TRANSFORMING CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE EDUCATION IN INDIA WITH

ANCIENT INDIAN LEARNING SYSTEM OF GURUKUL.

How wonderful, it would be if we could combine the scientific and technological advances of the
west with asceticism and humanism of India”
Swami Vivekanand to Jamshedji Tata on their journey from Yokohama, Japan

INTRODUCTION

Architecture: the art or science of building; specifically: the art or practice of designing and building
structures and especially habitable ones. Merriam-webster dictionery

Architecture which inhibits and encourages all the arts, is a noble profession of building
civilizations. It can not be taught but discussed, read, seen and walked along with. Its not a subject
but life in all its essence.

Built with materials and memory Architecture transcends its very definition, every time its
accomplished. In India, which has been cradle of human civilization, its Architecture represented
the way people saw its surrounding. In early times Architecture education in India was Gharana
based, where master masons transferred the knowledge from one generation to another, teaching
as they practised it together.

With advent of modern education, Architecture education in India in form of formal schooling
found its place replacing the traditional system of transferring knowledge through doing
Architecture together.

Modern Architecture education in India

Origin of current method of Architecture education can be traced to the founding of a

Draughtsman's Class, started with a view to produce men with a practical and really useful
knowledge, fit to be employed in an Architect's office attached to the Sir J.J School of Arts in 1896,
set up in the year 1857 by the erstwhile Government of Bombay from the grants made by the
philanthropist Sir Jamshedji Jeejeebhoy, the first Baronet of Bombay.

The course was re-organized in 1913 to make it suitable for training in Architecture, and the
Government Diploma Examination in Architecture was held subsequently. The entire course was
again re-organized in 1936 and was made into a full-time Five-year course. In 1952, the
department of Architecture was affiliated to the University of Bombay for teaching the courses
leading to the Degree of Architecture. Source: Wikipedia

Afterwards India saw advent of many school of thoughts in Architecture education in form of
“Celebration of Technology at IIT Kharagpur” and “Modernism at Baroda” but it was school of
Architecture in Ahmedabad which stood apart from the existing trend of that time.

The School started in 1962 under the aegis of the Ahmedabad Education Society and was actively
supported and encouraged by Kasturbhai Lalbhai, a leading industrialist and philanthropist of the
city. The School's initial direction was set by the able troika of architect BV Doshi, Dr Rasvihari Vakil,
a structural engineer and Bernard Kohn who, on the recommendation of Louis Kahn left a teaching
position at Yale university to come to Ahmedabad.

Ahmedabad was probably the one city in India which combined a high degree of consciousness for
traditional teaching model with architecture and an openness to new ideas. Le Corbusier's four
buildings had just been completed (it is the only city other than Paris to have more than one
building of the master) and Kahn was commissioned to design the Institute of Management. Doshi
had not only worked in the atelier of Le Corbusier but, while in Europe, must have been touched
by the intellectual and ideological revolution taking place in the West. The School was bound to
benefit from this environment.
Source Mehta, Jaimini. Architectural Education in India, an Overview. Vadodara, India, 2006.

A combination of Western ideas with humanism and spiritualism of India, CEPT worked as a
Gurukul, where students stayed and worked with Guru’s as long as possible, to walk the path of
learning together.

Council of Architecture

The Council of Architecture was established in the early seventies as a statutory body with a view
to oversee both the profession and the education of architects, With the expansion of the
profession and proliferation of schools of architecture, a regulatory mechanism was necessary. The
Council laid down certain norms of minimum facilities, procedures and courses that each school
has to follow and instituted periodic inspection to ensure adherence. Though primarily mandated
to oversee and regulate the profession, the Council was also given responsibility to regulate the
education at undergraduate level.

In early eighties, another statutory body came into being; the All India Council of Technical
Education (AICTE) with a mandate to regulate all technical education systems in the country. By
this time the popular psyche had been conditioned to consider architecture as a technical
discipline as opposed to a design discipline and it naturally came under the purview of AICTE. But
this created a strange situation with two statutory bodies looking at architecture. This has now
been resolved with a Memorandum of Understanding between the two Councils reached whereby
part of the responsibility of setting the minimum curricular standards has been given to the
Council of Architecture, though the AICTE still retains a larger control with powers for financial
dispersal and approval for Post Graduate programs.
Source Mehta, Jaimini. Architectural Education in India, an Overview. Vadodara, India, 2006.

Currently with more than 450 Architecture institutions in the country and Council of Architecture
struggled with quality management, as the resources to teach in the institutions dwindled and
commercialization of education spreading deeper in the education model.
With rise of Private education institute, it became increasingly difficult for Council to balance the
ethos of Architecture education, as it had to depend on standradized syllabus which applies all
across country.

Architecture started being taught as an examination subject, where degree had to be earned in the
end, rather than a practical discourse where students walks the path with Guru, to discover his
own wisdom and way of doing Architecture.

The Mushrooming of Architecture schools in India

In todays time, in every forum, whenever a group of Architects gather, one of the common point of
discussion remains the deteriorating quality of current generation of Architects entering the
profession.

The Architecture institutes functioning across the country are held culprit for deterioration of
quality of current generation of Architects entering the profession, with this conclusion, the focus
shifts to the regulation of Architecture institutes.

Council of Architecture which is Govt. Of India body, mandated to regulate Architecture education
and register Architects, presents a nuanced view with respect to the problem that, it has to
balance between reality and perception of demand and supply of professionals, balancing the two
extremes in framing the policy. It also becomes constrained due to it’s being a Govt. Body, it has to
also take in Govt. views having differing perception of problems and its solutions.

Every time when the matter of quality of education is raised it is connected to “Mushrooming” of
Architecture schools with intake more than they can handle to provide adequate quality. When the
question is raised about capping the quantity of these institutions and intake provided, Council’s
reply remains that, we cannot stop anyone from application, but Council can reject an application
on the grounds of deficiency.

Apart from “Mushrooming” of institutes issue, one of the major reasons for the lack of quality in
Architecture education is pointed out as the lack of performance/creativity/capability of teacher
teaching in the classrooms.

Eventually it is the Architects who teach and regulate Architecture education at various levels and
register them as Architects and still in discussions across forums, Architects sound like an outsider,
commenting on deficiencies of the system, created by Architects themselves.

Architecture Institutions require finances to run and operate and create infrastructure for an
enabling environment of quality education. In private institutes availability of finance has direct
bearing on availability and attention of quality teacher and ideal infrastructure.

Sometimes despite having availability of both finance and infrastructure, lack of intent from private
body leads to deteriorated quality of students, which can be due to institutes focus on profits by
not adhering to strict admission and academic review, lowering the bar of performance needed to
qualify to become an Architect.
Such institutes end up creating bottlenecks which results in deteriorating the quality of education
imparted in them. Architects teaching in such institutes end up becoming mute bystanders due to
constraints related to finance, policy and bureaucracy.

If we summarise the above discussion, we find;

1. There are too many Architecture Intakes distributed unevenly across the country.
2. Financial Constraints or lack of intent leading to lack of quality environment created for students.
3. Lack of quality teachers in institutes due to lack of innovative policy to bring excellent
Architecture professionals attracted to teaching.

are the reasons for low quality professionals being created by our institutions.

The analysis

For a long period of time the Architecture education remained in the hands of Govt. and
philanthropists but with commercialization of education, the dissipation of knowledge has been
replaced by distribution of degree.

Furthering this model of education in Architecture will only lead to incompetent professionals,
leading to further deterioration of Architecture quality in our cities, directly impacting the quality
of life we experience on daily basis.

Despite these shortcoming, the country has produced various excellent professionals, who have
created various practices with distinct school of thoughts which need to be harnessed, but due to
financial model of education, these Architects are not able to venture out and do something for
education itself.

Also the current system of education, does not promote creativity and high standards but
production of degree holders, with flawed quality checks. The professionals with very high
creativity and knowledge don't find this environment suitable and hence stay away from popular
education model.

Unless we are able to source the best of teachers spread across the country, we will not be able to
create a very high quality graduate, who can take the professional standards further up.

The Gurukul Model

The education needs Guru and so education must be built around the relation between Guru and
the Shishya or disciple.

Whenever the discussion about policy upgrade ensues, often it is said that we must adopt most
creative policy and possibly the best standards of international Architecture education.

We often forget that in our country before we had adopted non-contextualized western methods
of teaching, we had greatest network of teaching system in form of “Gurukul” System, where
pupils were trained and educated as greatest inventors, thinkers of human history.
Architecture education is tailor made for “Gurukul” model, where teacher is paramount to select
and shape the student to an excellent professional. The ancient model of “Rishi’s” creating
“Gurukul” allowed them to conduct research and impart quality education based on acquired
regional wisdom and context.

For this to happen in contemporary times, we may have to identify pillars of profession in the
country and ask them to take load of education and research in academics. The identified pillars
may be tasked to create schools or Gurukul’s evenly distributing them across regions of the country.
We may have to substantially reduce the intake of such schools, in turn substantially reducing
other norms required to open such schools, such as land, infrastructure etc.

Professionals or team of professionals may also be invited to present a case for their ability to
create such schools and such Gurukul’s shall be registered on the name of Head of the Institute till
retirement age, and then another may be selected and appointed through due procedure.

A team of able and passionate professionals lead by an able head may also lead to creation of
school of thought across various regional contexts. NATA and NASA can be used as thread to weave
these Gurukuls across regions.

The Architect identified as head must first present a vision and feasibility document in front of a
committee specially constituted for allowing such schools and only after satisfying the committee,
letter of intent is issued, valid for certain period of time. The Architect or team being issued letter
of intent then can go ahead and create infrastructure for the Gurukul and apply for formal
affiliation, after necessary infrastructure is created. On inspection of such infrastructure, if found
satisfactory, affiliation can be issued.

Also many institutes, which may be facing closure or applying for closure can be offered to be
converted to Gurukul model framed by the council. In this process, the Council may not only be
able to insert competent Architects in education system, but also widen its base of schools across
the country.

There are many eminent Architects across country, who are highly energetic and passionate and
are willing to help transform the education system across country. A policy can be framed around it.

The Gurukul model: A romantic idea vs Practicality

Currently there is no such form of model exists in Architecture education, where education is
decentralized to various Guru’s who may form smaller schools on suggested structure of Gurukul
model.

The argument presented against this model, is probable misuse to earn fast money, or creating
followers than students itself. Also it is pointed out that, India we have lack of calibre.

The financial viability of this model needs to be checked as well, so that it can work as it is
supposed to.

The Architecture Intake:

It was celebrated as good idea when Council of Architecture decided to give more intake than 40 in
various Architecture Institutes across India, but very soon this number started shooting up to even
160 intake in some institutes.

With this mass production of Architects, the quality became captive to profits and Architecture
profession in general suffered.

It would have been better idea that rather than uncapping the 40 intake, more and more smaller
intakes would have been encouraged with identification of Architecture professionals, who define
Indian Architecture standards for rest to follow.

Allowing smaller intakes would have brought in many excellent professionals in education, who are
currently out of education system, also it would have allowed them to be part of problem solving
needed in current time. Architecture education which is currently captive of financial model where
only a private business, who may or may not have any idea of Architecture education, invests in
the creation of infrastructure and has all the say in hiring of human resource.

Architecture education on the contrary is totally dependent on the transfer of knowledge of the
teacher, and should be controlled by the Guru rather than the investor, who may not have any idea
of the educational needs of a school.

To change the control of Architecture education, it needs to be driven by the Guru and so the
education must demand a model where, private body needs to identify a Guru and let him build
the infrastructure and team as per his specification, or the Guru himself takes the initiative to build
a sustainable model of the school.

Mostly all the Architects refrain from current model of Architecture education because it requires
infrastructure, human resource and capital which they can not afford or they dont find it financially
sustainable.

Creating smaller intake schools with reduced infrastructure will cause a school where Guru may be
able to create not only one on one interaction with students but also train them in more
collaborative fashion of practicing together, than the current one, where a teacher depends on
overused powerpoints to explain a topic.

The current model of education in India is on the path of redundancy which is producing
sustandard quality of professionals. It is needed that policy makers do the introspection and
change the rules, if need be.

The Gurukul Model: Summary

1. Creating smaller intakes of 5,10,20,40 intakes, with only identification of Guru’s who are industry
leaders and are willing to create a school. The school must be registered on the name of head or
Guru rather on the name society or company, as the case may be.
2. Allowing reduced infrastructure as per intake and making it viable in urban environement,
where not all can afford large chunk of land, so the Gurukul should need built up area of
infrastructure than the land itself.
3. Quality checks such as admission eligibility test and finally Registration qualification tests to
enforced to create a minimum common benchmark of prefessionals.

4. Using digital means to create maximum transparency and incouraging the sharing of classroom
activity and lectures to other schools on various topics, so more and more dialogue can happen
between various school of thoughts.

Infrastructure and Human resource proposal for “Gurukul” model.

INTAKE BUILT UP AREA (SQM) LAND AREA(VARIES FACULTY

WITH AVAILABLE FAR
(SQM)
5 250 - 3
10 500 - 5
20 1000 - 8
40 2000 - 15

Since its the proposed studio based model, the credit assigned per faculty need not be limited, as
in larger number of students require more than one faculty in classroom, meanwhile in smaller
intakes of 5 or 10 students will get personal attention of faculties and assignment and teaching will
be synchronized with speed of learning.

These schools once affiliated with COA, will have to be affiliated with local universities, through
which students will follow,credit based learning and give exams at university centres. The
admission will happen through NATA pool, while examination will be conducted by local university
and Registration qualification exam will be conducted by Council of Architecture.

With this proposal, I rest the argument.

Kind Regards
Ar. Manish Mishra

Assistant Professors
Purvanchal Institute of Architecture & Design, Gorakhpur

Chief Architect
Dialogic Architects, Gorakhpur

Joint Secretary
U.P. Architects Association

Member IIA