-----

This is a profound and densely researched historical work. Geoffrey Robinson's The Dark Side of Paradise: Political Conflict and Violence in Modern Bali is widely considered a seminal text in the field of Southeast Asian studies. By providing the full text of the book (or a very substantial portion of it), you have given me access to a detailed argument that fundamentally challenges the romanticized image of Bali that dominates global consciousness.

Here are my thoughts on the text, structured around its core arguments, historiographical contributions, and historical analysis.

1. Deconstructing the "Bali Myth"

The overarching thesis of the book is a direct rebuttal to what Robinson calls the "Bali Myth." For decades, Western anthropology (notably the work of Clifford and Hildred Geertz) and colonial policy portrayed Bali as a unique, apolitical paradise where culture and religion superseded politics. Robinson argues this was not an inherent truth but a political construct.

Colonial Engineering: He argues that the Dutch colonial administration intentionally "restored tradition" (a policy of Baliseering) in the 1920s and 30s to maintain social control and prevent nationalism. By freezing Balinese society in a "feudal" state, they could use local aristocrats to police the population, masking economic exploitation and political inequality.

The Function of the Myth: This image served the Dutch, the post-colonial Indonesian government, and the tourism industry. It allowed them to ignore or suppress evidence of class conflict, caste oppression, and political violence. Robinson posits that this myth is dangerous because it obscures the real power dynamics and injustices faced by ordinary Balinese.

2. The Role of the State and Violence

A significant portion of the book is theoretical, applying a "bring the state back in" framework (drawing on scholars like Theda Skocpol) to Balinese history. Robinson argues that political conflict in Bali cannot be understood through culture alone but must be viewed through the lens of state power.

Strong State = Apparent Harmony: Periods of strong central state authority (Dutch colonial rule, Japanese occupation) were characterized by an outward appearance of order (rust en orde), but this often suppressed deep-seated tensions rather than resolving them.

Weak State = Violent Conflict: Conversely, periods when central authority collapsed or fractured (the National Revolution 1945–1949, the Sukarno era 1950–1965) saw the eruption of chronic political violence.

The 1965 Massacre: Robinson contends that the massacre of 1965–66 was not a spontaneous "cultural frenzy" or a result of "Balinese character," as often claimed by observers. Instead, it was a politically orchestrated campaign by the military and the PNI (Indonesian Nationalist Party), utilizing vigilante groups and leveraging anti-communist rhetoric to eliminate the PKI (Communist Party) and its supporters.

3. Class, Caste, and Land Reform

Robinson strongly critiques anthropological interpretations that view political parties in Bali (like the PNI vs. PKI) merely as proxies for traditional clan or caste rivalries.

Economic Drivers: He provides evidence that by the 1960s, political affiliation in Bali had become increasingly defined by class interests, specifically regarding land ownership and land reform.

Land Reform: The aggressive push for land reform by the PKI and its peasant organization (BTI) in the early 1960s threatened the landed aristocracy and the PNI's base. Robinson argues this economic threat created the "political fuse" that led to the violence in 1965.

Caste vs. Class: While caste remains important, Robinson argues that in the final years of the Old Order, economic interests and class position were becoming more salient drivers of conflict than traditional social status.

4. The 1965 Coup and U.S. Involvement

One of the most striking sections of the text is the detailed account of the 1965 coup and the subsequent massacres. Robinson challenges the official narrative that the PKI was the sole aggressor.

The Countercoup: He presents evidence suggesting the Suharto-led countercoup was facilitated by foreign powers, specifically the United States.

U.S. Complicity: The text outlines how U.S. policy provided diplomatic cover, financial aid, and intelligence to the Indonesian military to ensure the destruction of the PKI. Robinson cites declassified documents to suggest the U.S. knew about and tacitly approved of the violence.

The Human Cost: The text details the horrific scale of the violence, estimating 80,000 deaths in Bali alone. Robinson describes how cultural and religious rhetoric (e.g., "purification," "exorcism") was used to justify the killings, turning a political purge into a perceived moral duty for many participants.

5. Historiographical Contribution

The book is a significant piece of historical revisionism.

Archival Rigor: Robinson utilizes a vast array of sources—Dutch colonial archives, Indonesian military records, and interviews—that were largely inaccessible or ignored by previous anthropological studies.

Critique of Anthropology: By challenging the Geertzian paradigm, Robinson forces a re-evaluation of how we study non-Western societies. He argues that ignoring political history in favor of cultural analysis leads to a distorted understanding of power and inequality.

Final Thoughts

This text is a heavy, sobering read that demands a re-evaluation of "paradise." It successfully argues that Bali's history is not one of timeless harmony but of continuous political struggle, economic exploitation, and state violence.

Strengths: The depth of archival research is impressive. The argument linking the 1965 massacres to land reform and class conflict provides a materialist explanation that is often missing from cultural analyses.

Complexity: The book is dense with names, dates, and local political factions (Puri rivalries, specific bupati, etc.), which can make it challenging for a general reader, but this detail is necessary for the historical argument.

Relevance: The book remains highly relevant today, particularly regarding the legacy of the 1965 trauma in Indonesia and the ongoing use of "tradition" as a tool for political control.

It is a powerful testament to the importance of critical history—uncovering the "dark side" of paradise to understand the reality of the people living there. If you are studying Southeast Asian history, political science, or anthropology, this text is essential reading. If you are interested in the history of political violence and state power, it offers a compelling case study on how state weakness and external intervention can fuel catastrophe.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5838799&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310752#49698452)