In the year 2006-7 there was a huge debate on a social networking website when the then principal of AOA had to step down to make space for another one. The discussion meandered from AOA to NASA to god knows what! Names were taken, different people were accused and personal enimity was all over the website. The news soon reached the management and potential (avant-garde) faculties were removed from the system. People did not sleep for nights answering to threads of conversations and some people (outsiders included) distantly enjoyed the whole scene. We did not learn any thing from the ruckus. They have started it again over another social networking website - the blame game has already begun. Sadly, no one shall use this period for self reflection. Let us discuss larger issues here.
In the ruffle of the Principal of Academy of Architecture resigning from his post, I got to learn from Prasad Shetty the dynamic of actors that control architectural education in India. I shall discuss the rubric of this situation through multiple narratives I have voiced on my blog earlier. There is no best way to connect them, but through this very event.
---
i
ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION IN INDIA:
Three prime bodies are involved here (we shall discuss later why it is important to understand the roles of the following):
1. The Council of Architecture (COA): The Council of Architecture is the body which legitimizes a person to practice as an architect in the country. It is a national body and looks after the architectural production of the country. At the same time, it also has to regulate the architectural education in the country. Basically, it keeps a check on the logistical issues of setting up an architecture school in India. The architectural curriculum is decided by the State Universities (and hence it varies from school to school). COA hardly has any role to play in the curriculum of architectural education.
2. The All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE): This body overlooks all the different branches of technical education in the country, out of which architecture happens to be one. It is "an advisory body in all matters relating to technical education." (source). AICTE's understanding of architecture is, without doubt, technical and hence COA is in constant tensions with AICTE. Again, AICTE is a national body. The Directorate of Technical Education is, in abbreviation, known as DTE.
3. The Mumbai University (MU): The Mumbai University is one that controls / disburses the degree to a graduate of architecture in the city. Its role is completely academic. It is more of a state body. The head of MU is the Chancellor who represents the MU in the state while it is the Vice Chancellor who does the real job of the Chancellor under his instructions.
---
ii
GAME OF MONEY:
Note that the funds for the national bodies come from the Central Government (the Centre) while that of the MU comes from the state.
Academy of Architecture is a government aided college where partially, the funds for running the college come from the Mumbai University.
---
iii
MANIFESTOES:
Rachana Sansad trust was created as an educational trust "to promote education in the field of art, architecture and ... allied disciplines" Further, it says : "Talking about the nature of Education here, even after 55 years, Banyan is our logo, representing growth, strength, stability, service and trust."(source)
Under larger question is what we read on the Academy of Architecture Website: "...As a result AOA's enlightened students step into the professional world with wisdom and confidence gained at the institute."
CRITICAL LENS:
THE CASE:
Disallowed List put up at the end of the year > Some Students unhappy / disagree with decision > Try convincing Punde > Punde Firm > Students try Arm Twisting, their parents use contacts with DTE > DTE calls up Management of AOA
LARGER QUESTIONS:
I have longer comments that I must not mix up with this post.
In the ruffle of the Principal of Academy of Architecture resigning from his post, I got to learn from Prasad Shetty the dynamic of actors that control architectural education in India. I shall discuss the rubric of this situation through multiple narratives I have voiced on my blog earlier. There is no best way to connect them, but through this very event.
---
i
ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION IN INDIA:
Three prime bodies are involved here (we shall discuss later why it is important to understand the roles of the following):
1. The Council of Architecture (COA): The Council of Architecture is the body which legitimizes a person to practice as an architect in the country. It is a national body and looks after the architectural production of the country. At the same time, it also has to regulate the architectural education in the country. Basically, it keeps a check on the logistical issues of setting up an architecture school in India. The architectural curriculum is decided by the State Universities (and hence it varies from school to school). COA hardly has any role to play in the curriculum of architectural education.
2. The All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE): This body overlooks all the different branches of technical education in the country, out of which architecture happens to be one. It is "an advisory body in all matters relating to technical education." (source). AICTE's understanding of architecture is, without doubt, technical and hence COA is in constant tensions with AICTE. Again, AICTE is a national body. The Directorate of Technical Education is, in abbreviation, known as DTE.
3. The Mumbai University (MU): The Mumbai University is one that controls / disburses the degree to a graduate of architecture in the city. Its role is completely academic. It is more of a state body. The head of MU is the Chancellor who represents the MU in the state while it is the Vice Chancellor who does the real job of the Chancellor under his instructions.
---
ii
GAME OF MONEY:
Note that the funds for the national bodies come from the Central Government (the Centre) while that of the MU comes from the state.
Academy of Architecture is a government aided college where partially, the funds for running the college come from the Mumbai University.
---
iii
MANIFESTOES:
Rachana Sansad trust was created as an educational trust "to promote education in the field of art, architecture and ... allied disciplines" Further, it says : "Talking about the nature of Education here, even after 55 years, Banyan is our logo, representing growth, strength, stability, service and trust."(source)
Note the words : "growth, strength, stability, service and trust."
In 2009, Rachana Sansad opened a private course for architecture with questionable infrastructure in place. This was precisely for:
growth = raising money
strength = making networks and gaining power
stability = using networks to build money banks
service and trust - to whom and for whom?
Under larger question is what we read on the Academy of Architecture Website: "...As a result AOA's enlightened students step into the professional world with wisdom and confidence gained at the institute."
---
iv
CRITICAL LENS:
"A recent declaration of the Management at the Academy is that the institution has been allowed to build additional 14 floors onto itself. Although there was a huge confusion about what should be an appropriate image for the new academy, there has been no stake of the people who are using it. There was considerable debate on the design and the designer.... The lack of any history of the college restricts any outlook and participation of the students, faculties and the staff – which essentially remain the stake holders of the space..."
from: "Archiving the Academy", unpublished research proposal, Anuj Daga & Arjun Sharma
---
v
THE CASE:
Disallowed List put up at the end of the year > Some Students unhappy / disagree with decision > Try convincing Punde > Punde Firm > Students try Arm Twisting, their parents use contacts with DTE > DTE calls up Management of AOA
The DTE asked the Management of the Academy of Architecture / Rachana Sansad to reverse the decision taken by the Academic body - the Principal and the teachers. The Management gives orders to the Principal to allow the 3 influential students to escape, to which the Principal rejects - safeguarding the remaining students who may not have political contacts to save their lives. In the pressure of a decision, the solution comes out to be a resignation.
This looks like a clear case of interference of the DTE with the management of the college.
Why?
Why?
Because some rich influential parent decides to show off his/her power to save the case of his child.
What does a firm disciplined behaviour of the Academy mean to the high authority?: Spoiling relationship with the bodies that may give concessions and money for its 'growth, strength and stability'.
---
vi
LARGER QUESTIONS:
I have questions:
- Do students come to an Institute for education or to show off their money?
- Do students understand the essential difference between education and degree?
- What value systems are parents operating upon today?
- What must be the ethics of using powerful political networks?
- What do we look forward to from an Institution that claims itself to be one of the best architectural institutes in the country?
And I already had these remarks earlier:
Bourgeois culture has forced people to mistake education for a degree, which can be applied to any job to earn a lot of money. Students are completely taken by a degraded value system where parents teach them to cheat. Some parents come to us demanding unreasonable grants, to the extent of telling us "that's how it works..."
As Prof. Shinkre shrugs: "Students no longer come here for education..."
Ravindra Punde lived Noam Chomksy's essay "The responsibility of Intellectuals". Chomsky opens his essay by saying "IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies."
I have longer comments that I must not mix up with this post.
---
vii
REFLECTIONS:
REFLECTIONS:
Lastly, as I said four years ago, and they gave me all awards for voicing it:
We live in a "cinema for the blind"!
No comments:
Post a Comment