Locating Central Eurasia’s inherent resilience

The Case for Science Diplomacy in Mongol Eurasia

“…248–249) This meant that the interactions between different knowledge systems was not an impediment, rather it was a catalyst for knowledge production. This is similar to what has been described as intercalation with regards to the place of Central Asian societies over centuries that ‘found themselves adjacent to numerous others and yet continued to retain their inherent properties to respond efficiently to increasingly complex environments’ (Kalra, 2022; Kalra & Saxena, 2021).…”

“…Their personal interests did indeed play a role but the expansive nature of Eurasia and the locations which the khans ruled proved to be favourable for borrowings of all kinds (Allsen, 1997, p. 102). Open courts and tolerant attitudes to religions meant that they could overcome traditional limitations in knowledge exchanges (Kalra, 2022). This is not to say that the knowledge exchange did not happen before, there is ample evidence to show that there was a high level of knowledge exchange along maritime routes between the Southern Sung and the Islamic world, however, other regions like Northern China or more inland cultures had fewer opportunities to be exposed to such knowledge exchanges before the establishment of the Mongol Empire.…”

The role of development models in Japan’s and Korea’s relations with Central Asia: Discourses and practices

“…In that sense, the appeal of Japan and Korea for post-Soviet and in particular CA states in the 1990s was that of alternative modernisation models in the wake of the USSR collapse – in other words, more of a re-modernisation, re-development, follow-up modernisation or ‘neo-modernisation’ (Sakwa, 2013), rather than that of modernisation completely from scratch. At the same time, recent scholarship has challenged the non-critical assumption according to which Central Eurasian states imperatively needed the borrowing of European, Western or global best practices to achieve stability and development, making the case for internal resilience and capacity-building, grounded in the context of the geography and ecology of Central Eurasia (Kalra, 2022).…”

What is a Resource? Representing Eurasia’s Pastoral/nomadic Development History in the IPBES Framework for Reconceptualized Resource Meanings

“…Eurasia has supported a diverse history of nomadic, semi-sedentary, and sedentary peoples (Kalra, 2022). While categorical differences between nomadism, nomadic-pastoralism, semi-pastoralism, and pastoralism have sustained an array of scholarly discussions, this study uses such terms to emphasize the presence of life strategies predicated in some form of mobility-based in Eurasia (Frachetti, 2009a).…”

“…Across a vast history of empires, trade networks, eventual industrialization and mobile peoples, the knowledge and skills cultivated over thousands of years of connectivity and interactions to successfully inhabit the space of Eurasia resulted in a distinct cultural system. With the skills and knowledge embedded in culture made more productive in light of change, the movement and admixing of peoples across natural events and environmental variability endowed Eurasia with a proven history of resilience (Kalra, 2022). By endowing Eurasian peoples with proven capacities for survival and perseverance, this gave reason to continue to invest in culture.…”