IA&B Sept 2013 Architectural Campaign

68

REFORMING ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION

By A G Krishna Menon

Emphasising on the relevance of progressive notions required in architectural profession, its pedagogical approaches and in challenging established conventions, A G Krishna Menon’s essay explores reasons beyond and within the discipline itself and aims to benchmark a new positioning in the idea of architectural education.

A

I have structured the essay in two parts: first, to explain the meaning and significance of inducting a new pedagogy to teach architecture, and second, briefly, the structure of a new syllabus for our times.

Indian Architect & Builder - September 2013

nyone who has studied the story of architectural education in India would inevitably conclude that the protagonists were not serious about its role or relevance in contributing to the welfare of the society. That is a sad commentary on the state of the professional imagination.

Education has invariably been treated as a routine activity by its regulators, merely to produce architects to join the ranks of the profession. The indifference towards developing an appropriate educational agenda for the country becomes clearer when one realises that the educational system has hardly changed since colonial times, when the imperatives to educate Indian architects were different to what they are today. Tremendous social and economic changes have taken place in the society but its narrative appears to be silent about responding and adapting to those momentous events or showing concern for the degraded condition of the habitat which have resulted as a consequence.

What the story, in fact, is highlighting is the systemic stasis that prevails in matters related to architectural education, which has contributed in no small measure to the continued irrelevance of the profession in matters related to the habitat. While the systemic stasis is a source of some obvious problems faced by the academic community, there are other problems, of a more complex social, cultural and economic nature, which are of more serious consequence to the profession, which also remain unaddressed; for example, Schools are still geared to largely produce ‘design architects’ who aspire to serve the needs of the elite in the society. Such morally insidious characteristics of the profession are rooted in the kind of education that is imparted to students. Thus, the issues related to architectural education are critical to the profession as a whole. Nevertheless, there have been some changes in the education

scene that must be acknowledged, but these may only have exacerbated the problems; for example, the dramatic increase in the number of Schools, or the sporadic, knee-jerk attempts at reform which has left intact the original objectives of the educational enterprise. Each new generation of ‘dramatis personae’ in the story has merely replicated what it inherited, both by way of pedagogy and course content. Seen in this light, one could conclude from the narrative that architectural education in India is ripe for reform.

Most critics would agree with that diagnosis even if they differed on the prescriptions to resuscitate it: indeed there are many ways to view this complex subject. The campaign initiated by the Indian Architect & Builder, in which they have invited different experts to critically examine the issues relating to architectural education is therefore appropriate and to be welcomed. My essay is the third in the series and many of the issues I may have drawn upon have already been competently analysed and explicated by the earlier interlocutors, so there is little more that I want to add in that vein. In this essay, therefore, I will attempt to present another perspective, one based on our experience of trying to actually undertake reform by establishing an alternate School of Architecture, which I hope may yield deeper insights into the issues we are discussing.

The School, we started, was the TVB School of Habitat Studies in New Delhi (TVBSHS).

It was set up in 1990, but was prematurely shut down due to the strenuous efforts of the Council of Architecture, in 2007. This too, is part of the narrative of architectural education in India that should be evaluated.

To begin with, here is an adumbrated story of that experiment. In the 1970s, some of us who had studied in the US and the UK in the late 1960s, returned to India to

campaign

69

architectural education teach and practice, and hopefully make a difference. The late 1960s were interesting times to study in the West. Campuses were in ferment and at Columbia University, New York, where I studied, the spring semester of 1968 saw the campus transformed into a battleground. The issues being contested had to do with defining the larger role of the University, on the social and political concerns of society: the US was engaged in an unpopular war in Vietnam and the Civil Rights movement had brought to the forefront the inequities that existed in the country. The Architecture Department was at the forefront of these radical engagements that took place, focussing on issues of a more local nature. One of the precursors to the events that took place at Columbia, was the plan of the University to expand its physical infrastructure into the degraded neighbourhood of Harlem where it was located; without any concern for the welfare of the local community, students protested the self-serving elitism inherent in this proposal. The point to be noted is that greater inequities in our society have not provoked our Schools to respond with a similar twinge of conscience. Education, nevertheless, did take place during that semester at Columbia, but what I imbibed outside the classroom was of greater significance to what I did inside, which was to understand the absolute necessity and efficacy of disciplinary self-reflexivity to interrogate the status quo.

On my return, some of us who had experienced similar epiphanies during the course of our studies, gravitated together to interrogate the Indian architectural scene.

In 1974, we edited an issue on The Indian Architect for the Seminar magazine (August 1974; log on to www.india-seminar.com).

Thereafter, we formed a group, GREHA, to undertake several research projects for various institutions, including HUDCO and INTACH, which enabled us to explore a diverse range of habitat related issues.

These projects inevitably led us to confront the problems of architectural education.

In 1988, we prepared a paper for HUDCO to set up new habitat focussed Schools to tackle the enormous problems of our burgeoning cities and deteriorating rural habitats. A national seminar was held in Delhi to flesh out the ideas we had explored, which laid the foundations for establishing a privately sponsored school of architecture, the TVBSHS in 1990. In this venture the reformist ideals we had imbibed

while studying abroad in the late 1960s and the almost two decades of teaching and research we had undertaken in India after our return, conflated to create the new pedagogy and curriculum we formulated for TVBSHS, which I will discuss in this essay.

I have structured the essay in two parts: first, to explain the meaning and significance of inducting a new pedagogy to teach architecture, and second, briefly, the structure of a new syllabus for our times.

A new pedagogy A recent newspaper report stated that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) intended to seek foreign help for constructing lowcost housing in Delhi (The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, July 25, 2013). The decision was taken after the usual ‘study visit’ to USA and UK and highlighted, yet again, the inability of our administrators, architects and engineers to formulate appropriate habitat policies and designs relying on local expertise. Perhaps, it is the persistence of our colonial legacy (or the lure of a foreign trip) that encourages them to invariably seek external advice and validation to solve local habitat problems. Nevertheless, one needs to protest these processes not only because the exercise is dispiriting to the local professional, but also because such quick fix solutions fail to take into account the complex social, economic and cultural realities of the local contexts. Whatever its merits are, such strategies do not get integrated into the local building culture.

Let me explain. There are many ways to deconstruct such complex narratives of continued professional dependencies on foreign advice, but in the context of the imperatives of architectural education, it highlights the need to critically examine the relationship between architectural pedagogy and architectural practice. A desirable objective of architectural education must be that it should be able to influence how we imagine and plan our habitats and its architecture. But as the DDA example illustrates, our education system has failed in this regard and it is the reverse that is the norm in India, where it is the market – the market of goods and of ideas – that determines the nature of our habitat and architecture and the educational strategies in turn, flow from it.

The foundational ideology of architectural education in India is that it must follow

the dictates of architectural practice: otherwise how will the graduate find employment? This rationale is followed unquestioningly by the teacher in the classroom and the professional on the field has come to demand it. Not surprisingly, architectural education has become a debased activity generating such commonly voiced pejorative statements like, ‘actual learning takes place outside the School’, and ‘those who cannot practice, teach’. Such perceptions translate into professional dependencies both in the classroom and on the field, and explain DDA’s reliance on foreign expertise to build low cost housing in Delhi.

Architecture and architectural education are not value-neutral activities; both are deeply embedded in local cultures. Thus, there is something intrinsically wrong when we solve our local problems by importing solutions from other cultures. Its repercussions manifest themselves beyond the immediate sphere of the decision taken. For example, many of us have been concerned about the open-door policy of the government, which enables foreign architects to practice in India without imposing conditions of reciprocity. This policy is the result of the negotiations conducted by our government under the aegis of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), where they found it necessary to concede such professional concessions as a trade-off to obtain protection for our agricultural economy and its products.

However, its unintended consequences are being felt beyond the negotiating table, because it has profoundly distorted local architectural culture and values. For example, it has had a strong impact on the vulnerable imagination of students in the classroom – aided and abetted by the communications revolution that makes what they access on the Web more alluring than local realities, an attitude that is, of course, spilling over into the field. Many would argue, however, that such external influences are necessary to modernise architecture and the building profession in India, but the fact is that in the process the objectives of professional practice are being subverted and decisively reoriented to serve the needs of the elite. Surely, such morally insidious consequences could not have been the objective of the Indian team at the WTO negotiations, or any sensible reformist’s preferred vision for modernising the profession.

Indian Architect & Builder - September 2013

70

A G Krishna Menon is an architect, urban planner and conservation consultant practicing in Delhi since 1972. He has been simultaneously teaching in Delhi and co-founded the TVB School of Habitat Studies in 1990 in New Delhi. He is actively engaged in research and his contributions have been extensively published in professional journals and several academic books. He also has been actively involved in urban conservation and in 2004, drafted the INTACH Charter for the Conservation of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites in India. In the past, he has been associated with the formulation of The Delhi Master Plan–2021, The National Capital Region Master Plan–2021 and continues to be a Member of several statutory Committees set up by the Government of India to manage the city. Currently, in addition to his professional consultancy work, as the Convenor of INTACH’s Delhi Chapter, he is advocating the case for inscribing Delhi as a World Heritage City.

The focus on serving the needs of the elite has been intrinsic to the values of the profession for a long time, but it has accelerated with the liberalisation of the Indian economy. One can almost make a case for a pre-1990s ideology and a post-1990s ideology at work in the architecture of the country. It has also influenced educational strategies because, as I have pointed out, the profession dictates educational objectives. Even in its incipient stages, at the cusp of the process of economic liberalisation, it had become a matter of grave concern to us while we were crafting the educational ideology for the TVBSHS. We sought to induct a pedagogy that was more broadly inclusive in its intent while simultaneously addressing the complex characteristics of our local habitat. We felt that as academics, we still possessed agency to offer an alternate model of education which could at least mediate and, perhaps, actually mitigate the adverse impact of the transformations taking place in our society and thus contribute to creating a larger and more diverse vision for professional practice. Our efforts were a drop in the ocean. In today’s scenario of proliferating architectural schools this seems a more difficult task, not the least because both the profession and the academic institutions have become more deeply complicit in fulfilling the neo-liberal economic agenda. To put it bluntly, what we are witnessing today is the co-option of educational strategy to serve the ends of the elite. Thus, current policies are more concerned with making education ‘cost-effective’ and to ‘catching up with the West’ than to deracinate the local problems Indian Architect & Builder - September 2013

of architecture or architectural education.

Such strategic choices do not bode well for the welfare of our society as a whole. In its incipient stage, this was the challenge we confronted at the TVBSHS. Let me clarify at the outset, however, that it is not my point to rail against the emergence of the ‘flat world’, but, as an academic, to advocate the important role of academic institutions to mediate, if not determine, habitat policies under any circumstances. Therefore, what should we strive for in formulating appropriate educational strategies in India? To begin with, at the TVBSHS, we cultivated a profound belief that architectural education can make a difference to contribute to the welfare of our society. It must, of course, work in partnership with the profession, but not as its handmaiden as it had in the past. Ideally, architectural education must connect the education, the profession and the social system and it is the evolving social system – and not market forces - that must determine the changing priorities of education and the profession. To achieve this objective, architectural education must be treated as a discipline and a profession in its own right with its own knowledge base. This belief undergirded the pedagogy we put in place at the TVBSHS. The pedagogy we followed was based on the concept of ‘learning by doing’. This was the only way we felt we could break the cycle of repeating how the earlier generation had been taught. The problems of the habitat were looked at afresh, both by the student and the teacher, and through such collaborative viewing and analysing

the problems to be tackled in the classroom were identified. Research was fundamental to this process for producing new teaching material. The syllabus had to be periodically re-structured to ensure that more effective learning of its components was taking place and this entailed frequent self-reflexive discussions among the teachers. Teaching therefore became a dynamic activity, both inside and outside the classroom. It engaged the teachers intellectually. They were challenged to work on the city or the local habitats as a laboratory and the complex social, cultural, political and economic issues of the real world were replicated in classroom exercises from the first year on, to ground the learning of the student in the environments they lived in. In this way, the School became a site for learning and the teacher had credible professional objectives to pursue: both education and practice benefitted from this strategy.

Admittedly, these are not new ideas.

Reading the Journal of Architectural Education, for example, one realises that the idea of treating architectural education as a discipline has been articulated by many academics for a long time all over the world, but not in India. Only a few Schools in India have tried to address the disciplinary potential of architectural education, while the majority are content to follow well-worn paths laid by their predecessors and the dictates of the Council of Architecture (CoA), which prescribed minimum standards to be followed by all Schools. It is on the basis of conformity to these ‘minimum’ standards that the CoA permitted the graduates of the approved Schools to register as architects with the license to practice the profession.

71

While a few of the members of the Council are academics and private practitioners, the overwhelming majority are architects working for government departments, who, not surprisingly, viewed the issues related to architectural education through the lens of their status as low-level functionaries of the government. Thus, the objective valorising conformity and obedience to achieve ‘minimum’ standards in architectural education finds resonance among the members of the Council: it is rooted deep in the contemporary management system, and its genesis could be traced to the colonial origins of the profession.

But challenging the system had its costs: I know, because of our experience running the TVBSHS. We were confronted with constant hostility by the CoA, which magnified our faults and overlooked our strengths. Ultimately, facing closure, the University with whom we were affiliated, The Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi (GGSIPU), took us under its wings in 2007, as a teaching department of the University. Perhaps we were lucky to have survived the wrath of CoA, albeit in an altered state, but the point to be emphasised is that the priority of regulations has invariably been to enforce order, not encourage excellence or difference.

The TVBSHS was an experiment in pedagogy to contribute to the architectural discourse in the country. It attempted to challenge the prevalent ideology of architectural education by analysing its problems and formulating alternative strategies, and though relatively short-lived, it generated ideas which continue to be relevant. The new pedagogy was closely linked to, and contingent on, formulating and following a new syllabus that we put in place.

A new syllabus The syllabus at the TVBSHS focused on the disjunction between the disciplinary potential of architectural education and its professional objectives. In India, we realised that architectural education was profession-centric and so it was unable to deal with the complex problems of our developing society. Thus, there was need to explore these issues in the classroom in order to advise the profession on how to deal with them: this is the disciplinary potential of architectural education.

To put this objective into practice, we

identified three broad areas of disciplinary concerns. First, we articulated the kinds of problems of architecture that were needed to be resolved to contribute to what is called the 'culture of building'. This meant that the School was not merely aiming to produce architects but it tried to focus on the entire web of architectural production.

Howard Davis, who coined the term 'culture of building' (Howard Davis: Culture of Building, Oxford University Press, 1999, 2006), pointed out that architects should not be arrogant to consider that they were the sole creators of architecture - they were only part of a long production chain which together resulted in the construction of buildings. Thus, when we say a building is good architecture, it is the result of the contribution of several related professions, trades and associated agents, including material suppliers, masons, contractors, the municipal regulators, financiers, and of course, clients, and so on – who are all connected in a web of relationships to produce architecture. Our approach to problem solving at the TVBSHS therefore, took this broad perspective into account in studio exercises and research projects it conducted. The objective was to create holistic improvements to the living environments. This did not mean that the syllabus had to teach all the related disciplines that constituted the network, but in teaching students to become architects they were made aware of their role in the 'culture of building'.

Second, while the TVBSHS syllabus covered the subjects identified by the CoA guidelines, we grouped them and linked them horizontally for effective knowledge transfer. In a recent document brought out by the UNESCO and the International Union of Architects, what we attempted at TVBSHS in a rudimentary manner has been expressed more compellingly, from which I will quote. The document identified the challenges faced by contemporary architectural education as emerging out of the changing contexts that the society is experiencing. They identified three contexts that need to be considered. One, they call, 'nature's revenge' and the new ways in which architects and architectural education will have to learn to respond to its imperatives. The second, the overwhelming challenges of urbanisation which is growing very fast, particularly in developing countries like India, which is creating newer kinds of problems which the architect

and architectural education must learn to confront. The third, is the question of technology which is evolving continuously, necessitating not just tinkering with the old system but creating paradigm shifts in the way architecture is taught and practiced. To take into account these three challenges within a context of constant change is the new challenge facing architectural education.

To address these issues at the TVBSHS, three settlement contexts were identified for study: the traditional settlement as a product of local building cultures evolved over time; the modern planned settlements, which were, of course, associated with the modernisation process; and, the proliferating settlements of the poor urban migrants, which were the result of the massive urbanisation transforming the country’s habitat. The syllabus focused on each settlement type to identify and define the issues to be dealt with, using the means at our disposal to do so. Thus, the academic programme attempted to develop three diverse habitat policies and the kind of architecture appropriate for each to meet its specific needs, thus turning the gaze of the student (and the profession), away from the dominating influence of the architecture for the elite to other equally urgent issues that needed to be addressed by the architect.

The third area of disciplinary concern was the need to translate the first two points into a pragmatic and effective curricula or syllabi. This was achieved at TVBSHS by addressing three areas of the curriculum.

The first was building technology. Here, the focus was on three issues: 1. Construction technology, 2. Design Technology, and 3. Management Technology.

The second area of the curriculum we focused on was building sciences. Not many institutions in India teach the design of buildings in scientific terms - in fact, the ‘science’ of architecture has been grossly neglected and perhaps subverted to encourage intuitive design processes.

Architectural education in India does not concern itself with how to evaluate the performance of the buildings that architects design and build, so we focused on three attributes of building science: first, energy studies; second, environmental sustainability; and third, performance criteria in order to evaluate whether or not Indian Architect & Builder - September 2013

72

what the architect sets out to achieve had been achieved. In a rudimentary manner, each of these objectives was addressed at TVBSHS. The third area of the curriculum we focused on were the issues related to building arts and social sciences. Within it, the sub-themes were, one, history and theory; two, social sciences in architecture; and three, public policy and city planning: I will flag the last point because many other academicians have already emphasised the need to focus on history/theory and the social sciences in architectural education.

As the example of DDA’s proposal illustrates, one of the major tasks of our profession is to develop our capabilities to influence public policy in order to achieve larger professional objectives. A major strategy we adopted to achieve this was to treat the city as a laboratory and deal with real-time problems confronting architects, urban planners and city managers.

To explain some of our concerns in developing the syllabus, let me take up the issues related to building technology.

There is a widening gap between the advances in technology taking place worldwide and the situation prevailing in India. We are mostly importing materials and construction technologies developed outside the country. There is a constant flow from external markets of obsolete materials and technologies which we accept gratefully, and this is influencing the kind of architecture we produce. In the process, we believe that our architecture is becoming ‘world class’. This approach is leading to economic and intellectual colonisation of the architectural profession, which is evident in DDA’s proposal for constructing low-cost housing with the help of a manufacturer from the UK. In the absence of indigenous research we are unable to mediate the globalising local market, thus resulting in the global market influencing our building decisions. Collaboration between engineers and architects can help in achieving the objective of developing appropriate technologies – high-tech or low-tech.

The focus on design technology must also take into account the tremendous development taking place in digital technologies all over the world. In 2005, while preparing for an International Digital Architecture conference we organised at Indian Architect & Builder - September 2013

TVBSHS, I was surprised to learn that in the previous ten years over 1200 papers had been presented and only four or five were from India. When the whole world is talking about digital design technology, our architectural schools are not. We only attempt to make our graduates operationally literate in the use of computers so that they can be employed as efficient cyber-coolies in BPO offices being set up in India. To become key players in the development of digital technologies needs big funding, but industry giants like Infosys are not interested in funding development of indigenous research in architectural schools (we tried and failed to get funding for the conference from Infosys). Of course, Infosys and other IT companies are themselves not undertaking research in any significant manner because they are content to remain successful service providers. Our educational strategies must nevertheless engage in research that will develop technologies to serve our social and economic needs.

The focus on management technology should develop a strong role for IT to bring order to the disorganised building industry. This is slowly happening in the larger building and infrastructure projects being undertaken in the country, but its benefits need to percolate down to more everyday activities.

Building Sciences is an undeveloped area in architectural education. There is only fragmented teaching taking place in this subject area, but there is tremendous opportunity for developing it to a more advanced level because many architectural schools are located in engineering colleges.

For example, energy studies of buildings are essential for achieving sustainable use of energy in buildings. It should be a part of basic architectural education and environmental sustainability because responses to climate change are related areas to confront 'nature’s revenge'. There are tremendous opportunities in these areas for future architects in India.

Developing performance criteria is another area that we attempted at TVBSHS. Research projects were undertaken in collaboration with foreign universities to establish local parameters to gauge the effectiveness of design intent. This is because green architecture has become a new mantra, and we need to assess the environmental performance of buildings

comprehensively in order to evaluate its benefits in the local context. We need to revise our academic curricula to develop these areas of knowledge and skills to achieve these objectives.

Finally, a few words on building art and social sciences in architecture. This is an important component of architectural education but it is neglected in Schools all over the country. We are overstressing the physical sciences which are reflected in the intake characteristic of students wanting to study architecture. Thus, we continue to propagate the colonial tradition of requiring entrants to be proficient in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics (PCM), ignoring the importance of other knowledge streams that architecture can benefit from. Social Sciences are very important to develop responsible architects to meet the varied expectations of our society. For example, if we simply look at our achievement in the area of housing over the past 50 to 60 years, we find how we have failed miserably to meet the expectations of our society.

That is one reason why DDA seeks foreign expertise to construct low-cost housing.

Sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., are all important subjects with which architects must be acquainted in order to understand and serve the diverse societal values and expectations of our society in their works. Similarly, we should train architects to influence public policy related to our profession and also in relating architecture to city planning.

One of the things implicit in what I have said is that architectural education should try and achieve diversity, not monoculture. All 322 Schools who have been given permission by the CoA to conduct architectural education (so far) do not have to follow the standard prescriptions of its guidelines. What are the conditions necessary to create diversity in academic institutions? First, there should be diversity of students - from different academic backgrounds, from different economic backgrounds, and different cultural backgrounds. Second, there should be diversity of faculty, in terms of fields of specialisations, experiences, etc. to avoid in-breeding and getting trapped into a closed intellectual loop. If an architecture School is tied up with a university there will be opportunities to have a dialogue with other disciplines. For example, at the GGSIPU, where the former TVBSHS is now located, the University is planning to establish an

73

interdisciplinary School of Design, a part of which will be the University School of Architecture and Planning. The School will now be able to access scientists or sociologist from other University departments to teach architecture. Third, there should be a diversity of output goals.

One of the problems with architectural education in India today is that all Schools try to produce iconic designers who want to establish boutique professional practices.

But there is need for academic programmes to teach other kinds of expertise, say, in building sciences and management. At the TVBSHS, we made an honourable attempt to diversify the interests of our graduates.

Finally, we need to divorce the process of architectural education from the process of licensing to practice architecture. Because of this link, the CoA was able to close down the TVBSHS and its innovative initiatives.

Ideally, the School or University should focus on giving the B Arch degree and the CoA should separately test graduates, if required, for awarding the license to practice. This gives tremendous academic freedom to Schools. The irony is that the guidelines of the CoA only prescribe a broad framework for the syllabus, but most Schools do not take advantage of this freedom to formulate their own syllabi. So, under the same Council umbrella, different schools could, in fact, follow different philosophies or approaches to teach. The erstwhile TVBSHS did that, but we were tripped up on account of infrastructural deficiencies. Many among the 322 Schools of Architecture in the country need to develop similar strategies and thus keep pushing the envelope of architectural education.

Conclusions Reform in architectural education will require inputs from a variety of actors – the regulatory authorities, Schools and Universities, students and the profession.

Each has a role to play to make architecture an important agency for the betterment of all sections of our society. This essay has only focused on the role of architectural education, but that, according to me, is an important segment of the whole to consider. It becomes all the more important because of the number of Schools of Architecture that have come up (and are coming up) in the country. Perhaps, as it has been pointed out by Indian Architect & Builder while initiating this campaign, many of the Schools lack resources,

including infrastructural facilities, but as we demonstrated running the TVBSHS, such deficiencies can be overcome if the School has a vision and a sense of purpose. That is, again going by the TVBSHS example, if the CoA agrees with the proposition that the kind of reforms we attempted in pedagogy and syllabus are important ingredients to reform architectural education. In our specific case, much of the hostility towards TVBSHS emanated from personal agendas of those in power, but that is no reason to presume that in future other office bearers of that institution will not re-prioritise administrative agendas. So, inspite of our bitter encounter with the CoA, I personally feel that we need the support of the CoA to bring about the reform in architectural education.

The ideas that I have discussed were collated more formally almost a decade after the TVBSHS started functioning, at a symposium held in April 1999, by our collective GREHA, who started TVBSHS, and HUDCO, on ‘New Directions in Architectural Education, The necessity of a cultural paradigm responsive to the majority’. The symposium brought together architects, teachers and researchers from different parts of the country and a few from abroad to discuss and formulate new approaches based on a cultural paradigm. Though some of these issues are dated, I would still like to reproduce the recommendations that emanated from the symposium to succinctly recapitulate the agenda for reform: 1. The identity of the architect to be recognised as being distinct and not to be confused with allied professionals such as engineers and other technical disciplines.

2. An increased social awareness necessary for the practice of architecture in our developing world becomes a pre-condition to the delineation of roles and definition of norms for the architectural profession.

3. The Council of Architecture to take up the task of clarifying the autonomy of the architectural profession and to delink it from AICTE. 4. The Architects’ Act of 1972 to form the basis for developing rules for conduct of the profession and for architectural education.

5. The present requirement of affiliation of architecture schools to universities be re-examined in the light of the necessary autonomy of the architectural profession.

6. Studio-based learning practices be recognised as the essence of architectural education and an examination system

appropriate to such practices be put in place as early as possible. The core of such practices being the concept of peer group evaluation.

7. A special effort has to be made to train teachers in architecture. This is an urgent necessity considering that over 100 architecture schools are in operation in India and most of these schools function with hardly any teachers.

8. There is urgent need to produce appropriate teaching material, which would be of relevance to the regional schools of architecture. Such material to include software specially developed for global connectivity through the internet.

9. A small working group to be established immediately to go into the issues and make proposals for the autonomy of the architectural profession, evolve standards of evaluation specific to architectural education, propose guidelines for training of teachers of architecture as well as the production of appropriate teaching material, and to suggest ways of raising finance for these activities. State Governments, Central Government, international institutions, as well as private sector institutions to be included in these efforts.

A G Krishna Menon, September 2013

This column invites eminent academicians, ethical teachers, teaching architects, institution builders and design educationists to comment on architectural education (and design education as an extension) in the context of India.

Concerned architects / academicians / educationists / teachers and students are invited to write to us / call us / email us for further discussion. Your deliberations / observations / critique / counter-arguments and agreements will be deeply valued. We must create a meaningful community of like-minded people to negotiate our future as professionals and responsible citizens of a globalising India. We must hold ourselves responsible for the quality of architectural and design thought in the coming decades.

Please send your feedback / comments to iabedt@jasubhai.com. IA&B believes that this issue is of prime (and unprecedented) importance at the moment for the future of architecture in India.

Indian Architect & Builder - September 2013