Will NEP 2020 save Indian Architecture?

For decades, Architecture in India has been on steady decline despite clear indications of a boom in real estate and construction industries. While people think of falling enrolments in B.Arch. program, struggling Architectural firms, and the decay of public infrastructure as the problems, they’re merely symptoms of deeper underlying issues, most of which have to do with Architecture education.

Architecture education in India started with the introduction of the first formal Architecture program in Sir J.J. School of Architecture, Mumbai, way back in 1913. In the absence of an Indian backdrop and an Indian presiding body (COA wasn’t born until 1972), Indian Architecture borrowed heavily from its British predecessors, at times copy-pasting out of context, especially in construction techniques.

This was the period when Architects in the developed nations were working with the governments in designing public infrastructure. Central Park in New York was already a roaring success, and Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco was under conception. Architecture was considered a noble profession as Architects designed for the welfare of communities. Thinking of an Architecture practice as another form of business was heresy.

Consequently, architecture education focused heavily on design and kept commerce at bay. Unsurprisingly, the Council of Architecture, after getting founded in 1972, introduced minimum standards for architecture education in 1983 which didn’t prescribe any business-related courses.

Post liberalization of 1991, India opened up to the world, but COA never caught up to the evolving technology landscape and changing preferences of the society. Colleges kept teaching foreign (and often archaic) techniques and processes and felt no reason to update their curriculum as the cash registers kept ringing. Hundreds of colleges which had little to do with education mushroomed in the 2000s, producing shoddy architects while taking the profits of colleges to all-time highs.

Fast forward to the present day where most Architects find themselves failing at becoming good employees as well as good employers. Graduating architects struggle to find good jobs with respectable pay. Architecture firms struggle to keep afloat because of razor-thin margins and lack of awareness of the profession in the general public. This manifests itself in the form of falling student enrolments, declining salaries and Architects leaving Architecture for good.

It was time that the industry needed a reform, and thankfully, we’re on the cusp of it owing to National Education Policy, 2020.

What is NEP 2020?

National Education Policy, introduced by the government of India in 2020, aims to revolutionize education from early childhood to higher education. It focuses on holistic development, flexibility and accessibility of education, and most importantly on the Indian approach of education.

A central proposal of NEP is to break rigid subject boundaries by promoting a multidisciplinary approach to learning that focuses on developing critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills to prepare the next generation of graduates. The policy’s recognition of the crucial role of teachers in the education system and the provisions for their continuous professional development is refreshing.

How NEP can solve the issues of Architecture

The traditional architecture program has had limited appeal in students because of the extended duration of the course and the low “return on investment” of college fees. With the implementation of NEP, the duration of B.Arch. program will be reduced to 3 years.  With NEP taking measures to prevent the commercialization of education (such as mandating not-for-profit status for colleges, regulating fees and ban on fee increments after enrolments) and increasing focus on cross-disciplinary courses on business and technology, Architecture education is hoped to regain its lost appeal.

Architects — employees and employers — have been complaining about the widening gap between academia and industry. This has roots in outdated curricula, insufficient checks and balances on colleges and ill-trained faculty. NEP tackles this issue by updating curricula to include more vocational courses, strict regulatory and accreditation checks on institutes and faculty-development plans to factor in compensation, freedom, and development needs of teaching staff.

One of the major reasons behind struggling Architecture firms is the lack of understanding of Architecture in the general public. Architects complain that they’re underpaid and uncelebrated because clients don’t know the first thing about Architecture, making it very difficult for them to communicate the value of their work to clients. This has to do with the confinement of Architecture education (and thus practice) to select few cities which has resulted in a lack of understanding and appreciation for architecture.

NEP's emphasis on opening colleges in underserved regions and promoting local languages in higher education would help spread architectural knowledge among the masses. This will in turn bring back the lost appreciation for Indian design and construction techniques, which we need desperately to develop our cities sustainably.

A dusty road ahead

In 2023, India’s education budget was a mere 2.9% of GDP. Contrast this with developed countries with robust educational institutions in place which continue to allocate upwards of 4% (4.2% of GDP for UK, 6% for US in 2023) towards education. It’s not difficult to predict that  NEP implementation will miss the mark by a light-year if the budgets aren’t quadrupled consistently for the next decade or so. Even if budgetary issues were to be resolved, the execution of NEP will be confronted with extreme resistance to change, and lack of political willpower and know-how. In the end, a policy in action is worth two on paper.

NEP limits the role of COA to a Professional Standards Setting Body and relieves it of any regulatory or accreditation duties. While this is better from a centralization and specialization standpoint, Architecture education may suffer from a lack of coordination among the disjoint authorities. However, now that the COA’s focus will solely be on setting professional standards, we can hope that COA will double down on regulating professional practice. After all, education alone won’t solve the issues Architects face!