I can answer only for Southeast Asia (SEA), and even then without full certainty as I don’t think anyone has ever actually studied the underrepresentation of Southeast Asian studies. Closest I have found is discussion of the challenges inherent in studying SEA. Let me first give an overview of the history of SEA studies before presenting my views. This will be quite a broad overview as it’s a very diverse region.

PRE 1940s

So let’s start with the colonial era and the kind of research going on at that time. There were Europeans engaged in the intense study of their colonial possessions. A good example is Thomas Stamford Raffles, an officer of the East India Company who, during his time in Java (1813-1814), enthusiastically studied the island’s flora and fauna, culture and history.

While there was genuine interest and enthusiasm from European scholars, there was also a belief that information about the colonies could give one empire an advantage over others. Botany was of particular interest in this regard - for example, the British and French tried their utmost to learn the secret of nutmeg cultivation, while the Dutch tried their utmost to keep it from them. Another example: experiments were carried out to ascertain the viability of valuable plant species such as rubber and coffee in the colonies.

Thus, there was generally no cross-border study unless engaged in espionage. The Dutch would study the Indies, the British studied Malaya and so forth.

In other words, while there was a vague idea of SEA, there was essentially no such thing as ‘Southeast Asian’ studies.

1940s to 1970: WHAT IS SEA?

This period sees the beginnings of Southeast Asian Studies, along with its early struggles.

The 1940s saw the rise of ‘area studies’ in America, in which multiple disciplines (history, political science, languages, anthropology etc.) would come together and study a region from different perspectives. America’s involvement in WW2 led to a demand for courses on SEA for military personnel, on the assumption that Americans were going to be fighting the Japanese in SEA. American military interest in the area led to the founding of Southeast Asian Studies programmes at institutions like Yale University, and the conversion of the East Indies Institute of America to the Southeast Asia Institute.

The fact that Southeast Asian Studies were being driven by military necessity neatly sidestepped the tricky question of what exactly SEA was. While there was a rough area that was called… well, a bunch of names from Southeast Asia to South East Asia to South-East Asia to Southeastern Asia and more besides, nobody quite knew where its borders were. The area was roughly defined as ‘not India and not China’ as opposed to what it was, and the issue of what made SEA SEA would be debated for decades.

At this time, however, SEA boundaries were clear - they were wherever the military needed them to be. In this, America was guided by negotiations with the British on the need for a Southeast Asia Command that would be responsible for pushing the Japanese out of SEA. The British colonies (or ex-British colonies, after the Japanese had come storming in) of Malaya, Singapore and Burma were undoubtedly part of its responsibility. So were the Dutch (now Japanese) East Indies. Chiang Kaishek wanted responsibility over Indochina, so the Allies fudged the issue and declared that, basically, both parties could operate in Indochina in consultation with each other. These territories became the responsibility of the South East Asia Command, or SEAC (which the Americans sniggeringly dubbed ‘Save England’s Asian Colonies’ when the British were out of earshot).

After WW2, SEAC’s territories continued to be the core of SEA, but where its boundaries lay continued to be debated. SEA is indeed a very diverse region with nothing much to bind it together. Scholars who were roped into Southeast Asia Studies programmes were quite clear about this, and for a long while a hot topic in the SEA academic community was whether the Philippines and Ceylon should also be considered part of SEA.

SEA itself, however, was helping to solidify boundaries. In the 1950s and 60s, various SEA nations achieved independence and started casting around for allies. They found that they did have stuff in common - a desire to align themselves more with America than the Soviet Union, an interest in fighting communism, a need for trade treaties, and a desire to have forums for discussion of regional issues. This led to the formation of ASA (Association of Southeast Asia) in 1961, with Thailand, the Philippines and the Federation of Malaya as members. In 1967, ASA was dissolved and replaced by ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), composed of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines. ASEAN would eventually grow to encompass 10 of the 11 countries which are today recognised as SEA, adding Brunei, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar (Burma) by 1999.

Thus, by around 1970, the academic debate over SEA’s boundaries was no longer relevant. Political events and the actions of the SEA nations themselves had settled it. Scholars of one part of SEA or another accepted that they were ‘Southeast Asianists’, while still being very clear that the region was extremely diverse and they only studied a small part of it. This continues till today.

1940s to 1970: WHO WAS STUDYING SEA?

At this time there were three centres of SEA studies.

The traditional home of SEA studies was, ironically, Europe. European institutions that offered courses in SEA Studies had originally turned out colonial administrators, and after SEA gained independence there were still several very fine scholars of the region based in Europe.

As the colonies gained independence, Australian universities also began to offer courses in SEA studies. Australia’s proximity to the region meant a lot of contact and communication with SEA. Large numbers of Australians had fought in SEA during WW2, for example. There were students and immigrants from Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. Inter-country diplomatic relations and trade agreements were reported on, resulting in top-of-mind recall for the average Australian. Studying SEA meant studying a neighbour, not some faraway exotic land.

America, too, had some excellent courses in SEA Studies - Yale University’s SEA Studies department was extremely well regarded. There was an interest in the ever-increasing parts of the world America found itself involved in. Charle Keyes, founding director of the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Washington, recalls an increased demand for SEA Studies when the Vietnam War draft was introduced - Americans were understandably interested in learning about a country in which they or their friends or family members might be sent to fight in. He also recalls, however, arriving in 1965 and finding just 3 faculty members teaching Southeast Asian anthropology, history and political science. They were lucky if they got 10 students between them.

Conspicuously absent from the list is SEA itself. Looking at SEA history in particular, there was a startling lack of scholars from SEA itself studying SEA history. This was partly down to the situation SEA’s newly independent nations found themselves in - SEA needed engineers, architects, urban planners, agricultural specialists. It needed students of political science, economics, nursing and medicine. It certainly did not need historians and archaeologists, thus most SEAsians who wanted to study SEA opted for more ‘useful’ subjects.

To make matters worse, as with many subjects, English was (and still is) the language of SEA studies. English is what scholars publish in, is the language of conferences, is how academics from different countries communicate. A scholar of SEA thus needs to be proficient in 2 or 3 languages - his mother tongue, the language of whatever time period and place he is studying, and English. In some cases, proficiency in another language is required - the language of a trade and diplomatic partner. For instance, much information about Maritime SEA is scattered across Chinese records, so proficiency in Chinese is required to hunt this information down and interpret it.

For a citizen of a newly independent, still developing nation, this was just too much.

(Continued in reply)