My latest question which asks comparing India and Europe which have multiple languages. One commenter downvoted as to how I can even compare Europe with India! Reminded of untouchability in India! look at the audacity of racism of beta exchange!

| |
  • 2
    "asking for clarifications == racism" Well, that's a new one. /sigh – yannis Aug 22 '17 at 9:22
  • never. read his comment. he begins by stating "Why do you compare India to EU?" – user16233 Aug 22 '17 at 9:23
  • Yes, I've read the comment. I have absolutely no idea why you'd consider it racist. No one is telling you that you shouldn't be comparing India to the EU in general, or that there's something wrong with you doing so. People are just asking for clarifications to your extremely vague and broad question. It's not obvious in the context of your question why you think what worked (did it, really?) for the EU would work for India. – yannis Aug 22 '17 at 9:29
  • OK. Europe has 24 languages- its only a economic union, Africa has multiple languages its not a single country not even a union. In the same way India has atleast 14 major languages which are totally different from one another. how can it be a single country? I have given the strategy of british to partition and asked why is india reluctant still for being union. Is there a geopolitical threat since Afghan and silk route are major strategy points for RU and US. I don't know what's vague in this? – user16233 Aug 22 '17 at 9:34
  • 1
    India (for better or worse) is a single country. In order to become a union, it would first have to break up. That process is not comparable to how the EU or the US formed. – yannis Aug 22 '17 at 9:38
  • first sentence - wise answer. i just wanted such comments and answers. second sentence - not so wise. I have given links. I have reason ( multiple major differing languages) . you don't have reasons to backup why its not comparable. – user16233 Aug 22 '17 at 9:41
  • You are proposing that a single entity should break up and then come together again in a looser entity - a union. That is not comparable to the EU or the US - neither started out as single entities. If anything, the EU and the US are on the (very long path) of emulating India and becoming single entities, not the other way around. – yannis Aug 22 '17 at 9:47
  • nope. prior to 1947 India was not a single country. It was for British convenience they wrote 500 odd province (could have been easily merged into 14 major countries on linguistic lines ) as single country. Each state (90%) has absolutely no connection to other state even now due to language barrier, except for parts of metros. The only benefactor is centre who pours tax to defence imports. – user16233 Aug 22 '17 at 9:51
  • Unless you are proposing we travel 70 years back in time, I don't see how any of this is relevant. Right now India is a single country. In order to form a union, it would first have to break up. That is not a process that is comparable to the formation of either the EU or the US. – yannis Aug 22 '17 at 9:57
  • Regardless, would it have been too difficult to respond like you responded here in the initial comments you received? Instead of jumping to wild and frankly irrational accusations of racism at the first sight of something you didn't agree with? – yannis Aug 22 '17 at 10:00
  • if everything was "right now" how did this question arise older than 70 years in politics -no downvotes since its related to EU ! history.stackexchange.com/questions/39748/… looks like you are caught with stereotype of anti-diversity like google CEO ( ironically he was anglicised Tamil who fired an American :) for the cause of US/EU wallstreet supremacy ) – user16233 Aug 22 '17 at 10:02
  • That question is on History Stack Exchange, our sister site for historians and history buffs. That site is part of the same network of QA sites as Politics Stack Exchange (hence the similar name and theme) but it's not the same site. It has a different scope and community. – yannis Aug 22 '17 at 10:05
  • diversion. I am asking about why india even after 70 years not willing to form union(contemporary) and if any strategic ( normally are not public unless dug) threats looms. The question is politcial and its about strategies and very much current affairs. – user16233 Aug 22 '17 at 10:10
  • 2
    Raaj If you take the content of the comments here and either edit the original question or create a new one (since the original gathered quite a number of downvotes) I think the chances for getting answers and a better reception are quite high. If you want answers I don't see any alternative. Being as clear as possible seems like a good idea. Maybe first start with "Why is India not willing to dissolve into a union" and then follow with the parallel of Europe. – Trilarion Aug 23 '17 at 11:09

I think that the question you're trying to ask is "why is India a single country, rather than several countries, given its ethnic and linguistic diversity?"

This is a good question, but:

  1. It's much more about history than politics. I think history.stackexchange.com would be a far better place for it.

  2. Your comparison to the EU is strange and muddles the question, making it unclear what you're really asking. I suggest you leave this out, especially because:

  3. The tone of your question comes of accusatory. It looks like you're trying to accuse the European colonizers of poisoning India's future, or something. Trying to make a point in a question almost never makes the question better, even if it's a good point, because once you start making points in questions it stops being a question and becomes a statement ending with a question mark.

| |
  • 1
    I'm a fast reader. Also, didn't have to go past #1 to upvote this. My understanding of the question is that it's a better fit for History.SE as well. – yannis Aug 22 '17 at 10:07
  • well exactly racism is all about not able to take accusations violently downvoting / dismissing them. – user16233 Aug 22 '17 at 10:12
  • 3
    @Raaj - NO. Racism is about dismissing questions/answers/comments because of the persons race/ethnicity rather than the content of their post. No one has commented on your ethnicity yet. The problem has all be the content of your post. Being of a different ethnicity has nothing to do with that. – SoylentGray Aug 22 '17 at 14:39
  • "why is India a single country, rather than several countries, given its ethnic and linguistic diversity?" If only it would be clear that this is the question. It's just not clear. OP doesn't understand what the on hold reason actually means and what he can do to improve the question. – Trilarion Aug 23 '17 at 10:58

You must log in to answer this question.