Talk:Ramachandra Guha

Historian or not
People may also be interested in knowing how he become a famous historian, although his degrees were in economics. A brief discussion is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qx2020 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In the preface of book adaptation of Ram Guha's thesis - "The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya (Oxford India Paperbacks),1991" Guha mentions -
 * Second, I am not a historian but a sociologist trying to write history. This is a work of historical sociology, in which I am, as compared to most historians, more consciously theoretical and comparative in my approach. Here I am on slippery ground, for historians have in general a sharp scepticism of the pretensions of sociologists.
 * I recommend changing it to popular historian. 103.199.180.107 (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Any Objections? Mixmon (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, we have an IP who, drawing on their own research, feels that we can't call him a historian. On the other hand, the article says he has been a chaired professor in history and one of three Indian historians who are members of the American Historical Association. Unfortunately the weight associated with "historian" far exceeds that of "popular historian" so, with apologies, this is not going to change. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark This post was a pointy response to the classification of Vikram Sampath as a popular historian. Nonetheless, I agree with you. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)