Indian futures part 2: the luxury strategy

How can India counter the industrial giant on its doorstep?

In the previous post I briefly looked ahead to the relationship between India and the UK over the next few decades: it is only going to become deeper and more intertwined to the mutual benefit of both countries.

But India is also in the position now of crafting its own future as a “new” country, as Modi leads it out of the retardation after the Congress corruption of the last seven decades. What sort of culture and economy will India follow as part of its growing identity and prosperity? I suggest it will be determined partly by the political realities surrounding India and partly by the artisanal DNA that India possesses and must now cultivate anew and capitalise on.

The biggest factor is China. Soon to be the world’s largest economy, it is aggressive in all sorts of ways and is throwing its weight around – economically rather than militarily so far, although that will change. How can India hope to compete with the enormous factory on its doorstep? Is there a clever, divergent course it can follow?

To answer this question, I think we have to look at a similar situation that occurred in Europe 250 years ago when Britain embarked on its industrial revolution. What essentially happened, in economic terms, was that Britain “scaled up” and embraced the factory system, automation and mass production. This meant it could eventually supply vast quantities of goods much cheaper than any other economy in Europe – because they were all still operating mostly on the small-scale cottage-industry model inherited from previous centuries.

Just at the time that Britain’s industrial production was ramping up, its military forces, and primarily the Navy, were opening distant markets by encouragement and force and subduing foreign powers so that cheap raw materials could be imported from them, and then finished goods exported out again. The British Empire was starting to take off.

China now is like Britain then

What I want to draw attention to is the similarity of the choice made by Britain then with the choice China has recently made to become the cheap manufactory of the modern world. They both chose large-scale industry and cheap mass production and this brought with it certain costs. Britain’s reputation as a dingy, uncultured, ugly country with terrible food and ocean-going philistinism stems from the time of the industrial revolution. The social upheaval destroyed much of the fabric of rural life and tradition, and brutalised so very many of its people, robbing them of much culture and identity they had inherited over hundreds or even thousands of years.

The British poor, who mostly had roots in the countryside, were herded into slum dwellings in filthy new dormitory towns and cities to labour for the profit of their capitalist masters. The working class was born painfully, shorn of traditions and roots, from the uprooted country people; it took many decades to re-establish and invent new cultural lines that would help to provide a civilised existence. In the meantime poor nutrition, disease and drunkenness were a terrible scourge; some would say the British working class has never really recovered.

So. China has similarly destroyed much of its cultural heritage – although this was a process already undertaken with considerable violence by the Communists before the recent economic revolution even began. China has literally and metaphorically concreted over vast parts of its homeland – and its history and its culture – in its “dash for growth”. Over the past 30 years the Han peasantry has flooded into new cities and been similarly deracinated as was the nascent British working class. Cut off from their roots, village life has dwindled (only the old people left behind) or been destroyed, and centuries of cultural heritage has vanished. Now they have endless factories producing steel and cheap plastic goods for the West. A minority, the oligarchs, Communist Party nomenklatura and those connected to them, have grown stupendously rich. The vast majority of the population has seen an absolute rise in monetary income (although not enough to escape the middle-income trap when growth slows down) but a terrible diminution of cultural and spiritual life. Whether the trade-off has been worth it the Chinese will have to decide.

India now is like France and Italy then

The situation facing India with respect to China is similar to that facing France and Italy after the rise of Britain as a mass-producing, factory-style economic power in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

As a thought experiment, then, we should try to imagine India as France or Italy in the nineteenth century. India of course already has its own developed industries and in many ways is well-positioned to compete in several areas with China (chiefly technology, computing and services). But in many ways it must now do what France and Italy did when confronted with the powerhouse of the industrialised British empire: where China zigs, India must zag.

So what did France and Italy do? In short, quickly realising that they could not outcompete Britain in the game it had decided to play, they elected to play a different game, and instead of going for profit by volume, they would seek a greater margin of profit per unit by adding value in the production process. In other words Italy and France played to their pre-existing artisanal strengths and went upmarket just as Britain went mass-market. France and Italy chose luxury, a reputation they still enjoy today. Seth Godin put it eloquently in his book, Linchpin (2010):

Let other countries find the raw materials; the French would fashion it, brand it, and sell it back to them as high-priced goods. A critical element of this approach was the work of indispensable artisans. Louis Vuitton made his trunks by hand in a small workshop behind his house outside of Paris. Hermes would assign a craftsperson to work on a saddle for as long as it might take. The famous vintners of Champagne relied on trained professionals – men who had worked their whole lives with wine – to create a beverage that could travel around the world.

At the same time that France was embracing handmade luxury, Great Britain was embracing the anonymous factory. Looms that could turn out cotton cloth with minimal human labor, or pottery factories that could make cheap plates. “Made in France” came to mean something (and still does, more than three hundred years later) because of the “made” part. Mechanizing and cheapening the process would have made it easy for others to copy. Relying on humanity made it difficult–it made the work done in France scarce, and scarcity creates value.

My contention is that India possesses a similar richness of native assets, cultural heritge and artisanal skills that can be made use of to uniquely position the country as an effective competitor against China and many other countries in the region.

France has its food and drinks, cheeses, wines and champagne, fashion and fabric, visual and media artistry, not to mention the assets of history (castles, river villages, artworks) scenery, beaches and natural beauty, much of which Italy shares, along with Ferrari and fine leather, jewellery and metalwork, and so on.

Champagne and Chateau Pétrus, Hermès, Louis Vuitton, Ferragamo, Lamorghini … India must have and could easily have its own equivalents, its own high-luxury world-renowned brands. India too is a land of great architectural heritage, vast and varied climate natural beauty, with a globally pre-eminent and encyclopaedic cuisine, warm weather and sun-kissed beaches, majestic mountain ranges, artisanal engineering, metalworking and jewellery-making and leather-working expertise inherited over generations (but also allied to a penchant for excellence in hi-tech – two areas I believe will converge this century)

Not only is a move to luxury a good strategy with which to counter China’s bludgeoning dominance; it also has a virtue of being smaller, more granular and by that token much more antifragile.

Scale and massiveness on China’s factory scale might make a lot of money but they also introduce vulnerabilities of size. Modi’s mantra is that local knows best. All governments are dire, and even with the best intentions, the bigger they are the worse they are. He knows this and it’s why he wants as much as possible to happen on a local level. Devolution from the centre is at the heart of what India is attempting right now, by instituting nation-sized simple initiatives (the aadhar electronic identity card and the GST tax for example) that form a simple but over-arching framework within which the vast patchwork of local communities and industries from panchayat level up can organise and thrive.

Strength can be found in grass-roots-level growth of small (and then perhaps aggregated) enterprises – much the same as same as small banks can be far more responsive and far better integrated with local needs than can international financial institutions. India is in a perfect position  for this. Small is adaptable, less susceptible to economic shocks, not so interdependent and can rush to fill a new space. Modi is forging the legal and bureaucratic architecture to allow this and take advantage of “responder advantage”.

In subsequent posts I want to examine particular areas of Indian artisanal and luxury industries that could thrive in future years alongside its traditional mass industries, from wine to jewellery. Luxury/artisanal/handmade is paradoxically ultra-modern and an excellent zag to China’s mass production zig. But as a wise man said to me just the other day, it’s all about the execution, and we’ll look at that, too.

Things are finally moving …

Modi entered Delhi facing an entrenched and obstructive government bureaucracy that was bespoke-designed over many decades to serve the bigwigs of Congress

Despite being Modi’s biographer and genuinely liking the man, I am not here to defend him. It is a fact that as we pass the two-year mark of the BJP administration in power, there are justified criticisms to be made. Overall the biggest complaint has to be the apparently slow and timid pace of change and reform – for, incidentally, nothing dramatically disastrous or unforgivable has occurred, despite such being endlessly predicted by Modi’s political and media enemies loyal to the Gandhi dynasty.

When I am asked, as I always am asked, the reason why Modi has not changed everything quickly and delivered India to its wonderful prosperous destiny already, I reply with an offering of a reality sandwich. First of all, Modi entered Delhi facing an entrenched and obstructive government bureaucracy that was bespoke-designed over many decades to serve the bigwigs of the Congress Party and the Gandhi dynasty. Very many careers were owed to and depended upon the established structure; forcing it to change was always going to be a Herculean task. The babus of government service constitute a complete society, unbelieveably  loyal to that Gandhi dynasty, and changing their orientation would be a work of years and would require a master administrator.

Continue reading “Things are finally moving …”

Andaman and Nicobar Islands #2

Above the law, below the law: the trials of the tribals

This is the second post in an occasional series about the future of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which sit at the eastern edge of the Bay of Bengal facing Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia. The open sea to the south gives these strategically important islands access to the Indian Ocean (next stop Australia) and onto the vastness of China’s wished-for sphere of influence in South Asia. It’s a perfect spot for an armed check-point and border control for all traffic travelling westward out of the Malacca Straits and a platform for defence that can vastly magnify India’s military footprint in the region.

India has scandalously neglected these utterly beautiful islands, already home to a tri-services base (the old ‘Project Yatrik’) and an under populated, underdeveloped local economy. In truth the Andamans are key to India’s future as an influential regional political power, not to mention an economic one (see Indian Ocean and India’s Security, Raj Narain Misra, 1986). If Goa is India’s California then the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are its Hawaii – it has the navy, not just the beaches, and the beaches are superior to those in Thailand, across the water.

Continue reading “Andaman and Nicobar Islands #2”

Bye-bye Facebook, Monsanto!

What’s behind India’s new-found assertiveness?

First it was Facebook. India’s potentially enormous, and as yet largely untapped, internet and mobile phone market will see about half a billion people come online over the next few years (I hope soon to write at some length about its implications). And this in the country that will enjoy the world’s best economic growth for the next two decades.

Mark Zuckerberg was salivating over this juicy prospect and launched a portal called ‘Free Basics’ that tied the user to Facebook’s domain in exchange for free online access. Except of course it wasn’t free because Facebook decided what sites could be accessed and would eventually have its own access to the most valuable of all commodities: the users’ saleable metrics and private information, the bread and butter of Facebook’s business.

Continue reading “Bye-bye Facebook, Monsanto!”

Why India? #1

Call me an optimist, but I am betting I am right about India.

I am making a bet on India prospering disproportionately in the future compared to its past and I am inviting visitors to this website to engage with and object to my theory (‘theory’ because it could turn out wrong). After all, why should I believe that I am correct? There appears to be far more evidence from history that India will inevitably sink back into its old habits of futility, corruption and wishful thinking about an idealised past.

A friend of mine, a businessman from Mumbai, says to me, ‘India can make things 90% of the way but there’s no finish! Where is the last 10%?’ He thinks that Indians always run out of application and interest towards the end of a task. There is no polish to what they do and that everything – products and services – remains frustratingly second-rate, droopy and half-hearted. This has obvious implications for any Indian future.

Continue reading “Why India? #1”