyas in Bengal (compared to

around 13 lakh Brahmins and 13 lakh Kayasthas). Districtwise, Vaidyas were distributed in the

following manner: Bakhargunge (Barishal) 14803, Kolkata 12633, Dhaka 10935, Chattagram

10748, Tripura (Kumilla etc.) 6105, Faridpur 5530, Mymensingha 4452, Bankura (including

Purulia) 4068, Burdwan 3748, Nadia 2740, Jessore 2456, Khulna 2351, Rangpur 2114,

Murshidabad 1956, Hooghly 1846, 24 paraganas 1815, Noakhali 1749, Pabna 1708, Howrah

1585, Birbhum 1570, Dinajpur 1382, Midnapore 1337, Rajshahi 1105, Bagura 847, Tripura

state 795, Jalpaiguri 758, Malda 627, CoochBehar 423, Darjeeling 261, Hilly Chattagram

90[123].

Regarding the Vaidyas, the census report states that “they have advanced further in

education and in civilization generally than the other too and prospered accordingly”. It also

adds that “Practically all the Baidya males have had the opportunity of acquiring the art of

reading and writing Bengali… Brahmans and Kayasthas are rather behind the Baidyas” and



that “the Baidyas have five times as great a proportion of their females literate in English as

the Kayasthas who stand next to them” [124].

Conclusion:

One might wonder why the main topic of this article was the origin theories and the varna

status of the Vaidyas. The main reason is that it is important to have a correct version of

many events of the past. We have seen in the second and the third section that Kulajis, oral

traditions and scriptural references, along with recorded facts, indicate that the Vaidyas were

Brahmins practicing and studying/teaching Ayurveda. The different theories aiming to

dissociate Vaidyas from the glorious Ayurvedic heritage (inherited from a long line of classical

scholars) as well as from the Sanskritist (i.e., dvija) stratum of the ancient society actually

create serious problems and confusions in historical discourses. For instance, many poems of

Ramprasad Sen are now being considered as written by some unknown Brahmin Ramprasad,

since the poet has described himself as Dvija and the prevalent notion is that Vaidyas cannot

be dvija. This has been discussed in the book ‘Sadhak Kabi Ramprasad’ by Jogendranath

Gupta. Establishing Vaidyas as a Shudra caste, agricultural caste or a subsidiary tribal healer

caste paves the way for the notion that Vaidyas were not involved in scholarly, philosophical,

literary and scriptural classical discourses. Biswanath (Dash) Kaviraja, author of

Sahityadarpana, is now being considered as an Utkala Brahmin (although he is considered a

Vaidya as per Bengali Vaidya tradition[125]). The Bengali origin of Bopdeva will be at stake if

the history of the vaidyas is distorted to establish them as Shudras/varnasankaras (as

Bopdeva had described himself as dvija). In the long run, the whole volumes of scholarly work

by Vaidyas (e.g.- Bopdeva’s works, Sankhiptasara by Mahamahopadhyay Kramadishwar,

Supadma-Vyakarana by Padmanabha Dutta, Kalap-parishista by Shripati Dutta, Biswaprakash

by Maheshwar Acharya, Nidan by Madhavkar, Chakarapani Dutta’s works, Panchaswara by

Prajapati Dash, Vaishnava sanskrit texts by Vaidya authors, Bharat mallik’s works, Gangadhar

Roy’s smriti texts and innumerable Ayurveda-related texts) will be credited to some other

imaginary Brahmin scholars or worse, these Vaidyas would be linked with some non-Vaidya

non-Bengali Brahmin lineages (since Vaidya surnames are used by Brahmins of other

provinces only). This is historically unjust. Hence it is important for the interests of not only

the Vaidyas, but for the whole Bengali community, that an undistorted, logical and historically

consistent history of the Vaidyas is brought in mainstream discourses.

In fact, the debates regarding the identification of Sen and Shur kings also whirl around the

varna-status. We have seen that Vaidyas were supposedly considered as the rightful claimant

of the Hindu throne in the social psyche of the Bengali people as the Sen kings were the last

Hindu kings to have ruled Bengal (and extended their rule to Assam, Orissa, Mithila, Varnasi

and even to Delhi). So it was probably necessary for certain interest-groups to establish that

Sen and Shur kings were not Vaidyas. Disregarding the Madhainagar inscription[126] (which

clearly mentions that Sen kings, after whom important places like Bikrampur, Barendrabhumi,

and Rampal[127] were named, were Vaidyas) and obscuring the term Brahma-Kshatriya all

seem to be parts of that scheme.

Vaidyas always have played a leading role in different Bengali movements, starting from

efforts to establish Sanatan Dharma in Bengal and spearheading the Vaishnava renaissance

(in many respects) as well as the Shakta developments in earlier times, to Brahmo movement

and revolutionary nationalism (during ‘Ognijug’) in recent times. They have shone as scholars



or poets (even in recent times, this clan gave birth to poets like Ishwar Gupta, Jibanananda

Dash, Kumudranjan Maliik, Kalidas Roy and Mohitlal Majumdar, thus making the title Kaviraja

an appropriate one) and maintained high educational standard in general from the very

beginning to the present era. They had to withstand many historical mishaps too, starting

from the Turk invasions during Sena rule to the partition in 1947 which made powerful Vaidya

landlords vulnerable and bankrupt overnight. In other words, almost everything important in

the history of the Bengali people is connected with Vaidya history in direct or indirect manner.

To ensure that this community remains rooted to its past and to settle many historical

questions, an honest study of the several aspects of the Vaidya history is extremely

necessary.

****************

References:

1. Francis Zimmermann, The Jungle and the Aroma of Meats: An Ecological Theme in

Hindu Medicine, page 213.

2. http://www.shakdwipisamaj.com/aboutus.php

3. Jogendranath Bhattacharya, Hindu Castes and Sects, page 172.

4. Ibid, page 159.

5. Charakasamhita, Chikitsasthanam, Rasayan Adhyay, Chaturtha pada, verses 52-53.

6. Durgachandra Sanyal, Bangalar Samajik Itihas, page 14.

7. Mahabharata, verse 5.6.2, Udyogaparva.

8. Jnanendramohan Sensharma, Baidyajatir Barna o Gourab, Bani Press, Kolkata, page

146.

9. Shyamacharan Kaviratna, Bangiya Baidyajati, Chattagram Saraswati Press, page 13.

10. Ibid, page 13.

11. V J Thakar, Historical development of basic concepts of Ayurveda from Veda up to Samhita, Ayu 31(4), 2010, page 400.

12. SKR Rao, Encyclopedia of Indian Medicine: Historical Perspectives, Dr. V. Parameshvara

Charitable Trust, Vol 1, page 7.

13. Santanu Chakraverti, Science in History, History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, PHISPC- Centre for Studies in Civilizations, page 61.

14. BK Chaturvedi, Vishnu Purana, Diamond Books, page 58.


145.



16. Devipada Bhatacharya, Chiranjivi Banoushodhi (Shivkali Bhattacharya), Vol 6, Ananda Publishers, Foreword.

17. Eliot Freidson, Judith Lorbe (Edited), Medical Professionals and the Organization of Knowledge, page 45.

18. Manusmriti, verses 1.88- 1.90.

19. Manusmriti, verse 3.152.


21. Debiprasad Chattopadhyay, Science and Society in Ancient India, B.R. Gruner B.V.- Amsterdam, 1977.

22. P Bala, Medicine and Medical Policies in India: Social and Historical Perspectives, Lexington Books, page 17.

23. Surendranath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol II, Cambridge University

Press, page 284.

24. Subal Chandra Mitra (Edited), Saral Bangla Abhidhan, New Bengal Press Private Limited,

page 998.



page 999.

27. Basanta Kumar Sengupta, Baidyajatir itihas, Vol 1, 1913, page 291.


29. Jogendranath Gupta, Bikrampurer itihas, 1909, page 5.

30. Gurupada Haldar, Baidyak Brittanta, 1954, page 134. 31. Jnanendramohan Sensharma, Baidyajatir Barna o Gourab, Bani Press, Kolkata, page 21.

32. http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_9/chalukyas

_of_kalyani_213.html

33. Nitish K Sengupta, Land of Two Rivers: A History of Bengal from the Mahabharata to Mujib, Penguin Books India, 2011, page 51.

34. A Butterword and V V Chetty, Copper-plate and Stone Inscriptions of South India, Vol 1, Caxton Publishers, 1905, page 192.

35. R Tirumalai, The Pandyan Townships, Part-II, Department of Archeology, Govt. of

Tamilnadu, 2003, page 47-48.

36. S Gurumurthy, Medical Science and dispensaries in ancient South India as gleaned from

Epigraphy, Indian Journal of Historical Science, Vol 5., No. 1, 1970, page 78.



37. Basanta Kumar Sengupta, Baidyajatir Itihas, Vol 1, 1913, page 239.



145.

40. Census of India, Vol V. Part 1, 1931, pages 456-457.

41. Vishnupurana, Chapter 3, verse 6 (mentions that Sakala, Madra, Parasika, Ambashtha

groups reside near each other).


149.

43. Kalanand Mani and Frederick Noronha, Picture-Postcard-Poverty, Goa 1556, 2008, page 53.

44. T.P. Russell Stracey, The History of the Muhiyals: The Millitant Brahman Race of India, General Muhiyal Sabha, 1938, page 126.

45. Panchanan Raya, A Historical Review of Hindu India: 300 BC to 1200 AD, pages 11 and 176.

46. P.N. Bali, The History of Mohyals, 1995, page 91.

47. UC Vidyaratna, Jati-tatva Baridhi, page 355.


149.

49. Umeshchandra Gupta, Ballalamohamudgara, page 314.

50. Jatindra Mohan Roy, Dhakar Itihas, page 130.

51. H. Risley, The People of India, Asian Educational Services, 1999, page 164.


53. Ibid, page 365.

54. Ibid, page 367.

55. Ibid, pages 371, 374.

56. Jnanendramohan Sensharma, Baidyajatir Barna o Gourab, Bani Press, Kolkata, page 63.


page 130.



58. Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhyakanda, Chapter 100, verse 13.

59. Kisari Mohan Ganguli (Translated), Mahabharata, Bhishmaparva, page 309.

60. Manusmriti, verses 10.8 and 10.47.

61. G.S. Ghurye, Caste and Race in India, Popular Prakshan, page 85.

62. Manusmriti 10.41.

63. UC Vidyaratna, Jati-tatva Baridhi, page 336


65. Jnanendramohan Sensharma, Baidyajatir Barna o Gourab, Bani Press, Kolkata, page 8.

66. Brahmavaivartya Purana, verses 123-133.


68. UC Vidyaratna, Jati-tatva Baridhi, pages 71-77.

69. Ibid, page 86.

70. Ibid, page 105.

71. Ibid, page 111.

72. Ludo Rocher, "The Purāṇas", A History of Indian Literature. Vol.II, Epics and Sanskrit

religious literature, Fasc.3. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag., 1986, pages. 164–

166.

73. R. C. Hazra, The Upapuranas, S. Radhakrishnan (ed.) The Cultural Heritage of India (Edited by S. Radhakrishnan), Vol.II, Kolkata:The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of

Culture, 1962, p.285.

74. R.C. Majumdar (Edited), The Delhi Sultanate, Mumbai: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 2006,

p.622.

75. Mukundaram Chakrabary, Kabikankana Chandi, Indian Press limited, 1921, page 88.

76. Gautam Chatterjee, Sacred Hindu symbols, Abhinav Publications, page 71.

77. Ambarnath Sengupta, Rarher Birol Matripuja, Anima Prakashani,


79. Ibid, page 29.



80. C.A.Bayley,. Recovering Liberties: Indian Thought in the Age of Liberalism and Empire., Cambridge University Press, 2012, pages 144–145.

81. Jogendranath Bhattacharya, Hindu Castes and Sects, pages 21 and 160.



84. Ibid, page 331.

85. Ibid, page 337.


87. LP Vidyarthi, The Sacred Complex in Hindu Gaya, Concept Publishing Company, Delhi,

1978, page 74.


89. Ibid, page 360.


91. Bijaychandra Majumdar, The History of the Bengali language, Asian Educational

Services, 2000, page 52.

92. DC Sircar, Studies in the religious life of Ancient and Medieval India, Motilal Banarsidass, pages 214-216.

93. Ibid, 216.

94. The Review of Dr. Wise on Race in Medicine, Anthropological Review, Vol. 7, No. 26, 1869, pages. 240-242.

95. Ram Sharan Sharma, Sudras in ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass, 1990, page 294.

96. Kisari Mohan Ganguli (Translated), Mahabharata, Anushasana parva, page 32.

97. UC Vidyaratna, Jati-tatva Baridhi, pages 223-224.



page 1004.

100. Byomkesh Mustafi, Rogshajyar Pralap, Kolkata, 1923, pages 7-9.

101. Shivkali Bhattacharya, Chiranjibi Banoushodhi, Vol 4, Ananda Publishers, page 63.



102. Shyamacharan Kaviratna, Bangiya Baidyajati, Chattagram Saraswati Press, pages 68-

69.

103. Tribhanga Mohan Sensharma, Kuladarpanam, Part-II, page 29.

104. Ibid, Part-I, page 630.

105. Durgachandra Sanyal, Bangalar Samajik Itihas, pages 29-30.

106. UC Vidyaratna, Jati-Tatva-Baridhi, pages 164-165.

107. Ibid, page 349.

108. Parbatishankar Roychowdhuri, Adishur O Ballalsen, page 57.

109. Umeshchandra Gupta, Ballalmohamudgara, 1905, pages 18-30.

110. UC Vidyaratna, Jati-Tatva-Baridhi, page 145.

111. Ibid, pages 146-147.

112. Pramod Gopal Sensharma, Baidya-Bangshabali O kichu Ajana Lupto Itihas, Hindusthan

press, 2006, page 8.

113. Ibid, page 6.

114. Ibid, page 19.

115. Basantakumar Sengupta, Baidyajatir Itihas, Part 1, Preface.

116. UC Vidyaratna, Jati-Tatva-Baridhi, pages 86-92

117. Shyamacharan Kaviratna, Bangiya Baidyajati, Chattagram Saraswati Press,

Introduction.

118. A list of eminent Vaidya scholars with academic can be found in UC Vidyaratna’s Jati-

Tatva-Baridhi, pages 172-177.


142.

120. Ibid, page 336.

121. Tribhanga Mohan Sensharma, Kuladarpanam, Part-1, page 174-192.

122. Calculated from census data (1921) given in Tribhanga Mohan Sensharma’s

Kuladarpanam, pages 241-245.

123. Ibid, pages 241-245.



124. Ibid, pages 241 and 244.


126. Umeshchandra Gupta, Ballalmohamudgara, 1905, pages 486-492.

127. Jogendranath Gupta, Bikrampurer itihas, 1909, pages 5 and 27.

*******

(raibatak sen gupta) abstract - bengali vaidyas -...

Documents