Wait, you're saying that the Mahabharat was written 5000 years ago? That not right, is it?

Well that seems very old to me. Wikipedia and several other sources seem to suggest it was no earlier than 400-500BC. 3000BC would make it older than anything on this list (which also puts Mahabharata at around 300-400BCE.

@bornfromanegg - that is correct. Kali Yuga's start date has been precisely been mentioned in scriptures to be Feb 3102 B.C. Ved Vyasa composed them as a contemporary (he himself is present in the Mahabharat) Itihasa (historical account). Wikipedia links are generally left-learning and the Indologists who date them do not have any Vedic training. This would be akin to far-right American conservatives dating the Jewish/Moses period.

@llama - it is surprising that you call those external Western sources as unbiased, while discounting those from the traditional Vedic calendars (Panchang) that are followed by almost a billion people even today. The Aryan Invasion Theory is a nonsense just like the Proto-Indo-European theory. And this is not motivated by Indian Politics - but the other way round. The current Indian politics is a symptom of the awakening of the people to the truth of the antiquity of our civilization.

@ram Why would Western sources be biased?

@bornfromanegg - why would Indian sources be biased ? Do you believe in the existence of Jesus, or Buddha, despite there being no archaeological evidence of either ? Do you believe in the existence of Hitler despite you not actually seeing him in person, and all you have are photographs (which we all know can be manipulated easily)? Seems to me that your 'belief' is nothing other than 'blind faith in scientists', yet you seem to deride others whose 'belief' is nothing other than 'blind faith in rishis'.

@bornfromanegg - Btw, I'm neither a Jesus denier nor a Holocaust denier. But I am staunchly pointing out the lack of a philosopical-truth difference between the two.

I actually haven’t stated any beliefs - I’ve merely questioned a statement you made. And this is Hinduism StackExchange, so I don’t wish to engage in an argument about faith. Although, I do have to say that my “belief” in the existence of Hitler is not based on faith, as you suggest. It’s based on evidence. That’s the difference.

@ram Also, can I just say that I had no intention of questioning your faith. When I asked the question, I had no idea that’s what I was doing.

@bornfromanegg - I too am merely questioning a statement you made - Why would Indian sources be biased ? No, your belief in the existence of Hitler is based on faith - because you have not personally met him. All you have seen are photographs, and other people claiming to have met/suffered at his hands or people claiming to have met such people. This is no different from me seeing paintings of Jesus (a primitive form of photography), and other people claiming to have met people claiming to have met...^n to have met Jesus. There is no fundamental difference between these 2 types of 'evidence'.

@ram Do you believe that cigarettes cause cancer? I do. Lots of people do. Yet no-one has ever observed the actual moment when that happens. That doesn’t mean there’s no evidence for it, because first hand evidence is not the only kind of evidence. I don’t need to meet Hitler to believe he existed, because there is so much other evidence that he did. Again, that is the difference

@ram Also, what statement of mine are you questioning? I never said, “Why would Indian sources be biased?” You said that. I asked why Western sources would be biased, and it was a question, not a statement. Of course, the real question, that I should have asked, is why would any sources be biased?