What's new

Whatever

No.
Mahabharat started because RAM was angry at a woman who asked him and his brother to marry her(just a polite request). In return to her offer/request, RAM and his brother cut the nose of this lady. This lady was the sister of Rawan. When Rawan heard this news, he abducted the wife of RAM, Seeta, but never touched her.
But in the end, Rawan was the real villain.
Inna lillahi wa Inna ilyhi rajioon.

Bro you have Mahabharat and Ramayan mixed up. No worries.
 
Mahabharat (in my opinion) was a war that kind of cemented the schism between the Iranics and Indics post the Battle of the Ten Kings. And then led to the Puranic age.

The battle of 10 kings may have been the inspiration for the 'Mahabharata' tale.

The battle was fought in Punjab, near Ravi. Rigveda was composed in Punjab. And Punjab is mostly a part of Pakistan now.
 
The battle of 10 kings may have been the inspiration for the 'Mahabharata' tale.

The battle was fought in Punjab, near Ravi. Rigveda was composed in Punjab. And Punjab is mostly a part of Pakistan now.

I'm not an expert and not very informed on this but the Battle of Tem Kings predates the Mahabharat ... by quite a lot. There is no doubt though that both elements (Iranic and Indic) still warred in the latter. Probably the final break. Punjab consolidated on the Indic side. West of the Indus the Iranic.
 
Mahabharat (in my opinion) was a war that kind of cemented the schism between the Iranics and Indics post the Battle of the Ten Kings. And then led to the Puranic age.
Kia bat hai aapki.


the-wolf-of-wall-street-clap.gif
 
I'm not an expert and not very informed on this but the Battle of Tem Kings predates the Mahabharat ... by quite a lot. There is no doubt though that both elements (Iranic and Indic) still warred in the latter. Probably the final break. Punjab consolidated on the Indic side. West of the Indus the Iranic.
facepalm-really.gif

oh lord... Moron to say the least
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
@M. Sarmad i cannot post on that thread anymore so replying here. Clueless wannabe @Maula Jatt has likely bitched to the mods about me.

No it clears nothing actually. We've only come to the conclusion that Brahmins make up close to 5% of the Indian population. Which if Brahmins were a separate religion, would put them as a distinct small (proper) minority, compared to the muslim "minority" (technically the second largest majority in India). Larger only than Christians and Sikhs.

And regardless of the numbers, my initial contention to @Valar. still stands . And that is that Brahmins are the new Dalits of modern India. Marginalized, increasingly disenfranchised, poor and forgotten by every government. Most of the intellectual capital leaving our shores and becoming CEOs , scientists, bankers and doctors in the west.

@SIPRA @Hellfire2006 @Chat SAMOSA @-=virus=-
 
Last edited:
@M. Sarmad i cannot post on that thread anymore so replying here.

No it clears nothing actually. We've only come to the conclusion that Brahmins make up close to 5% of the Indian population. Which if Brahmins were a separate religion, would put them as a distinct small (proper) minority, compared to the muslim "minority" (technically the second largest majority in India). Larger only than Christians and Sikhs.

You got locked out?.. You didn't post anything wrong... Maybe off topic though..

No, there is no authentic data to suggest that Brahmins make up close to 5% of the Hindu population. As per available Data, they are 7.5 to 8% at least.

And you are making false equivalence. That's a fallacy. Ethnicity and religion are 2 entirely different things. The largest ethnic group can never be termed minority. You compare an ethnic group to other individual ethnic groups, not all of them combined
 
You got locked out?.. You didn't post anything wrong... Maybe off topic though..

No, there is no authentic data to suggest that Brahmins make up close to 5% of the Hindu population. As per available Data, they are 7.5 to 8% at least.

And you are making false equivalence. That's a fallacy. Ethnicity and religion are 2 entirely different things. The largest ethnic group can never be termed minority. You compare an ethnic group to other individual ethnic groups, not all of them combined

No fun in debating from the sidelines.

As another Khan once said, Mujhe kyun nikala.
 
Back
Top Bottom