
The Deshpande Center for Social Entrepreneurship or DCSE (pictured above) has –over the course of the last six weeks– become my home away from home, my office, and the reason I and nine other USC students have come to India. Started in 1996 by Gururaj and Jaishree Deshpande, the Deshpande Foundation is one of the world’s foremost philanthropic organizations dedicated to social change through innovation, entrepreneurship, and international development. As “innovators” for the Foundation’s 2010 Global Exchange Program, my university colleagues and I have partnered up in teams to design projects we are currently implementing this summer in the “Sandbox” region of Karnataka.
Given the Deshpande Foundation’s vision for development and innovation through global exchange, it should be by no surprise then that the DCSE building itself is innovative– architecturally speaking. Located at the southern end of the BVB College of Engineering and Technology, the home of the Deshpande Foundation utilizes unique form, expanding space, and a varied palette of construction materials. Don’t get me wrong, the building is by no means an architectural wonder. But with its distinct design concept and construction methodology, along with its 10,000 liter rainwater harvesting system and extensive stormwater management, the DCSE is by far the most innovative building on campus.
What does this have to do with anything, you might ask? Well, first let me ask you this. Do you think it’s a mere coincidence that the organization most preaching innovation is the one with the most innovative building? It’s no coincidence. The Deshpandes clearly had a vision. They understood that physically taking an individual out of a literal “box” building was the first and most important step in helping that person to start thinking outside the box i.e. thinking innovatively or creatively. Quite simply, they “encourage” us – whether we know it or not – to be innovative by making the environment around us innovative. Think about it, it makes sense! With that said, very few things exist outside of the Deshpande Foundation in India that encourage creativity, imagination, or innovation.
I have just briefly discussed this issue from a physical perspective, but let’s take a look at it using both categories: mental constraints vs physical constraints to creativity in India.
Mental ConstraintsTake India’s primary education system, for example. Like education in the U.S or in other western countries, India rewards its students for memorization. Like us, they too have quizzes and exams that test their students’ ability to memorize things they have either read or learned in class. But unlike the U.S., India doesn’t offer subjective learning- mainly in the form of art. Drawing, painting, sculpture, photography, and many other creativity-demanding activities don’t exist in India’s primary school curriculums, whether public or private. Walk into a classroom here and you won’t see any of the children’s artwork hanging around the classroom. Why? Because they don’t do it.
“Why is it that no original research is being done in India?” asked Dr. Sanjeev Kulkarni, a practicing gynecologist and founder of Baala Balaga, a progressive Indian school located in the nearby city of Dharwad. Dr. Kulkarni decided to start his own “school” – from the front room of his house– for his young son after seeing the limits India’s education system places on students. Now in its 14th year, Baala Balaga (www.baalabalaga.org) has grown into a legitimate school composed of three building complexes and roughly 500 students. Here, the belief is in learn by doing, where activities like drawing, cooking, and sports are an integral part of the curriculum just like mathematics and science. For Dr. Kulkarni, these types of nonconventional activities sometimes offer the same value, if not more value, over the course of child’s life than traditional school topics.
Baala Balaga is not the only school with this type of unique philosophy. The Blue School (http://www.theblueschool.org/) in lower Manhattan offers a similar approach to learning where creativity, collaboration, and play are vital to a child’s learning process. In a similar story (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html), Ken Robinson explains the limits traditional schools place on the imagination and how they kill creativity in children rather than foster it. Mental constraints aren’t the only killers of creativity. Physical constraints are there also.
Physical ConstraintsI’d like to talk about physical constraints for creativity in India on two levels, the building level (individual) and the city level (societal). I talk about these constraints from the perspective of human collaboration–the foundation of our team’s project this summer. To understand this, we’ll first have to agree on two things: human interaction is a prerequisite of human collaboration and human collaboration advances human imagination.
Individual, or building level constraints apply more to small groups, such as families or classrooms of students. Going back to India’s education system, the physical design, or lack thereof, of schools and classrooms greatly puts students at a disadvantage to be imaginative and interactive. If you can recall my earlier argument about the design of the DCSE building and how literally being inside an actual “box” presumably traps a person from thinking outside the box…..then you’ll understand my problem when I say the design of nearly every public and private classrooms that I’ve seen in India- with the exception of Dr. Kulkarni’s classrooms- is in the form of an enclosed box that isolates students from one another. With steel bars on the windows, the rooms look more like prison cells than classrooms. Where’s the creativity in that?
Moreover, public schools don’t provide the basic infrastructure for children to learn, let alone be creative. About three weeks ago, my team and I did a ride-along with the education NGO Agastya to a local government school. To my surprise, the children had to sit on the concrete floor because there weren’t enough chairs. There weren’t enough tables or books either. We later learned that the children neither had a suitable toilet nor clean drinking water; to use the bathroom, they had to go to nearby fields, and to get water, they used a pond across the road. As they later told us, all they really wanted was a proper playground to play with one another.
Have you (referring to my USC colleagues) ever asked yourself what purpose the courtyard in our Scholars House serves? Is it just for natural light and ventilation? Is it simply a garden for plants? Or was it meant to be something more? If you haven’t noticed, our Indian neighbors on the second floor have placed plastic chairs around the perimeter of the courtyard; they sit there and talk. Why? Because they want to
use the courtyard. They want to be able to sit and interact with each other and the other people living here. They want this to be
their playground. Think about it and ask yourself this: does the design of this courtyard- or the schools that we’ve visited for that matter- encourage interaction?
The physical design of the city is just as unresolved when it comes to human interaction in my opinion. Like our courtyard, the major issue with Hubli lies with the use, or nonuse, of its streets and public open spaces. Wait, let me back up for a second. Public open spaces don’t even exist in Hubli! Other than the one public park that I’ve been to in this city–which was, keep in mind, so warmly inviting with its six foot tall steel gate blocking pedestrians from freely coming in–the closest thing you’ll get to a public open space in Hubli is the crowded downtown market. Yes, the surrounding streets support high levels of pedestrian traffic, but it’s chaotic and there’s nowhere to sit. I have to stand to drink my coconut or eat my ice cream, while keeping one eye on the road so not to get run over by a bus. Streets here, and in most other Indian cities, rarely offer spaces of stasis–areas to just sit and observe the human experience, the daily routine, or the “social drama” of the city as Lewis Mumford so eloquently once put it. Time spent in this city seems more like a constant scatter of empty experiences, waiting to be realized. Interaction on these streets is sparse and swift at best- often with little or no substance. Even with all the curiosity and interest that I and my friends attract, we rarely interact with people on the street. Can you remember the last time you had a fruitful conversation with a stranger on the street? With 1.2 million people, the twin cities of Hubli-Dharwad offer some of the densest and least pedestrian-friendly streets I have set foot on. And from what I've seen, quality human interaction is missing here. Yet we wonder where the community involvement is? Where is the collective living?!
Hypothetically speaking now, just imagine for a second what Hubli could look like if streets connected activity-rich public spaces that actually brought people together for a purpose, like well-planned parks or plazas. Imagine outdoor shops and restaurants that incorporated dance performances, festivals, and Indian weddings, bringing different parts of the community together. Who’s to say it's not possible? I’m not saying I have the solution. But what I do know is that Hubli’s current physical and mental formwork suppresses the two most essential elements of growth: creativity and collaboration.
Albert Einstein once famously said, “Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions.” Unfortunately in Hubli, imagination is rare and difficult find. But luckily for my teammates and I this summer, creativity and collaboration shouldn’t be our issue. Because if Wikipedia is our model for collaboration and the rest of the world is our imagination, I can’t wait to see the attractions life has in store for Hubli!
-Zlatan