This study examines the emergence and evolution of the history discipline as a profession in Malaysia between the 1960s and 1990s. The study is concerned with the British colonial roots, the study and teaching of Malaysian history in the local universities, the writings of prominent local historians, local history journals, and contestations over Eurocentric versus Malay-centric writing of Malaysian history. It also aims to discuss and formulate autonomous history writing which is an alternative and critical part of colonial and postcolonial historical studies. The discipline of history is analysed through concepts and theories in the field of knowledge production such as intellectual imperialism, academic dependency, Eurocentrism, and Orientalism. The study employs various qualitative research techniques such as historiography, textual studies, and bibliometric analysis. It argues that the colonial histories of Malaysia were powerful until the 1980s. Historians and scholars like John R. Smail and Syed Hussein Alatas question the themes, perspectives, and concepts of colonial histories at the beginning of Malaysian decolonization. The proponents of autonomous history writing attempted to link their research and thinking to local problems and issues. They look at the history of the Malays from a local point of view. The discipline began to be professionalised and institutionalised in the 1950s. Modern historical studies focus on Malaysia’s socio-economic and political history in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They adopt a Peninsular Malaysia-centric approach to Malaysian history. The historiography of Sabah and Sarawak remained neglected and minimal from the 1960s to the 1990s. The empirical and case studies outnumber the theoretical and comparative studies in the discipline. The study finally highlights the significance of historiographical studies in solving the main problems and challenges in writing Malaysian history.