World Economic Forum – What India can teach the world about sustainability – Written by Arundhati Pandey, Vice-curator of the World Economic Forum’s Bhopal Global Shapers Hub. This article is part of India Economic Summit 2017

We are starting to witness the penalty for unsustainable lifestyles and patterns of production and consumption. As the human population is exploding, resources are shrinking.

Concerns loom everywhere, from declining pollinators affecting food security, to air and water pollution affecting the quality of life, and land shortage and degradation affecting both agriculture and biodiversity.

These are just some examples of the results of unsustainability. This is an important moment to find solutions for sustainable living, in harmony with Mother Earth.

India is home to one-sixth of the world’s people and it has the densest population. It also has the second-largest population after China, which it will surpass in less than a decade if current trends continue.

India is a country full of diversity and contradictions.

While per-capita emissions are amongst the lowest in the world, it is also the third biggest generator of emissions. Despite being the third largest economy in the world, India also has the largest number of people living below the international poverty line. Because of this sheer size and rapid growth, sustainability is a challenge.

In spite of these challenges, India is a conscious aspirant. It has shown leadership in combating climate change and meeting the Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDGs), as is reflected in many of its developmental schemes.

This commitment was acknowledged by the world in July this year at the UN’s High Level Political Forum, as it presented the Voluntary National Review Report on Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals.

India is one of the least wasteful economies. It has frequently been acknowledged by stakeholders for its cooperation and efforts to promote climate change mitigation, and environmental sustainability; this has been through policy measures, dialogue facilitation between nations, and taking decisive steps, especially after India emerged as a key player in shaping the Paris Agreement, along with adopting energy-efficiency measures.

Sustainability has always been a core component of Indian culture. Its philosophy and values have underscored a sustainable way of life.

For example, the yogic principle of aparigraha, which is a virtue of being non-attached to materialistic possessions, keeping only what is necessary at a certain stage of life. Humans and nature share a harmonious relationship, which goes as far as a reverence for various flora and fauna. This has aided biodiversity conservation efforts.

A great example is of the Bishnoi community in the Jodhpur region, Rajasthan, for whom the protection of wildlife is part of their faith. Yoga and Ayurveda are perhaps among the most well-known ways of holistic Indian living.

Sustainable and environmentally friendly practices and psyches still continue to be part of the lifestyle and culture. India has both a culture of hoarding (in case something might come in useful), and thriftiness (re-use and hand-me-downs). It is not an uncommon sight in an Indian household to witness an old cloth being used as a duster.

Things which have absolutely no value, such as old newspapers and books, or utensils, can be easily sold off to a scrap dealers to be re-used or re-cycled. Bucket baths, sun- drying clothes, and hand-washing dishes are other widespread, sustainable practices. Culturally, there is also an aversion to wasting food.

Rural communities, which constituted about 70% of the Indian population as of 2011, live close to nature and continue to live a simple and frugal lifestyle .

Greendex is an international report on sustainable living. The study compiled by National Geographic and Globescan measures the way consumers are responding to environmental concerns. The scores measure housing, transport, food and goods. India occupies a top spot on this index among 18 contenders, which also include China and the US. In particular, India received high scores in housing, transportation and food choices.

These results show that Indian consumers are most conscious about their environmental footprint and are making the most sustainable choices.

However, as the economy develops and grows further, socio-economic trends are shifting. The country’s achievements so far in no way negate the environmental concerns it still faces.

India and the world have a long and challenging way to go in dealing with environmental problems, and learning to live together in sustainable communities. We need to realize that development is more than economic, and sustainable development is a collective responsibility.

India does seem to have taken a lead. As a global family and village, we should come together to learn from each other, and good lessons can be drawn and implemented from both ancient wisdom, and scientific fact.

UN DIMANCHE AU MUSÉE NATIONAL DES ARTS ASIATIQUES GUIMET – 13 AOÛT 2017

Ce musée appelé encore couramment musée Guimet, est un musée d’arts asiatiques situé à Paris, 6 Place d’Iéna, dans le 16ᵉ arrondissement. Ce musée a été fondé avec les collections asiatiques d’Émile Guimet qui était un passionné de civilisations qu’il a étudiées et rassemblées au cours de nombreux voyages. Constituant une importante collection dans le but de créer un musée des religions de l’Égypte, de l’Antiquité classique et des pays d’Asie. D’abord présenté à Lyon à partir de 1879, sa collection fut transférée dans un musée inauguré en 1889 qu’il fit construire à Paris. L’institution se consacra de plus en plus à l’Asie tout en conservant une section sur l’Égypte ancienne. Le Musée Guimet s’attache ainsi, depuis plus d’un siècle, à illustrer toutes les civilisations du continent asiatique, de l’Inde au Japon. Il couvre cinq millénaires de son histoire. De la porcelaine chinoise à la statuaire khmère ou afghane en passant par les tissus de l’Inde, la peinture japonaise et coréenne, ou encore les objets rituels tibétains : les témoignages artistiques de chaque culture trouvent leur place dans un parcours riche en chefs-d’œuvre, propice aux mises en perspective et au plaisir de la contemplation esthétique.

Les pays d’Asie représentés par ces collections sont :

Afghanistan Pakistan C’est à l’issue d’une mission sur la frontière indo-afghane, dans la région de Peshâwar, qu’Alfred Foucher a rapporté quelque cent pièces exposées dès 1900 au Louvre. Elles forment le fonds du Gandhâra au musée Guimet. Cet art du schiste au nord-ouest de l’Inde est un art essentiellement bouddhique. Il raconte pour la première fois la légende du Buddha représenté sous une forme humaine et fixe l’iconographie désormais canonique. Il s’épanouit aux environs de l’ère sous des dynasties étrangères, indo-grecques indo-scythe et Kouchane.

Himalaya est présente dès la fondation du musée Guimet en 1879 à Lyon, avec un petit ensemble d’objets lamaïques, la section himâlayenne se compose aujourd’hui d’un ensemble d’environ 1600 pièces. Le début de ce siècle est marqué par l’arrivée en 1912 d’une importante collection de bronzes et de peintures, illustrant l’art sino-tibétain du XVIII^e-XIX^e siècle, rapportés par Jacques Bacot (1877-1965) de ses missions du Tibet oriental. Cette vision relativement récente et sinisée de l’art du Tibet dominera pendant la majeure partie du siècle. Ce n’est que récemment que les collections du musée permettent d’aborder un panorama plus complet des arts himalayens, notamment dans le domaine népalais.

Asie Centrale L’importance de l’Asie centrale appelée aussi Sérinde, a été révélée au début du XX^e siècle, par les trouvailles archéologiques qui, sur le tracé de la Route de la Soie, ont mis en valeur un patrimoine bouddhique exceptionnel. Le climat désertique, favorable à la préservation des matières végétales et organiques a permis la conservation de documents uniques, comprenant des manuscrits et des cycles importants d’images cultuelles bouddhiques.

Asie du Sud-Est La création du département d’art de l’Asie du Sud-est résulte de la réunion de deux grandes collections d’art khmer, entre 1927 et 1931: celle du fonds ancien du musée d’Emile Guimet -avec l’ensemble d’art du Cambodge réuni par Etienne Aymonier (1844-1929) – et celle de l’ancien Musée Indochinois du Trocadéro dont Louis Delaporte (1842-1925) avait été l’initiateur et le conservateur. Ces collections furent complétées jusqu’en 1936 par les envois de l’Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient dont fit partie le fronton de Banteay Srei MG 18913. L’ensemble de sculptures khmères permet d’illustrer les grandes périodes de l’art du Cambodge, des origines à nos jours et n’a pas son équivalent en Occident. Il est le reflet de la contribution française à la connaissance de cette prestigieuse civilisation. Le Harihara de l’Asram Maha Rosei (MG 14910, VII^e siècle), le fronton de Banteay Srei ( MG 18913, vers 967), ou la tête de Jayavarman VII (P 430, fin du XII^e-début XIII^e siècle) font partie des chefs-d’oeuvre de la sculpture mondiale.

Chine La section chinoise du musée Guimet compte environ 20 000 objets couvrant sept millénaires d’art chinois, depuis ses origines jusqu’au XVIII^e siècle. Le domaine archéologique s’ouvre sur la période néolithique avec des jades et des céramiques, se poursuit avec des bronzes des dynasties Shang et Zhou, œuvres majeures auxquelles il convient d’ajouter d’importantes collections d’éléments de harnachement et de charrerie, de miroirs et d’agrafes en bronze ainsi que de numismatique et de laques.

Corée Le fonds coréen au musée Guimet renvoie à la mission qu’effectue Charles Varat en 1888, de Séoul à Pusan, sous couvert du Ministère de l’Instruction Publique et des Beaux-arts. Réalisée avec l’aide de Victor Collin de Plancy, premier représentant diplomatique français à la cour de Séoul, et celle du gouvernement de la Corée Choson (1392-1910), elle entend faire connaître au public parisien la culture d’un pays encore très mal connu. Dès 1893, est ouverte au musée une galerie coréenne, à laquelle a travaillé Varat, assisté d’Hong Jeong-ou. Présentant les arts de la Corée, sous ses aspects les plus variés (peinture et mobilier, costume et céramique), elle subsistera jusqu’en 1918, date de la première rénovation générale du musée. En revanche, les collections qui arrivent par le Louvre proviennent le plus souvent d’anciennes collections japonaises (bannière d’époque Koryo, 13ème – 14ème s., ou bronze doré sur le thème du bodhisattva méditant, 6ème s.).

Inde La section indienne du musée Guimet est constituée d’une part, de sculptures (terre cuite, pierre, bronze et bois) s’échelonnant du III^e millénaire avant notre ère jusqu’aux XVIII-XIX^es siècles de notre ère, et d’autre part, de peintures mobiles ou miniatures, du XV^e au XIX^e siècle.

Japon Les collections de la section japonaise, comptant environ 11000 oeuvres, offrent un panorama extrêmement riche et diversifié de l’art japonais depuis sa naissance, au cours des III^e-II^e millénaires av. notre ère, jusqu’à l’avènement de l’ère Meiji (1868).

Textiles La collection de textiles du musée Guimet provenant essentiellement du fonds de l’Association pour l’Etude et la Documentation des Textiles d’Asie (AEDTA) fondée en 1979 par Krishnâ Riboud à partir de sa collection personnelle, complète les collections des pays concernés. Il s’agissait à l’époque de la plus importante collection privée consacrée aux textiles d’Asie. En 1990, Krishnâ Riboud a souhaité effectuer une première donation de 150 pièces. Conformément à son souhait, en 2003, le reste de la collection – soit près de 3 800 pièces auxquelles s’ajoutent 150 objets (aquarelles, objets témoignant des techniques de tissage) – a été légué au musée qui se trouve dorénavant parmi les mieux dotés au monde dans ce domaine. Outre son importance scientifique et numérique, le legs de 2003 permet de conserver à la collection toute sa cohérence et son histoire.

 

Depuis 2008, le musée s’est ouvert à l’art contemporain afin d’instaurer un dialogue entre ses œuvres millénaires et la production artistique contemporaine asiatique. Pour cette année, carte blanche a été donnée à l’une des plus jeunes (et talentueuses) artistes françaises. Prune Nourry c’est d’ailleurs la plus jeune artiste qui ait jamais exposé dans l’illustre musée Guimet. Du haut de ses 32 ans, l’artiste nous livre une réflexion des plus touchantes et pertinentes sur l’avenir de l’humanité. Pour ceux qui connaissent déjà l’artiste, rassurez-vous, vous pourrez admirer l’une de ses œuvres phares, à savoir ses Terracotta Daughters. Si l’œuvre intégrale, composée de 108 sculptures en terre cuite, a été ensevelie dans un lieu secret en Chine. Ici, on pourra admirer leurs huit originaux, et autant vous dire que l’émotion est ici à son comble face à ses collégiennes grandeur nature, une référence aux soldats du premier empereur, dans une version féminine qui nous rappelle les drames de la politique chinoise de l’enfant unique, et les fantômes des centaines de millions de filles qui ne verront jamais le jour.

On a admiré aussi ses Holy Daughters, ce sont ces sculptures hybrides, une forme de synthèse troublante entre une jeune fille et une vache. Dit comme ça, ça peut choquer, mais l’artiste nous chahute volontairement, pour souligner le paradoxe qui existe en Inde, entre la femme, source de fécondité peu considérée, et l’animal sacré, symbole de fertilité, vénéré. Une manière de dénoncer le paradoxe qu’il y a à sacraliser la vache au détriment d’une petite fille, appelée à devenir mère un jour.

Alors d’habitude ici, les cartes blanches à l’art contemporain sont cantonnées à la coupole, au 4^ème et dernier étage du musée. L’artiste ne déroge pas à la règle en installant une tête de bouddha colossale, de plus de 3 mètres de haut, plantée de milliers de bâtons d’encens, comme autant d’aiguilles réparatrices. Un Bouddha monumental qui fait office de fil rouge tout au long de l’exposition pour aider le visiteur à comprendre l’histoire des civilisations asiatiques. Et ce Bouddha déborde de toutes parts et s’installe à chaque étage du musée, en référence à celui détruit en 2001 par les Talibans, un colosse de près de 40 mètres. On découvrira ainsi au 1^erétage sa main monumentale, de près de 5 mètres de haut, on ses pieds au rez-de-chaussée, dans des dimensions absolument vertigineuses.

Avec ses œuvres, l’artiste réveille les silences millénaires et enchante notre visite dans un dialogue des plus poétiques avec les collections historiques du musée, auxquelles elle apporte une lumière nouvelle.

L’ORS D’ASIE qui dure jusqu’au 18 septembre 2017, est une exposition d’envergure. Sur ce continent asiatique où l’or tient une place centrale. Présent dans la symbolique bouddhique, le bouddhisme tantrique et, pour une moindre part, l’hindouisme et le jainisme. Pour cette occasion le musée Guimet a choisi d’interroger ses propres collections, dont certaines, ressorties des réserves, restaurées ou nouvellement acquises forment un ensemble de 113 chefs-d’œuvre. C’est avec un regard d’orfèvre que le musée explore et pose ainsi le cadre des échanges du métal inaltérable et des raisons de sa rareté, qu’il soit poudre d’or au Japon, en Chine ou en Corée, émissions monétaires dans l’Afghanistan kouchane ou parure de maharajahs indiens. Les techniques d’extraction et du travail de l’or sont abordées en préambule, avant qu’un florilège de splendeurs ne raconte sa fabuleuse épopée, les raisons de l’attrait et du pouvoir de séduction qu’il suscita en Asie, mille et une histoires en or.

C’est le bouddhisme qui ouvre à l’or de vastes horizons aux résonances toutes symboliques : comment la lumineuse carnation du Bouddha ne pourrait être mieux évoquée que par l’or ? Vecteur d’éternité, l’or tient dans la parure funéraire, comme dans la conservation de la mémoire, une fonction de premier ordre, offrant à la statuaire de saisir de façon frappante ces facteurs d’unité à l’échelle du continent asiatique, de telle sorte que lorsque l’or est absent, le bronze ou le bois doré en jouent les substituts.

Quand l’or fréquemment mentionné est stimulé dans les sutras, les vêtements rapiécés des compagnons du bouddha historique deviennent les prétextes à la création de luxueux patchworks à bande d’or, tout comme l’or présent dans le costume de Lucknow, dernier bastion de l’Inde moghole. Promesse d’éternité, l’or défie le temps humain et joue la transmission : l’empereur de Chine, Qianlong, avec ses calligraphies à l’encre d’or des plaques de jade, ses propres écrits sur l’éthique et la philosophie en politique, à l’occasion de son quatre-vingtième anniversaire. Investi de la symbolique du pouvoir et de la richesse, l’or et ses fastes sont évoqués à travers le matériel archéologique mais aussi la production d’objets de luxe dans l’Inde moghole. En Afghanistan, durant la dynastie kouchane (1er-3e siècle), le monnayage en or apparaît et la monnaie d’or qui fait référence à l’irruption des nomades dans le monde sédentaire, exprimait aussi l’immense prestige et la puissance du souverain, l’Altaï étant la source de l’or. En écho au monde des steppes, certains objets archéologiques tel que la couronne typique du royaume de Silla (5e-6e siècle) provenant d’une tombe de Kyongung en Corée, attestait de l’importance du faste au temps des Trois Royaumes. Au Japon, l’or habille de grâce les éblouissants objets de laque, les paravents et textiles de l’apogée bourgeoise, les plus raffinés comme les plus frivoles du monde flottant, rappelant ici que la fascination pour le métal magique n’empêche pas le vieil adage : « tout ce qui brille n’est pas d’or ».

L’exposition des Paysages japonais, de Hokusai à Hasui qui continue jusqu’au 2 octobre 2017 est constituée d’une centaine d’estampes japonaises issues du fonds de la collection nationale, dont la célèbre Grande vague de Hokusai (Sous la vague au large de Kanagawa, Kanagawa oki namiura), le Musée nous entraîne dans un éblouissant voyage, celui de la contemplation du paysage dans son plein épanouissement. Visions panoramiques et impressionnistes qui exaltent le passage des saisons et les lieux célèbres du Japon, visions urbaines et descriptions d’itinéraires poétiques au début de l’époque Edo, ou encore scènes de genre et intimistes dans l’art des grands maîtres Hokusai et Hiroshige qui ont su renouveler l’art de l’Ukiyo-e, cette exposition méditation présentera aussi des estampes nouvellement acquises de la période moderne, dont celles très graphiques d’Hasui Kawase. Véritable palette documentaire toute en finesse et aux subtiles couleurs, les estampes présentées couvriront une période de trois siècles et montreront la réalité d’une géographie et de ses territoires. Une ode à la dimension divine du spectacle de la nature dans le respect d’une harmonie fondamentale entre ses éléments et celle de l’être humain, où comment le rêve et le réel appartiennent à une même vision. L’exposition interroge la notion de paysage dans l’estampe et la considère dans un contexte plus général, celui de l’itinérance et de la fascination pour la ville, telle que celle-ci se développera et se perpétuera durant le 19e siècle. Avec l’idée d’une déambulation poétique, d’une gravitation autour d’une cité, qui introduit la notion philosophique du temps qui passe, c’est une présentation autant spatiale que temporaire qui en sera le propos naturaliste.

L’exposition Porcelaine, chefs-d’œuvre de la collection Ise Les chefs-d’œuvre de céramique chinoise de la collection Ise sont exposés pour la première fois en France. Monochromes, céladons, « trois couleurs », porcelaines bleu et blanc, etc., au-delà d’un parcours esthétique et historique. Riche agro-industriel et philanthrope, Hikonobu Ise commence à constituer sa collection de céramiques il y a une trentaine d’années, afin, dit-il, d’éviter la dispersion, d’assurer la pérennité et de présenter au public du monde entier ces chefs-d’œuvre de la haute civilisation chinoise qu’il admire tant.
Cette collection, qui couvre les productions du 5e siècle avant notre ère jusqu’au 19e siècle, des périodes antiques aux Qing (1644-1911), a acquis au fil du temps un grand rayonnement. Si la sélection des pièces maîtresses de la collection Ise, présentée dans les salles rénovées du rez-de-chaussée de l’Hôtel d’Heidelbach, permet de dresser un panorama de l’évolution des techniques et des décors de l’art céramique chinois, elle est aussi l’occasion de saisir ce phénomène remarquable qu’est le goût japonais pour la céramique chinoise. Depuis l’époque de Kamakura (1185-1333), des céramiques chinoises sont importées par l’Archipel, pour la cérémonie du thé, que les Japonais ont transformée en un art de vivre à forte dimension cultuelle. C’est dans cette filiation que s’inscrit le collectionnisme d’Hikonobu Ise, porté notamment par son admiration pour la culture lettrée chinoise. Il raconte ainsi que chaque semaine, il sort de son étui l’un de ces objets, pour le contempler en dégustant un thé ; le sentiment de joie qu’il en ressent alors est au-delà du simple moment de détente. Ses choix semblent en effet guidés en premier lieu par l’émotion procurée par des objets qui « ont attrapé [son] cœur » et par le dialogue esthétique qui s’instaure avec l’œuvre dès le « premier regard » : face à une céramique Ming, représentant un combat de coqs, il fut ainsi « totalement ébloui et [se sentit] presque en état d’ébriété pendant les six mois qui ont suivi ». Le respect du Beau et la nécessité de réaliser des emballages propres à protéger les objets précieux, notamment des dangers sismiques, ont permis de conserver de manière exceptionnelle ces céramiques, dont les vibrants reflets des glaçures, les couleurs chatoyantes des émaux, les subtilités des décors sont d’une telle qualité que ces œuvres de plusieurs siècles semblent être à peine sorties du four. Présenter cette collection, c’est ainsi convier chacun à un voyage sensoriel et esthétique, dans l’intimité d’un passionné.

Le musée Guimet est un lieu magique, il nous permet de comprendre au mieux, cette Asie complexe, laborieuse et mystérieuse qui très souvent nous échappe. Sa richesse aussi vieille que son histoire nous émerveille depuis toujours. Mes ami(e)s, si vous passez par Paris, vous qui aimez le monde, allez au musée Guimet vous aimerez encore plus la vie, ceux et celles qui la rendent aussi belle, ce sont nos ami(e)s de cette belle Asie.

 

World Economic Forum – Protectionism won’t protect jobs. Here’s what will. – Written by Kenneth Rogoff

As US and European political leaders fret about the future of quality jobs, they would do well to look at the far bigger problems faced by developing Asia – problems that threaten to place massive downward pressure on global wages. In India, where per capita income is roughly a tenth that of the United States, more than ten million people per year are leaving the countryside and pouring into urban areas, and they often cannot find work even as chaiwalas, much less as computer programmers. The same angst that Americans and Europeans have about the future of jobs is an order of magnitude higher in Asia.

Should India aim to follow the traditional manufacturing export model that Japan pioneered and that so many others, including China, have followed? Where would that lead if, over the next couple of decades, automation is going to make most such jobs obsolete?

There is, of course, the service sector, where 80% of the population in advanced economies works, and where India’s outsourcing sector still tops the world. Unfortunately, there, too, the path ahead is anything but smooth. Automated calling systems already have supplanted a substantial part of the global phone center business, and many routine programming jobs are also losing ground to computers.

China’s economic progress may have been the big story of the last 30 years, but it struggles with similar challenges. While China is far more urbanized than India, it, too, is still trying to bring ten million people a year into its cities. Between jobs lost to automation and to lower-wage competitors such as Vietnam and Sri Lanka, integrating new workers is becoming increasingly difficult.

Recently, the rise in global protectionism has made this difficult situation worse, as epitomized by the decision of Foxconn (a major supplier to Apple) to invest $10 billion in a new factory in Wisconsin. Admittedly, the 13,000 new jobs in the United States is a drop in the bucket compared to the 20 million (or more) that India and China must create each year, or even compared to the two million that the US needs.

At the margin, the US and Europe might have some scope to make trade fairer, as Trump says he will do. For example, many Chinese steel plants have state-of-the-art pollution controls, but these can be switched off to save costs. When the result is that excess output is dumped at cheap prices into world markets, Western countries are fully justified in taking countermeasures.

Unfortunately, the long history of trade protectionism is that it rarely takes the form of a surgical strike. Far more often, the main beneficiaries are the rich and politically connected, while the losers are consumers who pay higher prices.

Countries that go too far in closing themselves off to foreign competition eventually lose their edge, with innovation, jobs, and growth suffering. Brazil and India, for example, have historically suffered from inward-looking trade policies, though both have become more open in recent years.

Another problem is that most Western economies have long since become deeply intertwined in global supply chains. Even the Trump administration had to reconsider its plan to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement when it finally realized that a lot of US imports from Mexico have substantial US content. Erecting high tariff barriers might cost as many US jobs as Mexican jobs. And, of course, if the US were to raise its import tariffs sharply, a large part of the costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Trade will surely increasingly permeate the service sector, too. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (named after the eighteenth-century chess-playing machine which actually had a person cleverly hidden inside) is an example of a new platform that allows buyers to contract very small specific tasks (for example, programming or data transcription) at third-world wage rates. Amazon’s clever slogan is “artificial artificial intelligence.”

Even if protectionists could shut down outsourcing of tasks, what would the cost be? To be sure, online service platforms do need to be regulated, as early experience with Uber has demonstrated. But, given the massive number of new jobs that India and China need to create every year, and with the Internet remaining highly permeable, it is folly to think advanced economies can clamp down tightly on service exports.

So how should countries deal with the relentless advance of technology and trade? For the foreseeable future, improving infrastructure and education can achieve a great deal. While the rest of the world floundered in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, China continued to extend its vast logistical and supply chains.

In a world where people are likely to have to change jobs frequently and sometimes radically, wholesale changes in adult education are needed, mainly effected through online learning. Last but not least, countries need to institute stronger redistribution though taxes and transfers. Traditional populist trade policies, like those that Trump has espoused, have not worked well in the past, and are likely to perform even worse now.

The author

Kenneth Saul « Ken Rogoff » (born March 22, 1953) is an American economist and chess Grandmaster. He is the Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Economics at Harvard University. Early in his career, Rogoff served as an economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. He was the Charles and Marie Robertson Professor of International Affairs at Princeton University.

In 2002, He was in the spotlight because of a dispute with Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and 2001 Nobel Prize winner. After Stiglitz criticized the IMF in his book, Globalization and Its Discontents, Rogoff replied in an open letter. His book This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, which he co-authored with Carmen Reinhart, was released in October 2009.

In The Curse of Cash, published in 2016, he urged that the United States phase out the 100-dollar bill, then the 50-dollar bill, then the 20-dollar bill, leaving only smaller denominations in circulation.

The Diplomat – The British Raj’s Social and Institutional Impact on Indian Society – The legacy of empire was born of profit-seeking. Written by Akhilesh Pillalamarri

The rise, consolidation, and fall of the British Raj is a fascinating story that inevitably raises passions throughout the Indian subcontinent and in Britain itself. What was the nature of the Raj? Was it a pre-planned, colonial enterprise? Did it have some positive aspects? How did it come about anyhow, and how was it ruled?
These questions remain relevant as India and Pakistan cross over into their 71st years as independent states. Some of these questions are answered in a book which was released last year, The Chaos of Empire: The British Raj and the Conquest of India, by Jon Wilson, a historian at King’s College London.
The book’s focus is less on specific political and military history, instead choosing to explore the impact of the Raj on the ground, from the eyes and ears of Indians and British officials in South Asia, and the impact that the British Raj had on Indian societies. In particular, while the later history of the British Raj is well-known, since it coincides with India’s independence movement, the book explores in quite some depth the murky origins of the Raj and its impact on India’s economy and social structures.
The Chaos of Empire posits that when Europeans arrived in the subcontinent, it was a “society of little societies. Politics was driven by the effort of men and sometimes women to build power by creating a following. Authority was built in alliances between groups of people that had their own organization and identity.”
When the Mughals arrived in India, they adopted this social structure: “there could be no such thing as Mughal nationalism.” This was because governance in India was about keeping “an ordered balance between the different forces which constituted Indian society.” Imposing the will of a centralized state over such a social structure, composed of a multitude of castes, ethnic groups, religions, and languages would have been impossible. These small societies would adjudicate their own disputes and enforce their own laws, with the task of Mughal officers being defined as keeping an “ordered balance between the different forces which constituted Indian society.” The Mughals did have laws and decrees, but these were of a general nature, and constantly subject to negotiation and adaptability.
What happened to that structure of Indian society?
British rule spread, not because of any grand plan, hatched from London, but through the effort of officers of the British East India Company (EIC) to make the most of an unfamiliar social and political situation, and to maximize their profits. This led eventually to the British conquest of Bengal, and then the rest of India, because the British could not operate in such an ad hoc (in their view) political and legal environment, with its lack of clarity.
The primary purpose of the British was “to make money.” In the English legal tradition, widely prized by the British, this required clear and stable laws that protected property rights and emphasized stable and predictable taxation levels, fixed in writing. Rather than adapt to the Indian system of adjudicating disputes between various local groups, the British ditched the practices of local governance, in which issues of taxation, business, and justice were often seen as negotiations, in favor of an increased emphasis on written laws. British rule was not contextualized in the same manner as Mughal, Maratha, or Mysorean rule. It was, instead, overly distant, under the guise of impartiality, and not easily adaptable to particular situations. This benefited the few who could adapt to or understand British legal principles: namely Europeans in India, and some well-connected Indians. Everyone else had to make do with an alien system.
As a result, over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, India suffered as a result of British attitudes toward governance and law. Wilson argues that the Great Bengal Famine of 1769-1770, in which 20 percent of Bengal’s population perished, was the result of British inflexibility: the British were unwilling to accept late tax payments or lend money to farmers after crops had failed. Similar issues led to the major economic changes throughout India over the course of the years, resulting in the failure of a large number of Indian businesses as well as further famines.
While British policies and the nature of British governance did much to ruin the prosperity of India’s economy and its social patterns, the British also come off as out of their depth. British India was not the product of some colonial design hatched in London in the 17th century. The British come off as strangers in a strange land, unsure of how to govern India, and more concerned with their safety and cultural comfort, which preventing many British officers from journeying out among the people they ruled and negotiating with them.
The houses and activities of British officers throughout India are described as oases of European architecture and hobbies, with most British individuals sparing little effort to learn Indian customs. The Mughals also originated from outside of India, but adapted much more readily to Indian culture. Too often, this isolation from Indian society drove British fears and led to excessive violence, as the British had few organic connections with Indian society, and could only depend on the threat of force to keep order. Violence thus emerges not as calculated or even desired brutality, but as the product of British insecurity.
Wilson is correct in identifying how the British inability to appreciate the interconnected nature of Indian society led to numerous economic and political disasters. But modernity would have changed India anyhow. Is a society of societies really plausible in a modern nation build upon political and social assumptions of legal equality that have spread since the Enlightenment? In a society of societies, people would be trapped within their castes and negotiate with other castes instead of intermingling with other groups and being part of a larger society.
Different laws would apply to different religious groups. It would be harder for individuals to marry across ethnic and linguistic lines, as such decisions would be subject to constant negotiation by village elders. Clear laws do in fact encourage investment and economic growth, if applied properly, and relaxed during times of economic stress. A society in which individuals occasionally can negotiate different legal outcomes for similar crimes is a recipe for unfairness.
Ultimately, a society of societies may have functioned well in the 16th century, but in modern circumstances, it would result in individual rights and liberties taking second place to a plethora of institutions such as panchayats, which can be quite arbitrary at times. Yet, there is no doubt that the manner in which British social and legal traditions were imposed on their growing Raj worked against the majority of the Indian people at the time, as native legal traditions were jettisoned swiftly, and the new laws were not created necessarily to improve justice, but to create favorable conditions for the maximization of revenue for the British, who after all, wanted predictable incomes and steady taxation.

The author

Akhilesh Pillalamarri is an international relations analyst, editor, and writer. He was previously an assistant editor at The National Interest and editorial assistant at The Diplomat. He received his Master of Arts in Security Studies from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, where he concentrated in international security. He mainly writes on South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and East Asia.

The World Economic Forum in collaboration with Project Syndicate. – Seventy years after India declared independence, where is it now? – Written by Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament, Indian National Congress

New Delhi – Seventy years ago this month, at midnight on August 15, 1947, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru proclaimed India’s independence from the British Empire. Nehru called it “a moment that comes but rarely in history, when we pass from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.” With that, the country embarked on a remarkable experiment in governance that continues to this day.

It was an experiment that Winston Churchill thought implausible. “India is merely a geographical expression,” he once dismissively barked. “It is no more a single country than the Equator.”

Churchill was rarely right about India. But it is true that no other country matches India’s extraordinary mix of ethnic groups, profusion of mutually incomprehensible languages, varieties of topography and climate, diversity of religions and cultural practices, and disparate levels of economic development.

It is often noted, only half-jokingly, that “anything you can say about India, the opposite is also true”: every truism about the country can be contradicted by another truism. In fact, the singular thing about India is that you can speak of it only in the plural. There are, to use that hackneyed expression, many Indias. Everything exists in countless variants. There is no agreed standard, no fixed stereotype, no “one way” to approach things. Even the country’s national motto, Satyameva Jayaté (Truth Alone Triumphs), can be understood in myriad ways. India is home to at least 1.3 billion truths, if the last census hasn’t undercounted us again.

It is this diversity and complexity that led the British historian E.P. Thompson to call India “perhaps the most important country for the future of the world.” As he put it, “All the convergent influences of the world run through this society…. There is not a thought that is being thought in the West or East that is not active in some Indian mind.”

India’s exceptional pluralism is acknowledged in the way the country arranges its affairs: all groups, faiths, tastes, and ideologies survive and contend for their place in the sun. At a time when most developing countries opted for authoritarian models of governance to promote nation-building and economic development, India chose to build a multi-party democracy.

That democracy may be freewheeling, boisterous, corrupt, and inefficient. But, despite many stresses and strains over the years – including 22 months of autocratic rule during a “state of emergency” declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1975 – it has survived, and even flourished.

To be sure, India still strikes many as maddening, chaotic, divided, and even desultory, muddling its way through the first decade of the twenty-first century. But, thanks to its unique diversity, India is not just a country; it is an adventure, in which all avenues are open and everything is possible.

The resulting national identity is a rare animal. It is not, as is most often the case, based on language; India has at least 23 – possibly as many as 35, depending on whether you believe the constitution or the linguists. Nor is it based on geography: the “natural” geography of the subcontinent, framed by the mountains and the sea, was rent by the partition of 1947.

India’s nationalism is not based on ethnicity, either. To be “Indian” does not mean to fit into any single racial type. On the contrary, from the perspective of ethnicity, many Indians have more in common with foreigners than with other Indians. Indian Punjabis and Bengalis, for example, have more in common ethnically with Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, respectively, than they do with their fellow Indian Poonawalas or Bangaloreans.

Finally, Indian nationalism is not based on religion. The country is home to every faith known to mankind, and Hinduism – a religion that not only lacks a national organization, established church, or ecclesiastical hierarchy, but also uniform beliefs or modes of worship – exemplifies our diversity as much as it does our common cultural heritage.

Instead, Indian nationalism is founded on an idea: the idea of an ever-ever land, emerging from an ancient civilization, united by a shared history, sustained by pluralist democracy. This land imposes no narrow conformity on its citizens. You can be many things and one thing. You can be a good Muslim, a good Keralite, and a good Indian all at once.

Whereas Freudians note the distinctions that arise out of “the narcissism of minor differences,” in India, we celebrate the commonality of major differences. If the United States is a melting pot, then India is a thali, a selection of sumptuous dishes in different bowls. Each tastes different, and does not necessarily mix well with the next, but they do complement one another, together forming a single satisfying repast. Put another way – and turning Michael Ignatieff’s expression on its head – we are a land of belonging, not blood.

So the idea of India is of one land embracing many peoples. It is the idea that a nation characterized by profound differences of caste, creed, color, culture, cuisine, conviction, costume, and custom can still rally around a democratic consensus – namely, that everyone needs to agree only on the ground rules of how to disagree. It is this consensus on how to manage without consensus that has enabled India to thrive for the last 70 years, even as it faced challenges that led many to predict its disintegration.

India’s founding fathers wrote a constitution for their dreams; we have given passports to their ideals. But, today, those ideals are being increasingly threatened by rising intolerance and an increasingly belligerent majoritarianism. On this 70th anniversary of Indian independence, all Indians must rededicate themselves to an inclusive, pluralist, democratic, and just India – the India that Mahatma Gandhi fought to free.

Have you read?
– Inequality in India: what’s the real story?
– 4 ways India can survive its digital dawn
– This is how India created its first ‘smart village’

 

The World Economic Forum – A Frenchman in Silicon Valley: France needs an innovation revolution – Written by Navi Radjou.

With Emmanuel Macron as president and his party winning a decisive majority in recent parliamentary elections, France’s ailing economy may finally receive a shot in the arm. Investors hope Macron can deliver on his promises to relax stringent labour laws and curb public spending. But the sad fact is even these ideas are not nearly radical enough to help France compete globally and win, in particular, in today’s digital economy.

France’s problems are well known: a heavy tax burden, intransigent unions and an uncontrollable public deficit. These are compounded by a lack of dynamism in its main European trading partners. But more than anything, France has a particular weakness when it comes to innovation ranking a dismal 15th in the 2017 survey of global innovation by the World Intellectual Property Organization, well behind Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, the US and the United Kingdom, which top the list.

Large French industrial firms spend heavily on R&D, but entrepreneurs and small businesses struggle to attract the capital to launch and scale new ventures. French engineers excel at producing highly sophisticated and expensive industrial products like nuclear power plants, high-speed trains and fighter jets. This kind of industrial innovation is increasingly outdated, as the source of corporate and national advantage shifts from physical products to digital platforms, meaning the likes of Facebook and Airbnb, which create, find and share knowledge, and connect consumers with goods and services.

As a Frenchman based in Silicon Valley, I have worked with companies in France for the past 25 years. It is frustrating to watch French engineers take years to develop a perfect product, rather than gradually improving it based on customer input, which is often received through digital platforms. I am baffled by the limited collaboration between French companies and universities and startups, when such links run deep in Silicon Valley, and to a lesser degree in rival countries like Britain.

Just as their industrial cousins struggle to compete, French companies focused on premium branded products have failed to grasp the new ways consumers behave. Since the 2007 recession, French consumers have become thriftier. In some ways this has helped a small handful of sharing economy start-ups, like ride-sharing app BlaBlaCar. The vast majority of mainstream French firms are struggling to engage with this turn towards sharing and frugality.

As a tech-savvy young leader, Macron personally understands this new digital world. But awareness isn’t enough. He needs a radical programme of changes, beginning with three important steps.

The sharing economy
Firstly, Macron must encourage French businesses to plug into the sharing economy, which is currently restricted to citizens directly sharing cars and apartments. PwC estimates that Europe’s sharing economy — dominated by consumer-to-consumer (C2C) transactions will grow from €28 billion today to €570 billion by 2025. France can go much further and pioneer business-to-business (B2B) sharing by building digital platforms that enable large firms and SMEs to become more efficient and innovative by sharing resources, ranging from waste, idle factory equipment and office space, to employees and even intellectual property (IP). B2B sharing could turbocharge the fourth industrial revolution.

There are pioneering models that France can follow. In Denmark’s Kalundborg Eco-Industrial Park, for example, several co-located companies exchange material waste, energy and water as an integrated ecosystem. Similarly, Dutch hospitals use FLOOW2, a B2B marketplace, to find and share idle medical equipment, staff and services, thus providing better care to more patients at a lower cost.

To encourage B2B sharing in France, Macron’s government needs to institute a comprehensive new framework that encourages the sharing of assets and personnel, probably including the deregulation of rules covering areas such as legal liability, taxation, IP protection and workers’ rights. If done well, France can shape and dominate the global B2B sharing market, potentially worth trillions of Euros, by creating demand for it and by developing the necessary digital platforms.

Regional innovation
Secondly, Macron needs to decentralize innovation. Paris has some elements of an innovation hub with a supportive mayor, top universities and an impressive new start-up campus, Station F. But other regions that could produce innovative tech clusters — such as Hauts-de-France, a former industrial region in the north that is transitioning to a waste-free, clean-tech-fuelled circular economy and the Nouvelle-Aquitaine region in the south-west that is leading agricultural tech innovation in Europe — are being left behind for lack of support.

Such regions lack scientists and engineers, as well as innovation links between universities and companies, especially in high-demand areas like the Internet of Things, bioscience and clean-tech. Macron, who is proud of his provincial origins and a big advocate of greater regional autonomy, should set up a regional innovation development fund to help existing “pôles de compétitivité” (competitiveness clusters) become “pôles de compétences” (talent clusters).

Frugal innovation
Finally, Macron must position France as a global leader in frugal innovation, a disruptive way of creating high-quality products that are affordable and eco-friendly. A few French firms have led the way here, including the automaker Renault, which shook up the global car industry in 2004 by launching the $6,000 Dacia Logan and two years ago introduced the €3,500 Kwid in India. The European Commission recently published a landmark report highlighting the huge social value and vast economic potential of frugal innovation for European nations.

Macron could make France a global hub to invest, test and scale low-cost, eco-sound inventions for European and even developing markets. He could do so by asking French engineering and business schools to incorporate frugal innovation into their curriculum. Macron could also set challenges for entrepreneurs with prizes given to those who create disruptive frugal innovation in vital sectors, like food, energy and health. Known as “10x10x Grand Challenges” the winners will be projects that deliver at least 10 times greater value, but use 10 times fewer resources than existing solutions.

Macron is an ingenious political entrepreneur: he used innovative data-driven campaign tactics to win hearts and minds and got elected by a landslide as France’s youngest president. En Marche!, his one-year-old political organization, is still in start-up mode. But having disrupted the French political landscape, President Macron now needs to lead a French innovation revolution as well.

The author
Navi Radjou born 14 August 1970 is a French-American scholar,  he earned his MS degree in information systems from Ecole Centrale de Paris, and also attended the Yale School of Management. He is an innovation and leadership advisor based in Silicon Valley. He is former Vice-President at Forrester Research, a leading US-based technology research and consulting firm. At Forrester, he investigated how globalised innovation – with the rise of India and China as both a source and market for innovations – is driving new market structures and organizational models called « Global Innovation Networks ». During his tenure at Forrester, he advised senior executives around the world on technology-enabled best practices to drive collaborative innovation, global supply chain integration, and proactive customer service. He served as the Executive Director of the Centre for India & Global Business at Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, where Jaideep Prabhu was the director.
At Forrester, Radjou published more than a hundred thought-leadership reports on business topics related to innovation and emerging markets. Based on his extensive field research in India he published in 2008 a ten-part report series titled « India: The Innovation Giant (Re)Awakens », which explores the innovative business models pioneered by large corporations and grassroots entrepreneurs in India. Radjou is co-author of Frugal Innovation published worldwide by The Economist in 2015. The book explains the principles, perspectives and techniques behind frugal innovation. He is also co-author of the international best-seller Jugaad Innovation (Jossey-Bass, 2012). described by The Economist as « the most comprehensive book yet to appear on the subject » of frugal innovation.[9] He is co-author of From Smart To Wise, a book on next generation leadership. He is also a regular columnist on Harvard Business Review, Bloomberg Businessweek and The Wall Street Journal, and maintains a blog on HarvardBusinessReview.org.
Navi’s next book, Conscious Society: Reinventing How We Consume, Work, and Live (due in 2018), shows how we can all expand our awareness and tap into our abundant inner-resources—love, ingenuity, wisdom—to co-create inclusive and sustainable communities. In doing so, we can consciously steer human evolution to a better future.
Radjou has had wide exposure in national and international media, including The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Bloomberg Businessweek, Financial Times, Le Monde, and Nikkei Shimbun. He is ranked as one of the 50 most influential persons shaping innovation in France.
In 2013, he received the Thinkers50 Innovation Award— given to a management thinker who is re-shaping the way we think about and practice innovation. In addition, his book Jugaad Innovation was shortlisted for the 2013 Thinkers50 CK Prahalad Breakthrough Idea Award.
Named by BusinessWeek as an « expert in corporate innovation, » he was also honoured by the Financial Times, which called his co-authored work on National Innovation Networks – the first-ever ranking of countries by their collaborative aptitude to integrate innovation capabilities across multiple regions – as « ambitious » and « sophisticated ». His latest research on « polycentric innovation » – a new approach that multinationals can use to integrate globally distributed R&D and innovation capabilities – has been featured in The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, Global Intelligence for the CIO, and Le Monde. Similarly, his concept of « indovation » — the unique process by which innovations are developed in India to serve a large number of people sustainably — has been featured in The Financial Times and in several conferences organised by Asia Society.

Have you read?
– After Macron’s victory, what next for France and Europe?
– Is France in deflation?
– The UN has ranked nations for innovation – how does yours do?

The World Economic Forum – Cash bans and citizen plans: The digitization of India – Written by Tom Ward, Writer, Futurism

In brief

India has made the largest changes in identification and monetization that the country — and most of the world — has ever seen by introducing a nationwide ID database and largely eliminating physical currency. This has the potential to transform the rest of the world as well.

Cash bans and digital plans

Last November, as part of a controversial master plan to make India a cashless and digitized society, the Prime minister Narendra Modi announced that Rs500 and Rs1,000 notes were to be demonetized, which effectively stripped the value of 86 percent of the country’s circulating cash.

The move was one of the last stages of the plan, after the groundwork had been laid by introducing the Aadhaar biometric database, which gave 95 percent of the population a digital proof of identity in 2016. Aadhaar was augmented by India Stack, which allowed people to store and share information such as addresses, bank statements, employment records, and tax filings — all of which were ratified by the Aashaar system.

The key aspect of India Stack was giving everyone in the country access to one of 11 Payment Banks which could manage payments and transfers but not issue loans. Eliminating cash forced people to adopt this new digital infrastructure, causing 270 million people to open bank accounts and 10 billion dollars to be deposited in the first three years — this generated momentum for what may evolve into the first cashless society in the world.

A case for cashless?

The decision has significant ramifications not only for India, but for the rest of the world as well. For India, there will be friction initially because of the preeminence of cash-based transfers in the society: it was estimated earlier this year that 78 percent of transactions in the country still used cash.

This may be justified, though, by the longer term gains. The move could curb corruption and “black money” in India as well introduce a more robust, effective tax system. It could also make payments a completely secure affair — bringing an unprecedented formality and modern bureaucracy to the Indian economy.

The worldwide ramifications of India’s digitization are serious too. Raoul Pal, former manager of GLG Global Macro Fund, wrote in an editorial for Mauldin Economics, “It may well be a bitcoin killer or at best provide the framework for how block chain technology could be applied in the real world.”

Even if it does not herald the end of bitcoin, the move will prove an interesting experiment to observe for other countries looking to go cashless, such as Sweden, which has seen a 40 percent reduction in cash and coin in circulation.