<![CDATA[This article argues that development conflicts in Indonesia cannot be adequately understood if approached solely as issues of public policy, political economy, or administrative governance. Beneath these conflicts operates a more fundamental assumption: a linear-progressive conception of time treated as a universal framework within modern development paradigms. Using a philosophical-qualitative approach, the article examines development as a crisis of temporality—namely, the failure to recognize the plurality of social, ecological, and cultural temporalities embedded in lived realities. Through a comparative analysis of Indian and Chinese philosophies of time, the article shows that time is not merely a technical parameter but a structure of meaning that binds human action to limits, rhythms, and intergenerational responsibility. Indian cyclical cosmology and the Daoist notion of natural rhythm offer a normative critique of the dominant logics of acceleration, intervention, and limitless growth in modern development. Drawing on the perspective of chronopolitics, the article further explains how the modern state governs society through temporal instruments—deadlines, targets, and future-oriented narratives—that frequently clash with local temporalities. Read against development cases in Indonesia, particularly agrarian and ecological conflicts in Papua and other regions, these tensions appear as part of a broader structural pattern across the Global South. The article concludes that sustainable development requires an ethical reorientation that recognizes temporal plurality as a normative variable rather than a technical obstacle, reframing development not primarily as a matter of efficiency and growth, but as a question of whose time counts and for whom development is carried out.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
