Inclusion of Diversity

Based on his experience Jim S Sandhu will briefly cover the historical and conceptual emergence and convergence of inclusive design. He will analyse the varying US and European approaches to inclusive design and compare their tangible impact on developing countries. His main thesis is that universal design has made very little impact on poor countries because it's prime focus is on design problems of the developed world requiring a high level of literacy and some understanding of technology, which most potential users in these countries lack. This is a serious limitation of 'universal design' claims which is meant to encapsulate the world and beyond.

Sandhu maintains that the public relations drive which is a dominant force in the States is behind many of the claims for universal design achievements. In reality it covers a very narrow spectrum as most proponents have very little understanding or experience of the majority world.

He narrows down his prime exemplar to India which is a paradox of development as well as a serious case of poverty and illiteracy. These attributes are typical of the majority world. The contrasts and contradictions highlighted signify major hurdles for the utilisation of inclusive design to alleviate illiteracy, poverty, hunger, unemployment, shelter, etc

The world is changing as never before. In the near future the most dominant world force would be the 'majority world'. Two countries, India, the world's largest democracy and China, the world's largest populace, hold key to the global progress.

Against this background, it is imperative for design to define itself as strategic tool that integrates inclusiveness, the man-man relationship and sustainability, the man-nature relationship to achieve oneness. This oneness is the new global paradigm for Universal Design.

Good design addresses the needs of society for today and for tomorrow. It is time for design to also re-define the 'ability' in the larger, humanitarian perspective of tomorrow. In the 'majority world' context, addressing mere physical barriers will not serve much purpose unless we address the important economic, social and developmental barriers. It makes no sense to design a house "usable by all" to people who cannot afford a house and sleep on pavements. This reality is the responsibility of Universal Design. This disturbing question needs to be asked and conscience must be aroused.

We march forward with hope towards achieving this goal.