After the British left India in 1947, Indian architecture dropped into an abyss. Indian architects, who were

relegated to the role of being assistants to the British architects under the British Raj, took their own time

to express their ingenuity. Perhaps, there was an identity crisis, a dilemma whether to bask in the glory of

the past or move forward with times using new ideas, images and techniques. While in other fields like art,

music and culture, the distinct Indian imprint was more enhanced in the post-Independence period; no

such thing was discernible in the case of architecture. It is no doubt that the Indian architects were unable

to achieve a transformative architecture despite the existence of great potential at the time of Indian

Independence.

The post-Independence period saw the emergence of three schools of thought in architecture – the

Revivalist on a smaller scale, the constructivist Russia and the Modernist on a larger scale. The Revivalists,

who advocated "continuity with the past", could not break the shackles of the colonial legacy and left no

significant impact on the neo-Indian architecture. The Modernists too depended heavily on the European

and American models and tried to adopt them in India without taking into consideration the regional

aspirations, diversities and requirements. The contemporary Indian architecture was also beset with

problems like population explosion, lack of vision among the planners, lack of support from the

government and a less than satisfactory standard of architecture education. The result was that during

the initial years after the Independence, foreign architects continued to play a leading role in Indian

architecture.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister, had called for an open architectural competition for the design

of the Ashoka Hotel in 1956, which was won by B.E.Doctor, an architect from Bombay. Using technology to

create large pillar-less spaces, Doctor created a facade that borrowed from Islamic, Hindu, British and

modern architecture.

Indian architecture witnessed a revolution when the Punjab government engaged Le Corbusier to design

the new city of Chandigarh. Built in three stages, Corbusier divided the city into three sections. The 'head'

consisted of political, bureaucratic and judicial buildings, the administrative parts of the city. The 'body'

housed the university and residential complexes in the heart of the city. The 'feet' consisted of industrial

sectors and the railway station. Apart from the initial layout of the city, Corbusier also designed several

buildings in Chandigarh. The High Court building has a sloping roof, supported by concrete walls which

allow air to pass through them. The Assembly is a squarish structure topped with a huge industrial

chimney while the Secretariat is made up of hundreds of rooms with an airy exterior.

Taking inspiration from Le Corbusier's creativity, a young Indian architect D V Joshi designed the Institute

of Indology in Ahmedabad. Charles Mark Correa, Doshi’s contemporary, designed the Hindustan Lever

pavilion for the India International Trade Fair in 1961. The pavilion was an exposed concrete structure

resembling a crumpled packing case made of concrete with a zigzag ramp to walk along. Correa also

designed the Gandhi Sanghralaya in Ahmedabad as a tribute to Mahatma Gandhi.

The Asiad Village in New Delhi, designed by Raj Rewell and built as a colossal

complex with more than 800 residential units, landscaped courts, streets,

restaurants and shops, all catering to sports persons who had assembled for the

1982 Asian Games, is one of the architectural landmarks of modern India. The

lotus-shaped Bahai temple in New Delhi, designed by Fariburz Sabha in 1980 and completed in December

1986, is an awe-inspiring example of the ingenuity of the Indian architects.

However, the fact remains that the contemporary architecture in India has failed to inspire. Even after 50

years of Independence our cities are still symbolised by pre-independence buildings. For instance, Calcutta

is symbolised by the Victoria Memorial, New Delhi by the Rashtrapati Bhawan, Mumbai by the Victoria

Terminus and the Gateway of India and Chennai by the Victoria Memorial Hall. The post-independence

buildings such as the New Secretariat building in Calcutta or the Vigyan Bhawan in New Delhi has nothing

much to offer in terms of architectural style.

In contrast most major cities in the world have splendid modern buildings to boast off, like Sydney has its

Sydney Opera House, Paris has new Grand Arch and the Georges Pompidos Centre, New York has its World

Trade Centre, Chicago has the Sears Tower and Toronto has the C.N.Tower. Even cities in other Third

World countries have several buildings to feel proud about, like Kuala Lumpur has its Petronas Tower,

Shangai has the TV Tower, Hong Kong has its Hongkong and Shanghai Corporation building and the Bank

of China Building and even Colombo has its new Parliament building.

In November 1998, the media reported that the foundation stone of World Centre of Vedic Learning, the

world's tallest building would be laid at Karondi village, in Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh. The building, which

will be built by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University, is being designed according to the Maharishi

Sthapatya Veda symbolising the victory of India's ancient knowledge of Vastu Vidya. The proposed centre

for Vedic consciousness, which is modelled on Sao Paulo Tower of Brazil, would be 677 metres (2222 feet)

high and 339 metres (1111 feet) wide at the square base. Once completed it will be more than 213 metres

(700 feet) taller than the Petronas Tower in Kuala Lumpur and will achieve the distinction of being the

world's tallest building. It was also reported that a consortium of architects and engineers who have

designed several of the tallest structures in the world is undertaking the design of the building. Indeed,

India will have something to cheer about if this building materializes!

Madhya Pradesh seems to be the only state in India which has several grand public buildings and

international award winning projects. The New Assembly building in Bhopal and the Madhya Pradesh State

Electricity Board office in Jabalpur, The Judicial Academy in Bhopal, the Rajiv Gandhi Jal Grahan Mission in

Raipur and the proposed "White House" in Bhopal are some fascinating examples which show that global

aesthetics is moving very fast into the smaller Indian cities. Paradoxically, it is the smaller cities and

towns like Indore, Raipur, Rajkot, Baroda and Bhopal, with no greatly visible architectural traditions like

that of Jaipur, Hyderabad or Lucknow, that are displaying unprecedented alacrity in adapting to

'international styles'. There is a growing brand of young and dynamic architects, which include Charles

Correa, Prashant Diwakriti, Ajay Kataria, Anjum Gupta, Vineet Chadha, Nikhil Sompura and others, who do

not shy away from experimentation. Most often these architects employ a hybrid style that is a free mix of

Roman, English, Gothic, Rajasthani and Mughal styles. This new-age architectural aesthetics has redefined

the idea of space. The emphasis now seems to be on having more open spaces, green spaces and natural

lighting. It is, however, not possible to term this new trend as a 'representative' architecture of our times

as it is highly restricted in geographic terms and also confined to the affluent lot.

applied arts. Several schools for industrial design were a post-war development. hence the winds of

change sweeping over the Indian design scene remained confined only to the field of architecture.

Two of the internationally recognized disciplines of modem design in the second half of the twentieth

century are industrial design and graphic design; the later, because of its fairly recent preoccupation with

the design of modern communication and media-oriented activities, is also known as visual

communications design. These disciplines received a fillip in India because of a conscious decision by the

country’s post -independence rulers to launch a concerted drive to attain economic and industrial self-

sufficiency On the industrial front there was, by the middle of the 1950s, a dear vision of the process of

industrialization on a national scale. High technology and high volumes in production, on the one hand,

and handwork and craft production. on the other, were bridged by “small-scale” production.

tntIias first industrial revolution in the early 1950s resulted in the creation of a vast industrial inlras

tructure and inculcated a tcchnological” attitude in the post-iiidcpcndcncc generation. By the late 1950s

the country had a number of plants manufacwring capital goods” and machinery, some of which began to

produce consumer products. But these plants eventually became the domain of a different level of pro.

duction — the small-scale sector, which in the early l960s ushered in what could rightly be called India’s

second industrial revolution.

AN INSTITUTE OF DESIGN

It was then that the idea of starring an institute of design was mooted by the ministry of commerce and

industry of the government of india. It eventually took the form of a comprehensively written proposal by

Charles Eamcs and Ray Eames, American husband and wife architect and designer ream, the India Report.

Except for architecture, there were no seats of design learning in pie-independence India, nor was there an

indigenous design profession as such. But there were people who, though in a minority, were educated in

modem design and yet were primarily concerned with the design idioms of traditional India. According to

them, these idioms, which evolved over centuries as a result of soclo-cukural_processes,_had been_lying

dormant

and were waiting to be discovered. They were seen as poised to influence and change the complexion oi

the design process, which, in fact, was horn of the International Design movement. If such cultural identity,

discussed at length in the india Report. was one art-a of need, then the second and more urgent area of

need was the economic and industrial development of the nation. Such juxtaposition of sicws might seem

to lead to a dichotomy, but the authors of the India Report and thc Iou.iding fathers of the proposed

institute of design already hcld a view that the historical imperar ivc.s which led w the birth of modern

design must be dearly understood and distinguished from those responsible for India’s traditional design

thinking. Only then would a parity be clearly perceived and the design wisdom of an ancient culture and

society be fruitfully assimilated into the education and prokision of the modern Indian designers.

Reinforcing this argument was Eames’ poetic analysis of the design process of a Iota, the ubiquitous Indian

pot form, which, in fact, epicomircd the underlying philosophy of the India Report. It is appropria te that it

was none other than Charles Eimcs, one of the most erudite design thinkers and a world- renowned

industrial and communication designer. who should draw — albeit by implication — the fine distinction

between the two kinds of design processes. One design process is “evolved” and is responsible for the

traditional design solutions and the other is to he “learnt by the coming generation of Indian designers.

In retrospect the I 960s were an interesting decade when design seemed to preoccupy many peoples

minds. A distinct need was felt by the government to train special experts kr solving the design problems

of newly established industries. Within a short period of six years, two design instisutions of nnional import

ance began functioning in India — the National Institute of Design (NID), established in 1962 at

Ahnicdabad, Gujarat, and the Industrial Design Centre (IDC). established in 1968 as a posgraditare

department of the Indian Institute of Technology at Mumbai.

54

The concept of “design” has, in modern times, accumulated many layers of meaning and usages which, in

turn, conjure up confusing images and interpretations. However, the basic concept of design is easy to

comprehend if it is related to the human instinct of survival through innovation. This instinct has been

present in all human cultures, past and present, and is particularly evident in the design of functional

objects, shelters, means of transportation and production, and tools, scripts, signs. and symbols. The

universal familiarity with the design process provides a simple and direct way to characterize the nature

of

design.

THE CORE OF DESIGN:

PLANNING A DEVICE

An important constituent of the design process directly relates to the twin abilities of human beings to

foresee a future need and plan to fulfil it. An act of design, as a rule, starts with the planning of a tangible

solution that results in a device”, which may be an object or an object system, a built space. or a

communications sysrcm. All dcsigrt is planning — at least it begins with planning — but all planning is not

design.

Design can be understood historically with re&rence to the evolved ability of primaeval man to plan and

create a device to meet a ftresecn need. As part of the irss of innovation, this Capacity can be called

prirnacv.iI man’s design ability. This ability manifested itself in the crearion of three basic devices to mccl

the most basic human needs: the basic tool, the basic shelter, and the basic communication system. These

first acts of design laid the foundation for today’s man-made environment and were possible because of

man’s dcsignabiliry’ and his understanding of nature in its two most important aspects: nature’s laws and

nature’s materials.

THE EVOLVED DESIGN PROCESS

Designability is the result of a continuous historical process of solving problems related to special kinds of

human needs. There arc at least six conditions under which such a process could function:

When a clearly foreseen human need is not fulfilled of its own accord, it naturally challenges the human

faculty to plan and innovate. Therefore, the problem as it emerges is a result of the need to satisFj human

requirements.

lithe solution requires the nuking ola device, only then does it become a problem of design.

When a problem demands a device, the primordial human instinct would by w turn to nature because

nature maintains a vast and barely concealed inventory of possible solutions to almost all problems of

design.

The instinct to innovate would invariably make man go beyond nature’s “readymade” solution (which

would, and should, remain a source of inspiration) and seek a solution by exploring two major resources

available in naurc: the intangible resource of natural laws and the tangible resource of natural materials.

As an outcome of the interaction between these two resources a device would eventually emerge. The

device would be tested, modified, and retested, until it fulfils the original need. Often, owing to the time

frame involved (years. if not decades), this design process is not perceived in separate, well-defined

stages. However, at any given point in human history; if we were to examine either

an object, a built space, or a communication svstent that characterized the contemporary human cnviron

mcnt. it would certainly tell us a similar sagc-by-stage “design story”. Li is not difficult to deduce that each

significant ch.angc m the physiognomy” ola device was the result of either an added or extended need

(the physical nccd extended to the psychological. socio-cultural. or even spiritual realm), the adoption of a

ncw technology (from stone to metals, plastics. and composites), or change to a new energy source (from

being driven by man to animals, to steam, to petroleum, to clectricuy).

There are at leasa three more reasons that give the evoked design process its “unstructured” image. By its

very nature this process is protractcd ovrr a considerable length of time. It is also an organic process.

hardly ever employed selI-conccously. This makes it simply impossible to learn it in a structured

educational environment. Last, and most important, it is the result of the collective contribution of many

anonymous designers over several gcncrations.

Undoubtcdl>; it is the evolved design process that has been speaking” to us all these years through the

best of the craftsmen’s solutions in all parts of the world. One sees it at work even today in the craft-

producing centres of India and other South Asian countries. In the European countries, oii the other hand.

it seemed to have stopped functioning by the ntiddlc of the nineteenth century. no doubt because of a

near total acceptance of the machine as the major method 0f production. a direct outcome of the

Industrial kcvolution.

THE LEARNT DESIGN PROCESS

The new process consciously employed by the modern designers may he tcrnied the learnt design process

because it is self-consciously acquired by an individual designer within a well-defined time frame. The

rsawrc oldie learnt design pwccss is such that, whenever employed, it has to be deliberate and methodical

and, unlike the evolved design process that may straddle many generations, it is bound within a lime

frame.

The beginnings of the learnt design process ean be traced to the period after the Industrial Revolution,

perhaps in the early decades of the nineteenth century. The word ‘dcsign was yet to be used in relation

with industrial production. Design was imagined as an isolated activity vaguely connected with art, or the

creation of a visual pattern. Significantly, the phrase denoting the activity of designing for industrial prod

uctioii that fIrst gained acceptance in Great Britain was “industrial art”. It was also around this time that

architects and engineers began to work as “prokssionals, in the modern sense ci the word. In order to

solve their problems, which were of a specialized nature, they seemed to need a “planning tool” or

“str.ucgy” that could be mastered with the professional’s own efforts. This seems to be one of the major

factors to have transformed the concept o design to undergo a transformation in the early part of the

twentieth ccntur The old image of”design as an isolated activity gradually acquired connotations of a

process, a problem- solving process. ro be more accurate. Naturally, it was then that the core idea of

planning began to make even better sense.

DESIGN AND CRAFT

Until the early eighteenth century the present-day concept of Indian an or even Indian craft did not form a

part of the conscious thinking and living experience of the people. The simple reason is that for more than

three millennia, the concept of art had remained completely indistinguishable from that of craft, and both

from what is known today as design.

In Indian history, art and craft have traditionally been regarded very differently than they are in thc

modern world. Today. even a cursory examination of traditional environments would reveal that they arc

replete with objects and system.s created w fulfil specific human needs. The need may be physical or

psychological, literal or symbolic. One senses that a spirit ol authitya (total appropriateness” in Sanskric).

in its profoundest sense, permeates the environment.

What we celebrate as Indian art today was, in India’s distant past. equated with the creation of inuges

related to the divinities oldie Indian pantheon and inspired by the observable natural and universal

phenomena. These images resulted not only in idols, sculptures. graphic icons, and ritual objects. but also

in constructed environments. l’hcsc images and formal spaces were created priniarily to please the senses

and sensibilities of the gods who, nor incidentally, were invested with precisely the same .itihtiics as those

of sensitive humans. On this premise rest most of tue dassical aesthetic canons of India,

As the images and rtlatcd environments were created in accordance with these canons, they inevitably

possessed the requisite visual elegance. Those who created them were endowed with a certain slate of

grace. having been blessed by the gods. As the nearest equivalent to artists — in the Western sense oi the

term — masons; palilters; ilitigrators; weavers; stone, clay, and wood workers; and rneralsniiths also

creased artefacts of everyday usc for the householders. Hence, they arc also equivalern to modern-day

craftsmen. Therefore. no separate terms were needed to distinguish the plastic arts from the crafts. In the

minds of the creators and the people for whom these objects were created, art and craft remained

inseparable.

This unifcd concept remained unchanged for more than 2,000 years and had a single word to express it:

kala, a word not easy tu translate or define because its meaning embraces all aspects of the arts, crafts,

skills, and basic sciences and technologies.

Modern design. in the guise of the Irnertiational Design movement, was popularired in india soon after

independence. To appreciate the advent of modern design in India in its proper perspective, it is important

to outline ihc historical and socio-economic 1ictors behind it. If’ one accepts the premise that an unbroken

tradition oicraft production in an ancient culture carries a dynamic design process. which is quali fied as

the evolved design process. then India’s craftsmen since time immemorial have produced some

remarkable design solutions. Also, the craft tradition in India, unlike its European coutiterp’art, has

survived oloflizatiofl, as well as India’s giant strides towards pust—indepcndencc industx-ialii.atiaii.

Crautsnwii in India still produce the same time-tested designs that cater to the needs of the Indian people.

or at least the pp1 of rural India.

THE CONCEPT OF MECHANIZATION

The enterprise of colonizing the Indian suixontinent came to cmbody by the middle of the nineteenth cent

ury the metaphor of a giant conduit whose one end shipped out raw materials from India while the other

shippcd in various influences from contemporary Britain and Europe, including the after-effects of the

Industrial Revolution.

By the time India was plated under the direct rule of the British crown in 1858. these incoming inilue nees

already included sonse typically British ilistirutions that were eventually transplanted on Indian soil. Most

notable .unong these were new methods of goscrnancc. jurisprudence, and education, Also included were

a bust oi social habits, objects, and architectural idioms that were gradually adopted by the people of

India. ‘[his was not entirely a one-way traffic. A few iniluenccs travelled from india to Britain. ol which the

two most notable were indian teuilcs and architectural style. The oft-cited examples arc those of Dhaka

muslin, the Kashmir ihawl, and the Nash Pavilion at Brighton that recalls the 1ij Mahal. More interesting

was the development of design idioms which resulted from the niecring of the two cultures on Indian soil;

the style may be labelled lndo.-Britkh, however, a prevalent term during the Raj was Anglo—Indian. Two

examples that reflect this coniluenee of cultures arc the ,iifln box arid the deep verandas of a dak

bungalow.

The period of nearly ninety years (1858-1947) that followed the imposition of imperial rule was marked by

a process of gradual and limited urbanization. The new industrial environment in the few urban centres

that emerged on both sides of the peninsular coast was not India’s own brand of the Industrial Revolution.

However, the socio-economic changes in people’s lives, the result of mechanical methods of production,

did not travel outside these cities for a long time. Also, the original reason for the birth and growth of these

cities was to act as ‘loading stations” for raw material arriving from the hInterland. So naturally the first to

arrive on the scene was a last and entirely mechanized form of transportation; the railway For the same

reason, the first machine to be installed for production was the ginning miLl. These were eveni ttally

followed by machines for spinning and weaving (hat rivalled and, to a certain extent, damaged the

handloom and other craft production systems of the Indian subcontinent.

During ihi.s tinw niodcrn materials with concomitant production and engineering skills were being

introduced and were readily adopted by a new breed of local manufacturers. These materials included

sreel. structural glass. reinforced concrete, and scmie very basic plastics which in turn posed a strong

counterpoint to the hand-wrought copper, brass, and iron objects and took, and hand-carved stone and

wood structures. Much of this technological change was powered by the arrival of dectricit which was list

replacing steam energy.

Modern mechanical mrans of communication came long before the locomotive and the spinning jenny.

In 1776 Nathaitid B. 1-lalhd cast the first-ever metal type in Bengali. His A Grammar of the Bengal

Language (1778) was one of die earliest printed books in India. The first newspaper. Hickys Bengal Ga-

zeite, was published in Calcutta, in 1780. while the first Indian language newspaper, Samacbar L)arpan, in

Bengali. came out in 1818, soon to be followed by a Gujarad newspaper, MumbaiSamachar. in 1822.

THE MODERN MOVEMENT AND THE BAUHAUS

The beginning of the twentieth ceittury saw the Modem Movement influencing the work of most archit ects

and designers in Europe and America. Among many important historical developments nitliat perio d was

the ftunding of the Bauhaus (1919-1933). the pionccringsdiool of modem design. Founded by the architect

Walter Gropius, thc school taught various crafts which he linked to architecture. By teaching stud ents art

and in technically expert craftsmanship, the Bauhaus sought to end the schism between the two.

The educational philosophy of the Hauhaus by in a total Commitment by its maclers and teachers to

create a new generation of designers for the design needs of the twentieth century. which were radically

different from those of past ccnturics. To achieve this goal. the Bauhatis had to stage a deliberate revolt

against the age-old system of educating designers. architects. and artists. The system k opposed wa.s laid

down by the French Eci des Beaux-Arts; and since 1648 it had been followed with almost no change by

schools all over the world.

The Beaux-Arts “tradition” also travelled w India in the middle of the nineteenth century as an offs hoot of

the newly planned educational system authored by lord Macaulay. which was introduced for the fIrst time

in 1835. Jr arrived in the guise of the schools of Arts and Crafts, directly modelled on the eponym ous

instirudons in contemporary Britain, The first of these was established in Calcutta and was named the

School of Industrial Art. Originally, it was meant to teach Indian students the elements of drawing to assist

the experts working with the Archaeological Survey of India. In 1864 it expanded its areas of learni ng to

include painting. sculpture. and crafts and was renamed the Government College of Arts and Crafts. Before

the decade ended, there were two other schools, one in Bombay (now Mumbai) and one in Madras (flow

Chennai). For nearly one hundred years. the curricula and the teaching methods at these schools were to

follow those of their parcnt” institutions in Britain.

For reasons of administrative efficiency the British introduced new methods and inventions from the

industrialized West in India. Similarly the Modern Movement with its philosophy of machine aesthetics and

the restless experimentation in art, architecture, and design also madc inroads into the cultural processes

of the subcontinent. This influence travelled by two channels, one indirect, the other direct. The first and

indir ect channel eventually resulted in the formation of a group of creative people in Bengal whose work

came to be labdled the “Bengal SchooF. The initial work of some members of the Bengal school, which, by

and large. consisted of paintings and graphic arts, naturally revealed an assimilation of modernist

influences, but many other artists consciou.1y borrowed from the indigenous sources and strove to strikc a

counterpoint. In this connection, it is interesting to learn tha in 1922 an exhibition of the works of the

Bauhaus masters and students during the Weimar period in Germany was held at the Calcutta

headquarters of the Indian Society of Oriental Art.

Evidently the exhibition was mounted following a suggestion From the poet Rahindranatli Tagore. Ii:

is no coincidence that Shantiniketan, the school fiunded by Debcndran.ath Tagore and later expanded by

Rahindranath Tagore into a university. became known as an exciting place for experimentation not only

in the plastic arts bus also in graphic arts, crafts, and, to a certain extent, architecture. By the end of the

1930s. the Shantinikctan influence had already spread outside Bengal, inducing similar activities in several

other parts of India.

The second and more direct channel by which modern design travelled to india was in rhc very per. sona

of one of its three apostles. Lc Corbusier (18W’-1965), Swiss architect and city planner (the orhr two being

Walter Gropius [1883.1969]. German architect and educator, founder of the Bauhaus school, and I.udwig

Mies van der Rohc [1886-19691. German-born American architect). [c Corbusici’s work epitom ized the

spirit of the Modern Movement, in general. and the International Style, in particular. In 1952 he was

commissioned by the Indian govcrnmcnt to design and build Chandigarh. the new capital of the States

o Pun jab and Hatyana.

DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE: THE SEPARATE PATHS

Le Corbusier’s design philosophy and his vast body of work cast deeply influenced the posr-Cliandigarh

generation of Indian .trchiccrs. In the words of the architectural critic Reyner Banham. he was “the most

imitable of architects of the mid-twentieth century decades” and he remained more so with most students

of architecture in India. [Ic occasionally designed fisrnicurc for his buildings and meticulously selected

objects for their approximation to geometrical solids.

During the four crucial decades between the 1920s and the 1960s, there were numerous internariona lly

renowned industrial designers praclising in Europe and the USA who had their inirial (raining as archit ects.

In fact industrial design till the end of the 1940s wa.s taught either in schcls of architecture or the