Journal article | Published online 5 October 2026 in Development in Practice
"Kami tidak menolak pembangunan, kami menolak ditinggalkan."
We do not reject development; we refuse to be left behind.
This statement, made by the Bala Adat Dayak community in opposing a transmigration programme and reported by Ruai TV, points to a struggle that is often misread. The issue is not whether Indigenous peoples are for or against development. It is who has the authority to define it.
Land can be described as "idle" even when it holds generations of memory, knowledge, and belonging. A forest can become a "state asset", and its conversion a measure of "progress". These words carry consequences: they shape whose relationships with land are recognised, whose knowledge counts, and whose claims can be set aside.
Our latest publication, "Beyond resistance: Indigenous counter-narratives on embedded extractivism in Indonesia," examines how the language of development helps legitimise resource extraction, and how Indigenous communities challenge the meanings through which their territories are governed.
Written by Candra Dewi and Sadar Ginting, the article combines a critical scoping review of secondary literature with critical discourse analysis. It draws on academic research, civil society reports, legal and policy documents, and media coverage in English and Indonesian.
The analysis traces how extractive development has been justified from the New Order through Reformasi-era decentralisation to the Jokowi and Prabowo administrations. The vocabulary has changed, from growth and modernisation to regional autonomy, green growth, energy transition, and resource sovereignty, while the underlying logic has persisted. These narratives gain practical force through forestry law, permits, concessions, and spatial planning. The article argues that dispossession involves more than losing access to land. It is also epistemic and ontological: it removes the authority of communities to define what land is and why it matters.
This has direct implications for climate policy. Nickel expansion for electric vehicles and batteries has been framed as energy transition, yet it relies on the same language of sacrifice, productivity, and national interest that has historically justified dispossession. Without a change in who holds authority over land, climate and energy-transition policies risk becoming greener forms of extractivism.
Indigenous responses cannot be understood through opposition alone. Drawing on publicly reported statements and documented struggles involving Dayak, Awyu, and Moi communities, the article examines how cosmology, ritual, storytelling, customary law, public testimony, litigation, and collective mobilisation contest dominant accounts of development. In these accounts, land is ancestral territory, living space, and reciprocal obligation rather than an economic asset or carbon stock.
The article also recognises that Indigenous communities do not speak with a single voice. Differences in gender, generation, leadership, livelihood, religious affiliation, and proximity to state or corporate negotiations shape how development is contested, negotiated, or pragmatically accepted. Taking these differences seriously is essential to understanding Indigenous agency without idealising it.
The study has clear limits. It relies entirely on secondary sources, so the Indigenous statements it analyses are those already reported by media and legal aid organisations, not gathered through fieldwork. It also does not offer a systematic gender analysis, although Indigenous women often carry disproportionate burdens of dispossession and are frequently excluded from compensation and negotiation. The authors identify participatory, ethnographic, and Indigenous-led research as the necessary next step.
The article concludes that compensation, technical safeguards, and corporate sustainability language are not enough. A post-extractive policy orientation requires stronger recognition of customary land rights, meaningful implementation of free, prior, and informed consent, protection of Indigenous territories from concession expansion, and the inclusion of Indigenous ecological knowledge in climate adaptation and environmental governance.
For DEEP EnGender, this publication contributes to ongoing conversations about ecological justice, Indigenous rights, and accountability in development. It calls on institutions to treat Indigenous peoples not merely as stakeholders or beneficiaries, but as political and epistemic authorities in decisions about land, forests, and collective futures.
Publication
Dewi, C., & Ginting, S. (2026). Beyond resistance: Indigenous counter-narratives on embedded extractivism in Indonesia. Development in Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2026.2740121
