The government has accused top officers at the COA, India’s apex architectural body, of criminal misconduct. BRIJESH PANDEY tracks the issues as the CBI investigates.

IN A move that could change the face of the study and practice of architecture in India, the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) has recommended a CBI probe against the president, registrar and four members of the executive committee of the Council of Architecture (COA). The COA is a regulatory body constituted by the Architects Act of 1972, which accredits and licenses educational institutions to teach architecture in India. Moreover, every architect working in India has to be registered with the COA.

In a letter to the CBI dated August 27, 2009 (DO No. C-1301168/2009-Vig) — from the Joint Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the MHRD, Sunil Kumar — requested the investigation of six top officials of the COA, namely, the President, Vijay Sohoni, the Registrar, Vinod Kumar and four members of the Executive Committee: KB Mohapatra, Uday C Godkari, IJS Bakhsi and Prakash Deshmukh. In the letter (a copy of which is with TEHELKA) the Joint Secretary alleges that:

• People at the helm of affairs of the COA are misusing the authority of the Council to levy fees that are not authorised by the Architects Act.

• Institutions that refuse to pay the unauthorised fees are being threatened with de-recognition.

• Council memberships and COA executive committee memberships are being manipulated and members are being allowed to continue beyond their terms.

• Prestigious institutions such as the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), NIT Patna, the Lucknow College of Architecture and the Chandigarh College of Architecture are singled out for punishment, while private Institutes such as Chitkara Institute in Punjab and the Piloo Mody College of Architecture in Orissa are given preferential treatment by these individuals despite having inferior facilities and fewer, less qualified faculty.

The letter states bluntly that the preferential treatment of private institutes suggests that bribes have been paid to those named above. Letters written by Anjali Bhawar, vice-chancellor of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (GNDU) and Kamal Singh Chahal, head of GNDU’s Department of Architecture to the MHRD seem to corroborate this. Bhawar writes that while an expert committee of the COA had allowed GNDU to admit 40 students to the architecture course, the Executive Committee of the same Council refused to accept the recommendation of its own expert committee. Chahal’s letter reveals that while GNDU had declared 14 faculty members in the prescribed form submitted to the COA, that figure was mysteriously reduced to 10 in the COA’s report. The Joint Secretary states that this was done “perhaps to show private institutes that if the COA wasn’t sparing government institutions, private institutions had better fall in line and cough up money” to avoid de-recognition.

THE HEADS of the department of two premier architectural institutes stated on condition of anonymity that the Council uses frequent inspections and the threat of de-recognition to extort and intimidate. On top of that, institutes have been charged exorbitant fees by the COA for inspections and for periodic extensions of recognition. The prestigious Jamia Millia Islamia, for example, was charged a whopping Rs 40,000 for a three-day inspection in 2008. While the law provides for an inspection once in five years (without permitting the COA to charge for them), several premier institutes faced yearly COA inspections, while, for arbitrary reasons, other institutes escaped. After several complaints to the MHRD, Deputy Secretary Harvinder Singh admitted on March 16, 2009 that the COA could not take money for inspections or for the extension of recognition and asked the COA to adhere to the five-year interval between inspections. Significantly, former COA Vice-President Vijay Uppal wrote in October 2005 to the MHRD, objecting against Sohoni’s role in appointing inspectors and approving their reports, but to no avail.

And where did all this money go? Shockingly, according to Prof SM Akhtar, the HoD of Architecture, Jamia Millia Islamia, “There has never been an audit of the funds of the COA.” The Architects Act clearly states that the COA has to go through an annual audit.

Another instance which has had universities and the COA at loggerheads is the National Aptitude Test for Architecture (NATA). The COA declared that from 2007, the NATA would not only be mandatory for all institutes, but exclusive as well. In other words, institutes would be forced to discontinue any other entrance examinations or procedures they had in place and accept candidates who passed the NATA. Significantly, the NATA is a computer-based test, a fact which would have made the manipulation of results extremely easy to commit and difficult to detect. Premier institutes such as the SPA, the JJ College of Arts, Mumbai, IIT Kharagpur, IIT Roorkee, Jamia Millia Islamia and Jadavpur University were up in arms at this, claiming that forcing them to use the NATA alone would dilute their high entrance standards. Unfazed, the COA asked the MHRD to de-recognise the SPA and 19 other premier institutes. When TEHELKA spoke to Vijay Sohoni about this, he said, “I had to act only because these so-called premier institutes have an abysmal studentteacher ratio. We look at facts and figures rather than the prestige of the institution.” After a fierce legal battle, the de-recognition of the institutes was lifted and the NATA no longer made an exclusive entrance test.

COA FUNCTIONS

REGULATE THE EDUCATION IN AND PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE
MAINTAIN A LIST OF ACCREDITED ARCHITECTS
ENSURE MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL STANDARD OF ARCHITECTURE
RECOMMEND OFFICIAL RECOGNITION AND DE-RECOGNITION OF ARCHITECTURAL INSTITUTES

COA DYSFUNCTION

PRESTIGIOUS INSTITUTES THREATENED WITH DE-RECOGNITION
UNAUTHORISED DEMANDS WORTH CRORES FROM EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES
COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP/TENURE MANIPULATED
ALLEGATIONS OF CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT MADE AGAINST PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

UNAUTHORISED FEES WOULD BE CHARGED BY THE COA FOR INSPECTIONS AND RECOGNITION

For a stickler for rules and someone so seemingly particular about de-recognition, Sohoni is curiously lax when it comes to himself. One of the most damning allegations in Kumar’s letter to the CBI is that while the Vidya Vardhan Institute of Design Environment and Architecture, Goa, of which Sohoni is the president, is shown on the COA’s website as an institute affiliated to the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), the Vice-Chancellor of IGNOU has categorically denied any such affiliation. Kumar states bluntly that this amounts to cheating the public. The letter states that since “Sohoni is fleecing the students by collecting fees though the college is not recognised as per the Architects Act, the position of the President of the COA is thus being misused by him with criminal intent.”

However, when confronted with these allegations by TEHELKA, Sohoni denied them all. He rubbished charges of financial irregularity and stated, “I haven’t even received any complaint. The mandate of the COA is to ensure that there should be no compromise on the quality of architectural education, regardless of the name and fame of the institute. We take action only when there is a fall in the mandated student-faculty ratio. If the ministry has received any complaint, they should come to us, but sadly, this was not done.”

Ever since the CBI began its investigation into the case in the first week of September, there is a huge sense of relief among architects and at various schools of architecture. They believe that this investigation will ensure that instead of being focused on placating a rampant COA, they can now concentrate on architecture in India.

Original article here.

* Article first read in Arzan’s blog: http://urbanarchitecture.in/

A person’s passion, dedication and greatness can be often seen and need not be spoken for. In fact the respect that is seen for someone is more evident when that person need not shout to be heard, need not speak to be asked, and need not order to get things going.

I have the privilege of knowing few such people. And also having met some great masters who were similar – Geoffrey Bawa and Laurie Baker. And what a coincidence that today’s presentation was done by one such person, who also happened to show work done by Bawa.

In fact, I was invited for two presentations today. One by a person for whom I have tremendous respect, which keeps growing by the day. I’m talking of Shrikant Nivasarkar, who was wonderful enough to invite me to come see his presentation and that of Ambrish Arora’s (the second presenter). I consider myself lucky to be at an event which was closed doors and for select people only.

Over the past few years that I have known Shrikant, I have only learnt and kept learning. One can sit and listen to him for hours, because he makes so much sense, and has such tremendous knowledge on most subjects. Whether it has been at project meetings, Pune Design Foundation events, IIID programs or general interactions, we’ve (and I speak for Mukund too) got great insight into architecture and design through him.

At heart, he’s a furniture designer. And a very good one at that. But he’s more renowned as the first Indian to be the President of the International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers (IFI) and Executive Board Member of International Design Alliance (IDA); also the Immediate Past President of the IIID, India.

In many ways, he’s an idealist. But someone also who is ready to be in a system, understand it well and then try to change it if need be in his own soft spoken way. For a long time, he has been propogating that all design disciplines must come together on one platform, and not be so disconnected as they are here in India. And I believe in some parts of the world too. In fact, he has been the strongest propogator of good design, and one that is complete in all ways. One that comes from the core of the person, and as a responsible response to people’s need. And I very strongly believe that Shrikant is one such person who has actually understood design in its true form. And who is also ready to share it with whoever is ready to listen.

He talked today of reworking and thinking long term for the education system in India. But what he presented also applies to designers and design firms. He spoke of humanising spaces, and in this ’space’ means the context or environment, rather than the physical space itself.

His respect for the field was evident, when he kept emphasising on how the profession we are in is a never ending journey of service to people. He quotes, ” Our profession is a service. We should never forget that. And that’s when our focus changes…we can never be careful enough in understanding the needs of people. And it is through design that one expresses this service- to people and to society. Development of society depends on our value-based approach to work.”

As he rightly pointed, “New materials and technology will always impact our profession. And this will further complicate the different kinds of design disciplines around. What we do is a responsible service to society, and we (architects/interior designers/product designers) are but one part of the entire canvas; there are other fields also working at the same time. And we should never forget that.”

I’ll briefly touch upon what he spoke today.
1. Understanding of total space: Understanding of inter dependency and inter connectivity of different disciplines in spaceto emotion
2. Relationships of Space to Life: Understanding the relationships of physical & emotional space of various kinds of people in various situations.
3. Hands on Experience: Developing knowledge of materials, technology and skills.
4. Lack of observation skills: Need to align exercises with active participation. Developing the ability to observe, in order to develop the ability to analyse.
5. Have a ‘Research Attitude’ : need to encourage working on multiple options to design solutions.
6. Values : Appropriateness of exercises and assignments.
7. Communication skills: Methods of making detailed drawings. Also understanding differences of scales of various design disciplines.
8. Management: Need to understand value of man hours spent on project and the management.
9. Methods: Process driven working methodology. Rational and Intuitive.
10. Action needed: Understanding of context, resources, technology and responsible design.
11. Context of education: Need to envision big and long term.
12. Content & Methodology: Larger understanding of a creative profession. And project evaluation. Catering to pyschological and emotional needs.

Again going back to what I had mentioned earlier – the spreading of good design. It is so important to be able to share your knowledge and understanding of certain ideas, values, systems and even fields in order to spread the word in the correct method. And in order to promote the growth of good design, values, people and society.
– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
And since I did mention I was fortunate to see two good presentations, let me also talk about Ambrish Arora; whose work I have followed through the years.

He presented about 12 projects of his… each very different from the other, except for the underlying commitment to think beyond the brief and to be totally dedicated to the project and its context. And if this meant persistently bulldozing clients to see reason, or spending one’s own money to make prototypes and experiment; then hey, that is part and parcel of the work. And it was a brilliant showcase of work.

I liked a line in his presentation. It read, “… designing a space offers the opportunities to build in layers.” And for many of us doing everything in a space and not being able to tell someone what it is that we ‘exactly do’; because they might think we do not ‘have focus’, this is a great line to use. Like I always tell people who ask me, “We provide solutions through design- and these solutions differ according to context and space.” We live in a world that is going back to where design started of, being holistic; when each architect was also a designer, an engineer and an artist. Where the potential to design is tremendous and varied. So why be stuck with a label?!

Anyway, back to Ambrish. Like Shrikant, Ambrish’s passion for his work and field shines on his face. And the fact that in each of his project he’s tried to come out with wonderful, innovative solutions through use of limited and local materials and technology is what sets his work apart. It’s a classic case of conserving the old by using it, and also changing or developing it to suit modern contexts, bringing out a new defined vocabulary. It’s not about being modern for the sake of it. But being able to understand the context, the material, the technique, the need of that particular project, client’s brief and being able to balance them all with our own design sensibility and knowledge.

What was most important, in both presentations, was the understanding and acceptance of who they really are. And also to be able to be afraid, make mistakes and rise above them. It is this honesty that showed through their work and made these two presentations so worth watching.

PS:
When Ambrish’s presentation ended, most people were spellbound and astounded. And began asking questions and commenting. That’s when I was surprised. Because the kind of questions or comments that came forth were from architects and designers alright, but who also, it seemed, had not stepped out on a site for years. For most of them, what was shown was something they had either never seen or never considered as a design option.

And then came the sad realisation that we expect our young generation to know and use new technologies, practices and methodologies, and also to grow to become responsible designers… but we fail in the very basics of teaching them because we are not learning/ empowering ourselves first. We cannot teach them wrongly and then condemn them when they go wrong, because the fault lies with us to begin with.

Posted in Blogroll, Design and Architecture Tagged: Ambrish Arora, architecture, design, India, Interior design, Product Design, Shrikant Nivasarkar, Teaching ]]>