I wholeheartedly agree we must debate the issue not the person / his background. If so, then you too wud not say this to me, you wud have addresed only the issue (shd i take this to be intimidation tactics by psychological games?):
1) But you seem to bother so much about a phantom superiority and that it somehow affected so many people.
2) You are making a mountain out of a mole.
Those were about your arguments, not your background. I am sure you know the difference.
So parpanars did occupations.
We use the term "brahmins". The slang "parpanar" is used as a derogatory version by some political circles. What is your intention of using it here? I ignored it for a while but you somehow think it gives you an upper hand in an argument.
If so, then, what was the need for them to beg. Unless someone was a renunciate sanyasi. Are present-day brahmins claiming they descended from renunciate sanyasis? Please can you tell me why should a purohit beg when he is given things, as his fees for conducting ceremonies?
It is clear you do not understand the life cycle of a Brahmin. A brahmin is supposed to beg and eat during some years of his life to learn the lessons of a saintly life. That has no conflict of interest with his occupation that he performs later. Since you are not aware of the various stages of how a Brahmin is supposed to life, how can you make judgmental calls about them?
So sir, you are saying there were poor brahmins in ramayana, mahabharata? I can remember sudhama and drona being poor. Sir, are you saying present-day brahmins descended from brahmins of ramayana, mahabharata? Also sir, are you saying all brahmins were always poor based on these stories?
Those are evidences. Rarely there are examples of rich landlord brahmins ruling a tribe.
There is inscriptional evidence that they were brahmins. Also sir, if we must accept stories, we must accept the list of kshatropeta-brahmanas (kshatriyas claiming to be brahmins) also.
Correct. All historical evidence must be used in making inferences. That is the scientific way. However, the final inference must be statistically significant.
Sangom sir, if you are around, can you please explain the long-standing fights between brahmins and kshatriyas to Dr.Barani please?
Not required. Not just Brahmins, there was ALWAYS fight between various groups, Brahmins vs Jains, Brahmins vs Buddhists, Brahmins vs Kshatriyas, Jains vs Buddhists, Jains vs .... That doesn't mean anything at all. It doesn't prove Brahmins somehow were discrimanating Dalits.
I said - "Did i say brahmins did some harm? No i did not. I only said brahmins were rich". This pertained to your claims that brahmins were always poor. Not to the caste-discrimination part. Was there caste-discrimination? Yes there was. There is ample evidence from the colonial period itself how brahmins discriminated against low-castes... i suppose when the landed became landless, they did learn their lesson.
Lets see... according to you brahmins were rich, they had weapons, they were rulers, they fought others, they oppressed others and held themselves superior by putting others down. I think you are using the wrong word, you should use "British" instead of Brahmins!
Till date, brahmins (the orthodoxy) upholds smrithis which says a shudra cannot own wealth,
I am a brahmin and I say we brahmins are not dictated or even driven by Smirthis. How come YOU get such a wrong notion about what WE believe in?!
You may not allow anyone to touch you, but that does not mean a group has to remain untouchables by birth by caste.
It means you are unnecessarily worrying about what other groups believe in.
If a Brahmin doesn't want to touch you, it is his right. You can make your own rules too - don't touch a brahmin!
Yes they are rubbish. If they are rubbish, why are they upheld by mutts? Why should it be the face of our orthodoxy?
What do you mean "our orthodoxy"? You don't believe in it anyway! It is brahmin's orthodoxy then. You are free to set up your own mutt with your own set of rules. What prevents you from doing it? Why are you so desperate that some group you don't like for some strange reason should come over and change their rules to accommodate you?
Sorry sir, but this academic logic is ridiculous. You are expecting dalits to write that 'we are superior'...(????)...makes no sense really...
Why not? You are repeatedly citing Smirthis as if they are some great weapons owned by brahmins but you don't want to create such things to defend your cause.
Looks like the advice applies one-way. Anyways, everyone knows caste-excuse is not going to help anyone. Its brahmins who make a lot of noise claiming reservations should be removed.
Yes, reservation should be removed. Reservation is about Constitutional rights. Constitution treats everyone equal. You talk about caste-based equality but you don't want constitutional equality. That is double standard on your part.
Something tells me you are not a practicing Brahmin and you are not aware of the norms under which a Brahmin is supposed to live. You have picked some isolated evidences to make claims that they are after you to oppress you and rule. Sorry, that is not in this planet.