With this absolutely bare reconstruction of the context of Kanvinde’s works, when we approach the prevalent interpretations and descriptions of them, a sense of marvel can’t be avoided at the complex associations and narratives behind their simplistic definitions. Kanvinde has been often referred as a "modern Indian" architect. Whenever we talk about an Indian architect, or any architect from the "non-Western" world, the identity of the person becomes obligatory. A western architect can get away with dealing with abstract architectural issues like aesthetics and technology; architects of the West do not specifically make Western buildings, but architects of the non-West are supposed to. Even Western architects working in these places are obliged to deal with this non-Western identity. Le Corbusier and Louis Kahn’s buildings, as Curtis explains, have responded to the national architectural traditions. In this context, "Indian" is an identity claim that in some way or other inevitably relies on a backward look to the past or a beginning, "modern" signifies the simultaneous desire for a telescopic rush into the future, freed from a dragging anchoring in the past. The immense power of suggestion that this phrase exerts is in effect, precisely its sense of compression of seeming opposites. Secondly, there is a clear dichotomy between the fundamental assertion of Kanvinde’s architectural expression in publications in Indian and non-Indian contexts. In their book written to "attempt an impartial appraisal extending to the historical context from which, the architectural expression of India is evolving", Bhatt and Scriver assert that "(his) early buildings were competent straightforward renditions of the Bauhaus aesthetic by a young convert to Gropius’s notions of architectural space defined by function", (Fig.17) and "…(his) enthusiasm for the international style was already diminishing by the time Chandigarh’s key monuments, with their seductive abstract forms, had been realised" . Meanwhile introducing one of Kanvinde’s works in an Indian journal, Kalamdani claims that "(he) is one of the few architects who has consciously attempted an application of the values of early modernism…Remaining relatively unperturbed by passing fancies, swings of the pendulum, or the so-called vagaries of time". Though there is thus a clear agreement about his early works, there is no clear view on whether his later works were an evolution of the Modern view or a new approach.

By the end of 1960s Kanvinde’s expressive architectural palate of spatial and structural system as observed in his IIT, Kanpur (Fig. 18,19) and later in NDDB, Anand (Fig.20, 21) commissions were variously interpreted as "an architectural expression that reflected the culture and aspirations" and "clearly reflected the rise of the Brutalist polemic of architecture". Expressed Concrete structure in combination with brick became the dynamic determinant of form and order. Here the paradox is that what (Brutalism) in the West was popular for the dynamism and the aesthetic of vigour, in neo-Gandhian India of 1970s is regarded a realistic and expressive product of India. In retrospect, that style shows a remarkable similarity with the brute morphology of vernacular architecture of various parts of India.

Having said that, there are other differences between Kahn’s Richards Medical Research building and Kanvinde’s IIT building to critically justify the accepted notion that Kanvinde’s building has been derived out of Kahn’s. In Richards buildings, completed in 1962, Kahn’s major innovation was his monumentalisation of the service space to become the co-equals of the master spaces. This hierarchical organisation allowed the constituent parts to retain their identities. On the other hand, in Kanpur, the local availability of high quality brick and the prevalent labour and construction practices made Kanvinde go for reinforced concrete for structural frames and brick as infills (Fig.18). Guided though he was by ‘pragmatics’ of construction, Kanvinde made an ‘aesthetic’ use of the two materials, while on the other hand Kahn, guided by ‘expressive’ motives had ultimately used the two materials to show the ‘rationality’ and ‘logic’ of organisation and order, an ‘intellectual’ and ‘pragmatic’ result.

Another facet of Indian Architecture, which is ironical in the way it transforms building concepts, is the labour intensive building industry. The sheer abundance of manpower has made all major operations viz. excavation, pouring of concrete ten stories up on scaffoldings etc. only viable by manual labour. Crushing of Stone for paving gravel is done with hand and donkeys and other animals are used to transport materials. Mechanical equipments are virtually absent. These archaic techniques invest the buildings of Indian architects with a visceral quality of execution, at once youthful and timeless. In Mehsana Diary, designed prefabricated concrete structures, which might have become a cliché of dated high-tech imagery became an inspiring statement by virtue of the almost absurd resourcefulness exhibited in hand-sewn construction. Amidst the scepticism pervading the current years in architectural discourse, this displays the new confidence and independence that have characterised the work of Indian architects of the last two decades, reaffirming the vernal promise of early modern pioneers. Paradoxically, it also expresses that atavistic rationality of the hut in paradise for which the experts of post-industrial architectural theory have revived such a longing.

Fig.22Kanvinde Residence, New Delhi, 1967 Fig.23 Kanvinde Residence, New Delhi, 1967

Kanvinde views his own work as a changing process, "The crux of the matter is that we observe and assimilate and in the process discover ourselves. What we try to achieve or pursue in terms of aesthetics is a changing process. The aesthetics is essentially a conduct; aesthetics and ethics are the products of the same thing". In this process there are two aspects of his formative years that are manifested in his work. On the one hand, he was raised in a rural environment where the tradition and moral conduct was nurtured. He was catapulted into the world of technology, avant-gardism at Harvard. In rural India, the personal and the concrete were highly valued; (Fig.22) while in Gropius’s school the collective and the abstract were emphasised (Fig.23). The interactions of these two aspects of his experience and training constitute the essence of his evolution.