IK Monitor 4(1) Reactions to Agrawal http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/4-1/articles/agrawal.html Comments on article by Arun Agrawal In his article 'Indigenous and scientific knowledge: Some critical comments' Dr Agrawal maintains that most of the writings on indigenous knowledge contain a number of contradictions and conceptual weaknesses. The main thrust of Agrawal's argument rests upon the following points: Distinguishing 'indigenous' and 'Western' as two types of knowledge is not only potentially ridiculous, but also counterproductive for those who believe that indigenous knowledge has a contribution to make to sustainable development; There is actually nothing new about the rhetoric and practice of indigenous knowledge; The strategy of archiving and disseminating indigenous knowledge runs counter to the very concept of indigenous knowledge. In the following pages, several reactions to Dr Agrawal's article are published. It will be clear that there is no consensus on either the necessity and usefulness of distinguishing between indigenous and scientific knowledge, or on Dr Agrawal's basic assumptions. In the August issue we would like to give a follow-up to the discussion. (See editorial) Dr Thomas Heyd There are good reasons to agree with Agrawal's concerns about the ex-situ conservation of indigenous knowledge, and with his analysis of the social consequences of archiving and disseminating indigenous knowledge, insofar as it affects the welfare of economically marginalized indigenous peoples. However, his critique of the distinction between indigenous and scientific knowledge cannot be accepted out of hand. Many of the alleged distinctions between indigenous and scientific knowledge are indeed without solid foundation**1. Nonetheless, there are a number of differences which Agrawal fails to point out. The fundamental source of confusion in Agrawal's analysis lies in the fact that he equates 'scientific' knowledge with 'Western' knowledge. All scientific knowledge clearly is not Western (many non-Western regions of the world are sources of scientific knowledge), nor is all Western knowledge scientific (much ordinary knowledge common to people in the so-called Western world is not the result of scientific investigation). Strangely enough, the confusion between the two categories leads Agrawal to present the correct beliefs of Hume, Foucault and Said as representatives of scientific knowledge. More seriously, this confusion makes comparison impossible, due to the extreme vagueness of the term 'Western knowledge'. (Is my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow part of 'Western knowledge'? Does such knowledge include the corect beliefs of a Hong Kong scientist, or the true justified beliefs of a Moorish merchant in France?) Moreover, Agrawal, repeatedly confuses scientific knowledge with the technical applications of science. He notes the penetration of science-based, technical applications into everyday 'life in the West', and concludes from this that indigenous knowledge cannot be distinguished from scientific knowledge in its specific attention to the 'immediate and concrete necessities of people's daily livelihoods'. However, I believe that we should distinguish between the motivating factors for the development of knowledge and those underlying the application of that knowledge. 1 of 18 5/1/2004 10:11 AM IK Monitor 4(1) Reactions to Agrawal http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/4-1/articles/agrawal.html No one would dispute the fact that findings which emerge from one area of research are frequently applied in new, often unrelated, areas. Hence, the various applications of indigenous and scientific knowledge cannot serve as distinguishing marks between the two. However, the motivation behind the development of these two sorts of knowledge does represent a distinction between them--interestingly, precisely in terms of the concrete life context alluded to by Agrawal. For example, the development of iatrobotanical knowledge by Canadian West Coast indigenous peoples (e.g., on Vancouver Island's Clayoquot Sound) is clearly motivated by 'immediate and concrete necessities', while the development of certain aspects of knowledge concerned with particle physics by Canadian West Coast scientists (at Vancouver's TRIUMF facilities) is not. Agrawal also questions the distinctive significance of the rootedness of indigenous knowledge in specific local contexts or environments, by comparing it--somewhat incongruously--with the dependence of scientific findings on the contexts of scientific practice. It is quite true that sociology of science ('Strong Programme') and certain strands of the philosophy of science have proposed that particular scientific claims are explicable by means of factors like historically specific beliefs and equipment. These various enabling factors can be seen as the 'environment' that made possible certain findings. There is, however, a qualitative difference between the dependence of these scientific findings on their 'environment' and the dependence of indigenous knowledge on its 'environment'. Physicists' knowledge of particle physics is the result of focusing on certain discipline-internal questions within their subculture and microenvironment, and is largely independent of the broader culture and background of the practitioner. A particle physicist may be a Muslim from Indonesia or a Mormon from Utah. The iatrobotanical knowledge of the Canadian West Coast Nuuchah-nulth, in contrast, developed in direct interrelationship with their traditional culture and their ancestral places. In the latter case, 'environment' encompasses the full context of lived experience, as qualified by the broader culture and its values, and the moulding power of place. Agrawal is nonetheless quite right in his concerns regarding ex situ conservation. It is uncertain**1 whether in the long run ex situ conservation will benefit indigenous peoples. I also agree that if the well-being of economically--and politically--marginalized indigenous peoples is really of primary concern, there may be more direct ways in which their interests can be furthered. Notably, indigenous peoples might find 'a greater voice', and ultimately achieve the in situ preservation of their indigenous knowledge, if management proposals made by them on the basis of their indigenous knowledge were accorded full legitimacy in policy decisions affecting their land, resources and communities. Dr Thomas Heyd Department of Philosophy University of Victoria P.O. Box 3045 Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3P4 Fax: +1-604-721 7511. E-mail: [email protected] 2 of 18 5/1/2004 10:11 AM IK Monitor 4(1) Reactions to Agrawal http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/4-1/articles/agrawal.html Endnote **1 See also Heyd, T. (1995) 'Indigenous knowledge, emancipation and alienation', Knowledge and Policy 8(1):63-73. Dr D. Michael Warren In l980, David Brokensha, Oswald Werner and I were struggling to find a term that could replace 'traditional' in the designation 'traditional knowledge'. In our view, 'traditional' denoted the l9th- century attitudes of simple, savage and static. We wanted a term that represented the dynamic contributions of any community to problem solving, based on their own perceptions and conceptions, and the ways that they identified, categorized and classified phenomena important to them. At the same time Robert Chambers and his group at Sussex were struggling with the same issue. Independent of each other, we both came up with the term 'indigenous'. Now, 16 years later, it is clear that the term 'indigenous' has its own set of problems and misinterpretations, as it is translated into a growing array of languages, and a wide variety of academic disciplines get involved in recording knowledge systems important to them. Many of those interested in the role of indigenous knowledge in development have not had an opportunity to explore the roots of this paradigm shift in international development, or the various methodologies being tested to record these systems. These constraints are being tackled by nationals running their own centres for their own people, and controlling the use of the recorded systems in ways that they feel are necessary and appropriate. Many case studies exist that have been recorded by persons from a given community or ethnic group. These studies reflect the rich indigenous knowledge resources that have not yet been adequately recognized as contributions to global knowledge. Indigenous knowledge represents generations of creative thought and action within each individual community, as it struggles with an ever-changing set of conditions and problems. All case studies indicate that the mechanisms for changing knowledge systems at the local or ethnic level are identical to those that drive the global knowledge systems. Individual local-level creativity reflects reactions to perceived problems, as well as the incorporation of external knowledge, technologies and methodologies into the local knowledge system. Each system has its own relative strengths and weaknesses that are abundantly clear to members of the particular community. Although all of these systems exist in situ, very few have been recorded so they can be shared with the global community. Local people are in a position to define which knowledge can and should be shared with outsiders, and which specialized knowledge should remain within the local domain. An understanding of the ways that Yoruba farmers in Nigeria and Benin identify, define, categorize, classify and manage soils as an important natural resource is of great interest not only to Yoruba farmers, but to Nigerian students of soil science, and extension agents from other parts of the country working with Yoruba farmers. This is knowledge that can be--indeed has been--compared and contrasted with the categories developed by various scholars active in the academic discipline of soil science in Nigeria. They find it of interest, their students find it of interest, and many of us in Iowa also find it of interest. It is available in situ but it is also available ex situ in the documentation units and on the Internet. 3 of 18 5/1/2004 10:11 AM IK Monitor 4(1) Reactions to Agrawal http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/4-1/articles/agrawal.html Thus we are talking about a knowledge system that is now available globally. It will be clear that this is a comprehensive and sophisticated system, comparable to national and international systems of soil taxonomy. It is a contribution to global knowledge, and as such it should be available in libraries, alongside the millions of other studies by societies with written traditions which exist in ex situ form. These systems are not part of the global knowledge system until they have been recorded and made available to the global community. They are not inferior to the global system, they have just been generally unavailable. They represent contributions to global knowledge, but until they are recorded no one from outside the particular language group, local community or ethnic group will even know of them. These knowledge systems continue to be devalued in the l990s. Agrawal's presentations are very valuable. The only disappointment lies in his statements that the distinction between indigenous and global knowledge is 'ridiculous' and a 'sterile dichotomy', that ex situ storage of knowledge systems creates a mausoleum for knowledge fixed in time and space, that those of us working in this area are interested only in the 'knowledge of the marginalized poor', and that 'Western science is ... condemned'. Most of us working in this arena have been trained in the scientific method, if not in the sciences. We certainly do not condemn Western science or the development process. We are interested in seeking the universal characteristics of all knowledge systems, of providing a mechanism that will value the contributions of every community to global knowledge, and will change attitudes in such a way that nation states will begin to recognize the most important resource they have--the knowledge generated, but usually ignored, by their own citizens. What is to be recorded and made available ex situ for the citizens of the country of discovery and those of other countries, and what is to remain in situ and possibly not even recorded in print must be determined by citizens of those communities and nations. This is one of the most important roles of indigenous knowledge resource centres in the various countries. By recording knowledge, and making it available to the global community, I am confident that community-based knowledge systems will in the near future begin to be regarded as contributions to global knowledge. Then, at last, the dichotomy between indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge will indeed be regarded globally as ridiculous. Dr D. Michael Warren CIKARD 318, Curtiss Hall Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 50011 USA Tel: +1-515-2940938 Fax: +1-515-2946058 E-mail: [email protected] Dr Kate B. Showers The utility of a distinction between indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge for environmental researchers is not entirely clear. Most environmental problems took many years to develop and are the result of unimagined interactions among highly diverse factors. To analyze these problems, Western science requires 4 of 18 5/1/2004 10:11 AM IK Monitor 4(1) Reactions to Agrawal http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/4-1/articles/agrawal.html quantitative descriptions of the events and processes involved. Yet many environmental components have not been measured, which means that there are no quantitative data from which to construct a baseline. Without baseline data, calculations of rates of change are complicated and highly contentious. Without a clear baseline, it is difficult to distinguish between normal variation and an absolute change in environmental conditions. This situation is perceived as problematic in North America and Western Europe, and virtually insurmountable in the rest of the world. The complaint 'There are no data' supports the claim that in most nations environmental impact assessments cannot be implemented. This calls up the question of whether quantitative descriptions are the only--or even sufficient--forms by which to describe the environment. If they are, then the past environmental function of vast areas of the earth's surface is unknowable. If they are not, researchers should explore alternative sources of information. Local environmental knowledge and indigenous knowledge have the potential to supply accurate descriptions of visible environmental processes. When a human intervention in the landscape causes a new phenomenon, there is no indigenous knowledge available concerning its management or prevention. However, the origin and development of the phenomenon may have been observed and indigenous experimentation carried out to deal with the consequences. Archival material often provides data which support or adjust environmental information derived from local sources. Using these sources of information, the range of expected variability in the pre-disturbance environment can be described. The resulting description can help us to understand the significance of the intervention. This description also provides a basis for monitoring and remedial action. A framework for understanding human-induced environmental change using local environmental knowledge is provided by historical environmental impact assessment (HEIA). HEIA is patterned on the steps involved in an environmental impact assessment, but reconstructs the effects of past interventions in landscapes (Showers 1995/1996). HEIA favours neither Western science nor indigenous knowledge. Instead, these two systems of data collection are seen as complementary, in the sense that each has its own strengths and limitations. HEIA assumes that knowledge systems are in a constant state of change and requires that practitioners clarify what was known at different points in time. People 'back then' cannot be blamed for ignorance of what we know today. The environmental consequences of indigenous land use systems have been discussed from the early years of this century. Documents which demonstrate the sustainability of indigenous systems and the degradation resulting from European land use practices and policies in various parts of the world have not been widely disseminated. And yet these findings have been discussed at government meetings and regional and international conferences. Moreover, this documentation is a source of material for historical environmental impact assessments and the construction of historical baselines. Today the debate on the importance of indigenous knowledge and indigenous land use practices is more public than in the past. Proponents of indigenous knowledge systems remain in the minority. The content of the debate, however, has been remarkably constant: economic necessity vs. local traditions and cultural continuity. But the tide may be turning. The effectiveness of the short-term technical solutions once thought to be so effective have had unforeseen negative consequences in the long term. Historical environmental impact assessments facilitate the examination of these long-term effects, and can be used to develop new measures based on indigenous knowledge. 5 of 18 5/1/2004 10:11 AM IK Monitor 4(1) Reactions to Agrawal http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/4-1/articles/agrawal.html The collection and use of indigenous and local environmental knowledge in environmental research should not denature the knowledge systems. Both indigenous knowledge and Western science are an attempt to characterize and understand the 'universe' of a given society. At any given point in time that knowledge represents a 'best estimate', which will be modified when further evidence is obtained. This means that both knowledge systems are in a constant state of evolution. Both systems have also been developed for their own 'universe', and thus are characterized by areas of greater and lesser expertise. While environmental problems require a general understanding, many environmental questions depend upon non-generalizeable site-specific details. This is where indigenous knowledge can make a great contribution. Both indigenous and local environmental knowledge have the potential to advance people's understanding of the environment in all societies. Dr Kate B. Showers African Studies Center Boston University 270 Bay State Road Boston, MA 02215 USA. References Showers, K. (1996) 'Soil erosion in the Kingdom of Lesotho and development of historical environmental impact assessment', Ecological Applications forthcoming. Showers, K. (1995) Gully erosion in Lesotho and the development of historical environmental impact assessment. Boston University African Studies Center Working Paper No. 201. Boston: Boston University. Dr R.C. Serrano I agree with Agrawal that indigenous knowledge should not be distinguished from Western or scientific knowledge. A major characteristic of indigenous knowledge is the fact that it has evolved over a considerable period of time, and that it is identified with a given culture or society. According to this definition, we can say that indigenous knowledge systems and practices must exist among Western cultures, just as in other societies, in particular among so-called indigenous peoples (IPS). The distinction between indigenous knowledge and Western knowledge is misleading, as is the designation of Western knowledge as 'scientific', which implies that indigenous knowledge is 'unscientific'. The findings of research carried out in the Philippines show that there is scientific significance in many of the knowledge systems and practices of our peoples. While they may not be as elaborate or as eloquently expressed as those encountered in formal science, this does not mean that IK and IK practices are not scientific. In fact, interesting partnerships are now being established between scientists and indigenous farmers, in order to learn from each other and promote fruitful joint undertakings, for example, in the areas of agriculture and natural resources management. 6 of 18 5/1/2004 10:11 AM IK Monitor 4(1) Reactions to Agrawal http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/4-1/articles/agrawal.html There is evidence of a worldwide snowball effect, as interest in the documentation and preservation of indigenous knowledge systems increases. It must be said that it was not the IPs themselves who conceived the idea of studying their knowledge systems, nor did they attempt to share their knowledge with outsiders. In fact, over the years, these knowledge systems and practices have come under threat through the interference of outside dominant cultures. While it is logical to want to preserve and document these IK systems and practices, there is a protocol that must be followed by those involved in the electronic documentation of such information. In the first place, they must secure the consent of the indigenous peoples to whom this intellectual property belongs. This is an urgent issue, one that must be settled in an international forum consisting of representatives of IPs, the scientists involved in the documentation of IK, and those responsible for policy and legislation. Like scientific discoveries and inventions, which are usually patented or copyrighted, indigenous knowledge systems can and should be treated as someone's property. Outsiders are not free to make use of them as they see fit; appropriate permission should be secured and due arrangement made with the owners, whether a small group, a community or a society. While regional and global development are noble motives, intellectual property rights must be duly respected, especially in the light of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT). The owners' permission should be requested beforehand, and where required, royalties or a remuneration of some kind should be paid. I also agree with Agrawal that if indigenous peoples are to be able to preserve and apply their knowledge systems and practices, governments must respect their culture, creating a political atmosphere in which they have sufficient control over their land and resources, and the freedom to decide how and by whom their knowledge is used. Dr R.C. Serrano PHIRCSDIK P.O. Box 425 Paseo De Valmayor 4030 Los Banos Laguna The Philippines Dr Ladi Semali Dr Agrawal's questions are important and relevant to me as an IK theorist and an educator of indigenous peoples. While teaching in post-independent Tanzania, I struggled like many teachers in African schools to develop relevant and meaningful lessons which met the local needs of students, drawing on examples of the wisdom and history of local people, parents, and grandparents. The distinction between indigenous/African and Western/European education was clear. The dichotomy between these knowledge systems did not glorify the similarities. On the contrary, Africans had to find a way to accommodate and make sense of both systems, and as a result the two competed for attention. As an educator, I am on the front line of the production and reproduction of knowledge in classrooms. Today the 'rhetoric' of indigenous knowledge is important, because it encourages a discussion that has been 7 of 18 5/1/2004 10:11 AM IK Monitor 4(1) Reactions to Agrawal http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/4-1/articles/agrawal.html suppressed for many years by dominant European-centred educational systems. IK 'rhetoric' also stimulates the development of relevant curricula in the area of indigenous knowledge. When I say that curriculum development is concerned with the production of knowledge, I realize that this is a view which goes beyond traditional notions of curriculum as simply a course of study, a compilation of data to be learnt. In the sense I mean here, a curriculum devoted to indigenous knowledge encompasses not only epistemological questions related to both the production and consumption of knowledge, but also the relationship between culture and what is defined as successful learning, the competition between all forms of knowledge production, and the purpose of education itself. I suggest that curriculum studies/curriculum development should devote attention to the process involved in the generation and validation of curricular content, and the fact that some groups of people benefit from the 'certification' of certain forms of knowledge, while other groups do not. In an age of rapid change, marked by dramatic conflict between the collective good and individual rights, the discussion on values is becoming an increasingly complex and daunting affair. No knowledge system can exist in a cultural, economic or political vacuum! On the understanding that power relations cannot be separated from knowledge production, theorists must take seriously indigenous--as opposed to Western-- forms of knowledge, avoiding the false distinction between school and community. For example, Tanzanian schools inherited from the British a colonial system of education, which devalued local knowledge systems as 'primitive', and taught students to believe that they were inferior and thus should be satisfied with subservient roles in society**1. This orientation also encouraged students to look outside the community for solutions to problems that were endemic among indigenous peoples--from food and medicine to irrigation systems, from insecticides to mouse traps. Following independence, this orientation had to be done away with if the new nation was to become self-reliant. Nyerere**2 points to the contrast between indigenous (local/traditional) and colonial (Western/European) knowledge systems, which in effect represent two separate realities. On the one hand, African students are immersed from birth in a cultural setting that values the authority of elders and emphasizes practical knowledge. On the other hand, they are schooled in a system in which teachers do little to make classroom lessons relevant to life in African village communities, and in which the authority of elders is devalued and undermined. Is it not ridiculous to deny that these are two separate realities? Since Nyerere's day, this dilemma has not only remained unresolved, it has become further entrenched in the system of schooling. It is the crux of local and global debates about the value of schooling in the context of dissipating ethnic and cultural conflict, and at the heart of the discussion about the possibilities for indigenous communities to participate effectively in their own education programmes. The question reflects the dilemmas created by the concept of indigenous knowledge and the way it competes with other knowledge systems. It makes perfect sense for me as an educator to distinguish indigenous knowledge as a category when examining educational systems as pedagogical sites of knowledge production. This category is made possible by identifying the producers of knowledge as distinct actors. The knowledge so produced is neither neutral nor universal. Even though the literature is imprecise when it comes to defining IK in all the contexts within which it is produced, the grassroots research emerging from the agricultural sciences, education, geography and the natural sciences all point to a new awareness and appreciation of local knowledge. African knowledge and its incorporation into the solution of ecological problems is a move away from the colonial legacy, which looks outside Africa to the countries of Europe and North America for solutions to problems endemic to local communities. In this new orientation, which places a high value on local knowledge, indigenous education is characterized as local, i.e., circumscribed by local history, environment, language and traditions, as well as by African culture. The dilemmas we face in defining IK are central to the post-colonial debate on the origins of knowledge and the manner in which it is produced, archived and retrieved. Advocates of indigenous knowledge, far from assuming that the knowledge of the individual defines nature for 8 of 18 5/1/2004 10:11 AM IK Monitor 4(1) Reactions to Agrawal http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/4-1/articles/agrawal.html all time, are the ones who have finally recognized that the distinction has in fact been historically created by the West, and is not rooted in ahistorical traits of humankind. Ladi Semali Director of ICIK The Pennsylvania State University 254 Chambers Building University Park PA 16802 USA Tel: +1-814-865 6565 Fax: +1-814-863 7602 E-mail: [email protected] Endnotes **1 M. Bray, P.B. Clarke, D. Stephens (1986) Education and society in Africa. London: Edward Arnold. **2 J.K. Nyerere (1968) 'Education for Self-Reliance,' pp. 278 in Freedom and Socialism/Uhuru na Ujamaa: Essays on Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press. How to convert the indigenous knowledge debate into something positive .... or how we can have our cake and eat it too. Dr I.U. Köhler-Rollefson Indigenous knowledge has been 'in' for several years now, as witness publications like the Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, a network of research centres and data banks, and much more. Now we find Agrawal taking us to task for all this. In his articles**1 he blasts us for appropriating this knowledge and paints a hopeless picture of the future of indigenous peoples. In many ways he is right on track, and the things he has said needed to be said. The widely propagated paradigm that it is to everyone's benefit to feed knowledge about everything from indigenous plant use to indigenous animal breeds into data banks and then make them accessible to 'all' (i.e., those of us in the developed world who have access to the Internet), is touchingly naive. As Arun Agrawal rightly points out, indigenous knowledge is highly varied and location-specific. What good it is to a Vietnamese farmer to know what his Peruvian colleague is doing is beyond me. Similarly, how the setting up of a data bank on animal genetic resources will actually save a single threatened livestock breed has yet to be explained. It seems that information agglomeration has evolved into a neat figleaf to camouflage our impotence in the face of seemingly unsurmountable problems. Good for scholars, but it is action and practical involvement at the grassroots level that are required to solve the problems of the planet. This brings us right to the central point. Arun Agrawal focuses on the problematics of the IK concept--or the lack of it. However, it seems to me that by asserting that indigenous and 'western' or 'scientific' knowledge have been 9 of 18 5/1/2004 10:11 AM IK Monitor 4(1) Reactions to Agrawal http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/4-1/articles/agrawal.html depicted as opposites, he is setting up a strawman for subsequent dismantling. Indigenous knowledge is the practical knowledge and experience of people who still have a direct link to the 'soil' and their immediate environment. This is why contrasting indigenous and Western knowledge is moot; it is like comparing apples with oranges. For one thing, it implies that there is no indigenous knowledge in Western cultures, and that non-Western cultures have no scientific or 'book' knowledge. Where in such a classification system would we place the kitchen garden skills of German farmwomen or ayurvedic medicine and acupuncture? What term indigenous knowledge usually signifies is exotic practical knowledge, i.e., practical knowledge encountered in cultures not our own. It is significant that the term indigenous knowledge was coined by social scientists, i.e., anthropologists who were apparently astounded that the people they were dealing with knew many things they themselves had never been exposed to, such as practical knowledge about the earth and the environment, and were able to make plants and animals grow and flourish. As good anthropologists they projected this aspect of traditional cultures, and in the process it became surrounded by a certain mystique. By contrast, graduates of practical disciplines such as agriculture and veterinary medicine have always been aware of the existence of a vast body of local knowledge and folk wisdom. However, they have rarely appreciated it, viewing it more as something to be eradicated. As a rule, there is nothing mystical about indigenous knowledge; it may appear so because it entails the honing of sensory skills that are not exercised in the course of academic study; they therefore degenerate or never develop in the first place. Indigenous knowledge is gained by experience, practical immersion, and often back-breakingly hard work, within a context of repetitive boredom. It is a prerequisite for survival for the majority of the world's rural population; it is learned by doing, not by reading or following a course. It is knowledge that is subject to permanent testing and refinement, and must constantly prove its worth. All this sets it apart from book knowledge which may just sit there for hundreds of years without ever being put into practice. Thus practical knowledge is a sine qua non for anyone who lives off the land. With practical knowledge alone a farmer can survive, whereas mere book knowledge will not enable anyone to grow crops or raise livestock. This is why indigenous knowledge will always be fundamental to rural development, and why any effort to dispense with it will fail. The problems arise when people with book knowledge think that they know it all--a situation which is perpetuated by universities and institutions of higher learning. If I am getting somewhat hot under the collar over this, it is probably because of my recent experiences in the context of a camel husbandry development project for pastoralists in India. The aim was to find ways to better the economic situation of the traditional pastoralists, and at one point we hit on the brilliant idea of availing ourselves of the services of a conventionally trained veterinary doctor who could help us to improve the health of the animals. A bitter disappointment awaited us. The yawning gap between the representatives of academe and the protagonists of indigenous knowledge became obvious as soon as they set eyes on one another. The first comments made by one vet on seeing a migratory camel herd were predictable: 'Why are these people keeping their camels in an open field? Are they not giving them any housing?', followed by 'These people are not giving their animals a balanced feed. If they don't know how to calculate a ration for their camels, how can we help them?' Little did the vets know that the Raikas distinguish some one hundred different forage plants; they know the different effects they produce in terms of milk yield, and in fact base their migrations on the seasonal availability of such plants. The vets themselves lacked the necessary training to identify even one of the crop plants grown in the area. Another vet tried to mesmerize me by rattling off long lists of Latin plants names (getting them all wrong), even though he could not tell a lentil from a linseed. This is not an exaggeration. We had to stop bringing in the academics, because they proved too much of an embarrassment to the project. 10 of 18 5/1/2004 10:11 AM