Documenting their experiences of running the Academic Bridge Programme at Ashoka University, Neerav Dwivedi and Jyotirmoy Talukdar deliberate upon creating a democratic space in a multilingual classroom. They dwell on everyday pedagogic processes and convert them to potential practices to challenge hierarchies. A simple act of asking a question in class is often marked with a strain of apology.
A few key observations of the methods that stood out for me are the unconventional ways to engage students in the classroom. Laxmirambhai starts with a story instead of teaching straight from the syllabus. Games can break the monotony of a classroom, making everyone participate. With some rules, playing games using some concepts can lead to real education. ‘Games are a form of true education,’ says Gijubhai.
In particular, this review remains faultily quiet about the fascinating analyses presented in the book on the prolonged (nineteenth- and twentieth-century) history of child marriage in India and its differential regional framings within the national universe; the ebb and flow of social reform in colonial and post-Independence India swirling around the woes of child brides and child widows, and the intermittent engagement of feminist research and action with the practice of child marriage.
The frontages of the houses were beautifully adorned, with colonial influences evident in columns, pediments, capitals, arches, and cast-iron grilles. Intricately carved zarookhas (projected balconies) integrated indigenous architectural elements. Each floor of the façade featured contrasting designs, and houses—particularly in Siddhpur—were painted in varying pastel shades to break visual monotony. Raised on a high plinth, the main door was accessed via a short flight of stairs, not unlike a stoop.
That is why, when Gokhale says, ‘You spoke of the university as a liberal space. My experience of teaching was different—it was not a liberal space at all. My problem is that the educational system, as it operates in many parts of this country, is extremely feudal,’ it shows the hurdles on the way to freedom. The intolerant state at the top of the power pyramid is safely ensconced in the middle of little tyrannies operating at various levels.
More than a scholarly revelation, the reintroduction of Hafeezuddin Ahmad’s manuscript calls for an ethical reckoning with the historiography of Delhi. The literary fame and scholarly prestige enjoyed by figures such as Sir Syed must now be revisited in light of the sources they used—and possibly co-opted.