Sydney and Canberra from 1972 and a Backstory

I have been asked, too many times, to write something about my time at the ANU in Asian studies, and I have always declined.Before I came to the ANU in 1991, first on secondment and then from 1995 until 2007 on a continuing appointment, I had taught for nearly two decades in the history department at the University of Sydney.My years at Sydney were formative in the way I thought about history and the kind of history I wanted to write.I have reconsidered my earlier disinclination to contribute to ANU "memories" and here offer a backstory that might illustrate how personal interests and circumstances danced together while I tried to figure out which one should take the lead.The academic departments in the two institutions were very different.At Sydney, European, Australian, and American history dominated the course offerings, and the Europeanists had pressed their advantage for many years to keep Asian history out of the firstyear offerings so they could generate student numbers in upper-year courses, especially in honours.At the ANU, Asia was the constant, disciplines were the variables.Academic units concentrated on Asia, and proficiency in an Asian language was required for the undergraduate degree.At Sydney, discipline was the constant.The Euro-historians were critical of overstaffing for Asian history.The Commonwealth still reigned, sort of, and there were four historians of India.One specialised in Christian India, and the person hired to teach Mogul history had refused.What gave Asian history its place was administrative convenience rather than geopolitical framework or intellectual tradition. 1By contrast, in the Research School of Asian and Pacific Studies and the Faculty of Asian Studies at the ANU, the study of Asia was generic.Academic units were dedicated to research and teaching about Asia; in some disciplines proficiency