Arun Agrawal's paper examines the concept of indigenous knowledge and its role in development. It argues that the current conceptualization of indigenous knowledge and its role in development is problematic. The paper suggests that to productively engage indigenous knowledge in development, we must move beyond the dichotomy of indigenous versus scientific knowledge and work towards greater autonomy for indigenous peoples. Agrawal highlights the growing interest in indigenous knowledge as a resource in development discussions, noting that it is often viewed as a solution to issues of hunger, poverty, and underdevelopment. However, he argues that the advocates of indigenous knowledge suffer from contradictions and conceptual weaknesses. Agrawal suggests that the concept of indigenous knowledge is not inherently different from scientific knowledge and that the dichotomy between the two is problematic. He also critiques the neo-indigenista approach, which seeks to separate indigenous knowledge from scientific knowledge, arguing that this approach is flawed and that indigenous knowledge is deeply embedded in the lives of people. Agrawal concludes that indigenous knowledge should be integrated into development processes in a way that respects its contextual and cultural roots, rather than treating it as a separate entity. He argues that the current approach to indigenous knowledge is based on a flawed dichotomy and that a more holistic and inclusive approach is needed to effectively engage with indigenous knowledge in development.Arun Agrawal's paper examines the concept of indigenous knowledge and its role in development. It argues that the current conceptualization of indigenous knowledge and its role in development is problematic. The paper suggests that to productively engage indigenous knowledge in development, we must move beyond the dichotomy of indigenous versus scientific knowledge and work towards greater autonomy for indigenous peoples. Agrawal highlights the growing interest in indigenous knowledge as a resource in development discussions, noting that it is often viewed as a solution to issues of hunger, poverty, and underdevelopment. However, he argues that the advocates of indigenous knowledge suffer from contradictions and conceptual weaknesses. Agrawal suggests that the concept of indigenous knowledge is not inherently different from scientific knowledge and that the dichotomy between the two is problematic. He also critiques the neo-indigenista approach, which seeks to separate indigenous knowledge from scientific knowledge, arguing that this approach is flawed and that indigenous knowledge is deeply embedded in the lives of people. Agrawal concludes that indigenous knowledge should be integrated into development processes in a way that respects its contextual and cultural roots, rather than treating it as a separate entity. He argues that the current approach to indigenous knowledge is based on a flawed dichotomy and that a more holistic and inclusive approach is needed to effectively engage with indigenous knowledge in development.