5
OPINION

Thursday, August 15, 2019
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com OPINION

ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN

I

n 
August 
1947, 
Britain 
announced the partition of 
the British India Colony, 
creating two separate, indepen-
dent nations: the Republic of 
India and the Islamic Republic 
of Pakistan. To say the Partition 
was controversial would be an 
understatement; it has, nearly 
single-handedly, 
defined 
the 
geopolitics of the region since. In 
the decades following, the Parti-
tion India and Pakistan have 
quarrelled ceaselessly, fighting 
over land and power. However, 
no issue has been more conten-
tious than the dispute over the 
region of Kashmir. Driven by 
the forces of Hindu nationalism, 
India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata 
Party, with President Narendra 
Modi at the helm, have made 
rash decisions in an attempt to 
gain political clout, both endan-
gering the region’s (limited) 
stability and forsaking India’s 
founding principles. 
Like many of the issues which 
define the India-Pakistan con-
flict, tensions over Kashmir have 
been present since the day the 
two nations became indepen-
dent. Lead by the last British 
Raj, Viceroy Louis Mountbatten, 
the objective of Partition was to 
divide the British territory along 
religious lines, with Hindus in 
India and Muslims in Pakistan. 
Unsurprisingly, this exercise in 
oversimplified 
nation-building 
went poorly: it lacked adequate 
consideration 
for 
religious 
minorities like Sikhs, and the 
lines themselves were not drawn 
particularly well, leading as 
many as 15 million people to try 
and flee across the newly created 
India-Pakistan border. 
Caught in the middle of 
the chaos was Kashmir, an 
area which Mountbatten was 
unsure how to handle. Though 
the region was majority Mus-
lim, it had close cultural ties to 
greater India. Ultimately, Kash-
miri leaders were permitted to 
choose between remaining inde-
pendent or joining either nation. 
While Kashmir initially chose 
independence, Pakistan soon 
invaded in an attempt to conquer 
it, leading to a UN intervention 
and a ceasefire. Included with 
the ceasefire was a UN-backed 
border division which gave near-
ly all of the land from the origi-
nal, colonial province to India. 
In 1950, India passed constitu-
tional Amendment 370, which 

allowed Kashmir a great deal of 
political autonomy, something 
which made it unique among 
Indian states. Though conflict 
over Kashmir has persisted since 
1950, the fundamental workings 
of its political existence have 
remained largely unchanged, at 
least until very recently. 
Earlier this week, Kashmir’s 
political fate took a dramatic 
turn thanks to Modi and the 
BJP. Under Modi’s command, 
the Indian government sent 
10,000 military troops into the 
region, forced people into their 
houses and cut off internet. 
Though this was the most dras-
tic action Modi has taken, it is all 
part of his larger plan to essen-
tially annex Kashmir.

In addition to simply using 
military force, Modi is work-
ing with the Indian govern-
ment to remove a Kashmiri law, 
included under Amendment 370, 
that does not permit foreigners 
to buy property in the region, 
something which was imple-
mented to preserve its unique 
cultural and religious positions 
and allow Kashmiri Muslims to 
remain a majority. In addition 
to that, the Modi-led govern-
ment plans to repeal Amend-
ment 370 as a whole, and they 
have revealed plans to divide 
the region into two provinces, 
one of which would contain a 
Hindu majority and be ruled 
directly by New Delhi. In doing 
this, Modi would have annexed a 
historically autonomous Muslim 
region, with the goal of making 
it a Hindu-majority Indian prov-
ince. 
Though this is obviously not 
the first time an Indian lead-
er has looked to expand the 
nation’s territory, this is a par-
ticularly concerning move for 
several reasons. First, it reflects 
the forces of populist nation-
alism, which Modi and many 
other leaders of his ilk utilize. A 

common move among populist 
leaders is making decisions with 
the primary goal of firing up 
their political base, even if they 
are divisive or do not benefit the 
country as a whole. In this situ-
ation, it is clear Modi believes 
that politically and religiously 
annexing Kashmir will appeal 
to his Hindu nationalist base, 
allowing him to retain voters 
going forward.
However, like many moves 
aimed primarily at firing up 
one’s political base, this will 
certainly have many negative 
externalities. Kashmir is already 
extremely dangerous thanks to 
longstanding 
India-Pakistan 
tensions, and a surprise annexa-
tion of the area is likely to spur 
more conflict, inciting violence 
and potentially leading to the 
deaths of civilians. Further-
more, it is unclear how the 
region’s Muslims, who learned 
of India’s annexation goals via 
military crackdown, will be 
treated in the coming months by 
the government. 
While this move is based in 
Modi’s Hindu nationalism, it 
also represents an attack on 
one of India’s basic governing 
principles: religious freedom. 
Although Mountbatten and the 
British attempted to divide India 
and Pakistan along religious 
lines, India decided to become 
a secular state with no national 
religion, despite being around 
80 percent Hindu (this contrasts 
with the “Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan”). Despite containing 
both a Hindu majority and a 
great number of religious minor-
ities, India has managed to main-
tain its secular status ever since 
its founding. However, Modi’s 
Hindu nationalism stands in 
direct contrast to India’s prin-
ciple of state secularism, and 
Modi’s actions in Kashmir could 
damage the latter. Annexing 
Kashmir in the name of advanc-
ing Hindu political power puts 
India’s secularism into question, 
and creates a dangerous prec-
edent going forward. Ultimately, 
while India and Pakistan have 
long fought over regional terri-
tory, including Kashmir, Modi’s 
actions represent a religious, 
nationalist assault on India’s leg-
acy of secular governance and 
are cause for concern. 

Indian nationalism reaches north

Zack Blumberg can be reached at 

zblumber@umich.edu.

S

waying prairie grasses as 
tall as your shoulders. Cor-
ralled animals prancing in 
the distance. Folk-band cadences 
mixing with the setting sun. Farm 
to table buffet food spread out 
under a barn awning. These are 
the makings of a summer farm 
dinner, complete with locals and 
low impact foods. In Ann Arbor, 
Green Things farm hosts these 
evening picnics with food pre-
pared from farm fresh ingredi-
ents. I’ve gone with my family 
several times and felt welcomed by 
the cultivated land, enjoyed deli-
cious, fresh food and explored the 
raspberry patches. The appeal of 
slow food became obvious to me: 
I got to see first-hand the impact 
of quality ingredients and sustain-
able production practices. 
The term “Slow Food” comes 
from the worldwide organization 
of the same name which wishes to 
bring clean and healthy foods to 
people all around the world. Their 
website describes slow food suc-
cinctly, stating, “Slow Food is food 
that’s good for us, good for our 
environment and good for the peo-
ple who grow, pick and prepare it. 
In other words, food that is good, 
clean and fair … Slow Food is fresh 
and healthy, free of pesticides and 
chemicals and produced in a way 
that’s beneficial to all — from the 
farmer to the eater.” The organi-
zation also stands against the use 
of GMOs and supports the notion 
that decreasing the consumption 
of meat will greatly benefit the 
environment. Their progressive 
stance is one I believe in and one 
I know could help reduce the car-
bon emissions made from farm 
products. 
Every type of farmed food cre-
ates emissions and contributes to 
the growing epidemic of climate 
change. Our task is to decide each 
day what kind of ingredients we 
are choosing to purchase and use 
that may be able to reduce our car-
bon footprints. Of course, a vegan 
diet would be the most environ-
mentally-friendly as it eliminates 
the need for animal products, 
dairy and all of the emissions 
and resources used to keep farm 
animals. However, if you can’t 
take the full plunge into vegan-
ism, there are alternative ways to 
keep emissions low, like simply 
reducing your meat and dairy con-
sumption or cutting out red meat 
completely as its high concentra-
tion of emissions is harmful to the 
environment. 

The slow food campaign can 
help combat harmful food prac-
tices and ultimately cut down our 
impact on the environment. By 
engaging with local food produc-
ers, we can cut down several envi-
ronmental costs of transportation 
and emissions. The organization 
is pushing to create a sustainable 
loop between consumers and pro-
ducers that is admirable. Their 
work across the world is aimed 
at changing lifestyles and help-
ing 
epidemics. 
John 
Kariuki, 
Kenyan Leader Summit attend-
ee, explained their goals from a 
worldwide 
standpoint, 
stating, 
“We all share the responsibility 
for the future, and as Slow Food 
in Africa we believe in collabora-
tion and not aid. Our combined 
efforts can increase the global 
cooperation, 
awareness, 
grass-
roots 
interventions 
and 
push 
policy makers towards a more sus-
tainable future.” Many countries 
lack the resources to have access 
to quality food, so a push towards 
intervention is needed in order to 
ensure people are being fed. 
I truly admire the concept of 
slow food, but at the same time, I 
question the accessibility. Qual-
ity ingredients, organic items and 
locally farmed ingredients notori-
ously come at a higher price. This 
price imbalance makes me worry 
that not all people can access this 
kind of product. We must make 
slow food more accessible through 
an increase in local markets, the 
reduction of costs or even pushing 
local foods into more corporate 
companies. While these changes 
may be difficult to implement, I 
think slow food should be priori-
tized and made into a more com-
mon product in order to reduce 
prices and widen audiences. 
Slow food is a promising strat-
egy in sustainability. It shifts the 
view of food production to local 
farmers and their hard work, 
which allows a decrease in food 
transportation and the produc-
tion of less emissions. If this 
inspiring outlook on the way we 
purchase and obtain food can 
become a more accessible and 
localized option, it will become 
an inclusive way to combat cli-
mate change. Through conscious 
efforts to consume less environ-
mental affectors, we can individ-
ually strive toward a safer future 
and healthier food intake.

Slowing down our food 

ANNE ELSE | COLUMN

Anne Else can be reached at 

aelse@umich.edu.

Surprise 
annexation of the 
area is likely to 
spur more conflict