Members Interview: AUSTERLITZ

[dexter]

You are a bit similar to me. I unleashed my interest in history by making a compromise....I made it one of my main hobbies.

History based career is very tough one to orient after you have commited to something else in your studies.

You can still study history while you work your engineering career. What you signed up for only becomes a real problem if all your passion is sapped for it. It need not be total lost cause simply because you have a bigger passion now (that you can dedicate your quality free time to)....given you still got solid passion for engineering too right?

Thanks man.
Yes I love Engineering thats why I preferred it over economics or medical.
My interest in history developed when I first study about Mughals and battle of panipat in 7TH grade.
Since then I've read tons of books, articles on internets, watched documentries but my thirst for more never ends.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

@AUSTERLITZ
I really enjoy your threads.
I just completed my engineering and now I realise that im more intersted in history than engineering.
I really want to study history but at the same time I don't want to waste my engineering career.
So what is your opinion? (PDF members too)

I know the feeling,i wasted 3 years in biochem before i realised i didn't want it.But it was very painful.In south asian countries social expectations on ur education and need to 'get a job' are very important.I only managed because of family support and because i didn't have any financial needs .I would say only switch if -
1.You don't like engineering at all,u feel like its a burden.If u like engineering don't leave,its a great line of study with practical applications.
2.You have family support and no immediate financial needs.
3.You don't want to get married anytime soon(because history is long process and without job income u are not eligible for marriage in our societies)
4.There is actual scope for advancement down the line in history in your region/country if u stick to it.

Otherwise pursue history as a leisuretime activity,and engineering for ur income.

 

[dexter]

I know the feeling,i wasted 3 years in biochem before i realised i didn't want it.But it was very painful.In south asian countries social expectations on ur education and need to 'get a job' are very important.I only managed because of family support and because i didn't have any financial needs .I would say only switch if -
1.You don't like engineering at all,u feel like its a burden.If u like engineering don't leave,its a great line of study with practical applications.
2.You have family support and no immediate financial needs.
3.You don't want to get married anytime soon(because history is long process and without job income u are not eligible for marriage in our societies)
4.There is actual scope for advancement down the line in history in your region/country if u stick to it.

Otherwise pursue history as a leisuretime activity,and engineering for ur income.

Thankyou,
Im satisfied for making engineering as my career and i have no regrets i was just asking for opinion in case there are some possiblities to study both at a time but I agree with you, our society is too much different from western society and we have to think of our family before making any decisions.
Somtimes you have to make choices and face reality specially when you have limited options.
Anyways thanks alot for your kind and useful comments.

 

[Deidara]

Thankyou,
Im satisfied for making engineering as my career and i have no regrets i was just asking for opinion in case there are some possiblities to study both at a time but I agree with you, our society is too much different from western society and we have to think of our family before making any decisions.
Somtimes you have to make choices and face reality specially when you have limited options.
Anyways thanks alot for your kind and useful comments.

Dude if history is your first love then go for it will all your heart. If we say engg is applying knowledge to do things, then the "do" is very important. If you dont really want to "do" engg because you have something better in mind then drop this line that's all about initiative and drive.
Also being a first rate historian is about reading all the source material. You cant settle for second hand knowledge. You have to see for yourself how historians came to know what they tell us. Best is to study history at a western university.

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

Nice knowing you Austerlitz. Yep you are well informed at such an age. All the best for the future.

 

[Nilgiri]

Next one is a Pakistani professional, very excited for the next interview.

@Green Arrow ,

Buddy, no pressure, but any rough time we can expect this next one by?

 

[WAJsal]

Buddy, no pressure, but any rough time we can expect this next one by?

20th of this month, if we get it done before the deadline i'll post it. Well it's not really a deadline.

 

[Salik]

@AUSTERLITZ sir as you said British rule made subcontinent politically and socially progressive. The question is, part of the world which was not under British rule, is less progressive today? The answer is no. The fact is British rule is over-rated in this regard. Indian Subcontinent would be equally progressive under Mughals as any other country under no British rule, for example Brazil.

Indian Subcontinent would also be more united under Ottoman empire. Even today as India seeks membership of OIC, if there emerges popular caliphet, India would be its important part.

The bloodshed occured during the partition, and still happening, or the Indian soldiers died in the WWII, is more than what Mughals would have done to keep India united? Mughals were not masters but were Indians as any local and were accepted here.

 

[Dash]

Nice read @AUSTERLITZ
Although I don't agree to you where you said RSS creating riots but over all it was a good read.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

@AUSTERLITZ sir as you said British rule made subcontinent politically and socially progressive. The question is, part of the world which was not under British rule, is less progressive today? The answer is no. The fact is British rule is over-rated in this regard. Indian Subcontinent would be equally progressive under Mughals as any other country under no British rule, for example Brazil.

Indian Subcontinent would also be more united under Ottoman empire. Even today as India seeks membership of OIC, if there emerges popular caliphet, India would be its important part.

The bloodshed occured during the partition, and still happening, or the Indian soldiers died in the WWII, is more than what Mughals would have done to keep India united? Mughals were not masters but were Indians as any local and were accepted here.

I disagree.Mughal rule or 'ottoman' rule would be unacceptable to the majority.Such a state even if 'tolerant' would have an islamic ethos at its core ,nor would it be democratic.The millions of hindus can't accept the domination of such a state over their homeland.The question of living under a caliphate is even more unthinkable.Just as prospect of hindu majority domination was the cause for partition,the idea of muslim minority rule is similarly a no- no for the hindu populace.There is no question that socially india was more backward before the british provided the impulse for reform,its just a hard truth.Barbaric practices like sati and others were abolished,many others toned down.Politically the british brought modern liberal democratic structure into India.There were democratic republics in ancient india ,but those were long gone - british influence in this regard can't be overlooked.They also created the judicial and civil services,the bureaucracy being the adhesive that holds a centralized state together.

 

[Salik]

I disagree.Mughal rule or 'ottoman' rule would be unacceptable to the majority.Such a state even if 'tolerant' would have an islamic ethos at its core ,nor would it be democratic.The millions of hindus can't accept the domination of such a state over their homeland.The question of living under a caliphate is even more unthinkable.Just as prospect of hindu majority domination was the cause for partition,the idea of muslim minority rule is similarly a no- no for the hindu populace.There is no question that socially india was more backward before the british provided the impulse for reform,its just a hard truth.Barbaric practices like sati and others were abolished,many others toned down.Politically the british brought modern liberal democratic structure into India.There were democratic republics in ancient india ,but those were long gone - british influence in this regard can't be overlooked.They also created the judicial and civil services,the bureaucracy being the adhesive that holds a centralized state together.

So India needs another British invasion to abolish caste system, no? As i said British role is over rated. People wanted some changes, they did bring. Did they accept certain fat being used in guns by the British? No. Many parts of subcontinent are still backward. Most of the machinery they brought was for their own benefit and working slow now.

A Muslim can be president or PM of India, it is as nominal as Mughals in India and Ottomans in the world.

A true and popular caliphate will be acceptable for everyone even for Hindus. As we say 'Hussain sub ka', i.e. truth has no monopoly.