This is a response in light of recent events regarding the judgment of the supreme court on the

practice of architecture. The court has ruled that a person does not require a professional degree, nor
does he/she need to be registered under the Architect's Act to undertake any vocation related to
architecture and its cognate activities.

This is going to drastically impact the practice of architecture as profession; there is no doubt that it
under evaluates the need for a professional degree in this field and nullifies a whole architecture
education system headed by the Council of Architecture.

So where does that leave us, as students of this prestigious province of creation? There is an uproar
about the dangers of non professional individuals - companies and firms running without any
background in graduating architecture, or professional ethics, calling themselves “practicing
architects”. This can go down a very dangerous road if it is allowed to continue, to the extent that a
need for a basic degree would be absolute in the future.

But, as there are two sides to every coin, there is a necessity for deeper clarity and a different
perspective on this situation. They are as follows:

Stop branding architecture !

Architecture as a profession may have had at least 200 years of precedent - it has shaped the world as
we see it. It started as a discipline from Vitruvius to the complex multifaceted interdisciplinary field
that we have come to know and respect today. But the act of building is eons older and has its roots
set in the evolution of human settlement. It has, culturally and traditionally, always been a part of all
the human world.

Good design can come from anyone. Your degree does not hold the copyright to the act of good
design.
Nor can we vouch for the fact that good design can only come from one who has gone through the 5-
year long course at an institution.
We are aware that the majority of our architecture knowledge comes from our experience practicing
it.
No one becomes a good architect with just a degree. So it doesn't make sense for us to stop anyone
(non-degree holders ) from entering the field. They might have not had a chance or privilege to learn
architecture in an institution. They might not even have been aware of the complexity and
responsibility of this field. We as educated individuals shouldn't fail to see such a point.

So how do we view this situation? I think there are a few questions that we as architects need to ask
ourselves to better clarify this ultimatum.

Are we really holding true to our architectural truths and ethics?

Are we really focusing on urbanism? Traditional values, climatic values? Environmental impacts?
Are we really focusing on the long-term influence of our buildings on this Earth, and its people?
When have we raised our voices against badly designed government buildings? When have we
stopped building encroachment, protested the breach of FSI regulations? When have we stopped the
creation of disruptive urban structures that would effect all parties involved?
Are we practising alternate methods of construction to save the environment from further man-made
destruction? And is it enough to actually make a difference?

No, we just focus on getting bigger projects, richer clients, creating exotic buildings - no matter the
repercussion - we have lost our way and the ability to see the bigger picture. Our biggest dreams at
the moment are to start our own firms, and for what? Getting a feature on Arch Daily, winning a few
awards, and fraternizing with the false impression of being a star architect.

Everybody wants to be a good architect but not everyone dares to design that which brings upon a
positive change.
People say that only certified architects know about aesthetics, the function of spaces sustainability,
urbanism, green architecture, the energy dynamics of architecture. But are we really holding these
values in our day to day practice? To be fair, we do some right, while others we choose to ignore for
the most part.

In general, we choose client satisfaction, over the client's needs. We are more interested in servicing
the client for money, rather than focusing on innovations that can bring about a true change socially
environmentally and economically.

Isn't it true that though we study these high values of architecture in college, we choose to ignore it
largely in practice? Then, do we really have the right to oppose non-certified designers from entering
the field when we ourselves have chosen not to be the architects we wanted to be? Did our practice
become so low that it poses a danger of being replaced by so-called non-professinals? Is the system
convinced that we professional architects can be so easily replaced?

Till now in the Indian context, there is a lack of public awareness about architecture.
Have we taken measures to create architecture awareness among the public about the importance of
our field in the larger context? Have we made people realize the role that architects play in shaping
the world? No, I don’t think so. So how can we blame the system for keeping us in the shadows? How
can we blame them for looking down upon us as a replaceable service, as people fit for only making
plans, and doing flashy facades and cozy interiors, which can be done by anyone? Such a shame.

I would like to conclude by saying this. Certainly, this is a difficult situation for architects. But I see it as
an emerging opportunity to reassess ourselves as true architects and its time to put our education to
good use, hold up good architecture values in practice and realize our true profession. You can only
have passion for something you will follow through. And that passion should start at the beginning -
how else do we guarantee a strong foundation in the hearts of all our professionals? Re assess your
reasons. Reevaluate your priorities. And maybe someday we will be recognized - truly recognized - for
our achievements in all walks of life.