M: Talking more about architecture, do you think that after Doshi won the Pritzker Price, Indian architecture received more interest or it always had also before?

S: I am assuming you mean perception of Indian Architecture beyond India, no I don't see a massive change as yet. But it is true that a lot of the young practices in India are buoyed by this much delayed recognition of Doshi's work.

”design is liberated by the possibility of mobility of its product..”

M: We discussed how Indian design is still Not unified as a group like it could be Indian architecture which is much more closely related to the ground field,  do you think is there any specific reason?

S: I think it ties into the mode that these two disciplines operate with, and in some sense the imperative of context especially in the case of architecture. While both disciplines can operate within a specific ecology of materials architecture's specificity of operating contingent on a place after the process of making is what perhaps creates this difference. Ofcourse both architecture and design can take opposite positions as well, but the point is really from a common minimum for both disciplines. Design is liberated by the possibility of mobility of its product.