FTII logjam: A film gone awry

One of India’s premier institutes, Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) is in turmoil. For more than a month, students of this Pune-based college have been on ‘strike’, holding demonstrations and have boycotted classes. Their cause of grievance? Appointment of Gajendra Chauhan as the Chairperson of the Institute’s Governing Council.

The fracas started in early June when the Information and Broadcasting Ministry appointed Chauhan. Barely, had the news broken, that students were up in arms resulting in the strike. Though students are claiming they have nothing personal against Chauhan, they are objecting to his selection and appointment process as he belongs to the BJP which is the sole criterion behind his selection.

In fact, even as he has yet to take charge, some members of the Governing Council have resigned. Now it is looking as a fight between Chauhan and others. Caught in a fix, the government does not seem inclined to take back its decision, thus a solution to this stalemate appears difficult. Pertinently, the FTII Established in 1960 and set up on the lines of the erstwhile “Prabhat Film Company” has been mired in controversies for many years.

Notably, the Institute’s course structure, syllabus and faculty are main areas of disagreement. Add to this, the three year’s course is taking four-five years to finish. People who have been associated with the Institute in the past allege that many students do not complete projects assigned to them in time and are overstaying To improve this situation, 2010 and 2014 were declared as ‘zero’ years, i.e., no admissions were made.

At present there are 242 students in the FTII of which nearly 100 should have passed out long ago. A majority of the students with a backlog are from the 2011 batch, others belong to 2008-09 batches. Recall, a group of experts was appointed nearly five years ago to study and suggest ways to improve the working of the Institute. It noted how students were working unsupervised and experimenting with equipments alone.

Add to this, regular disruption in academic functioning led to long breaks and students went home for unusually long periods. Students blame the faculty, or rather its absence, for the sorry state of affairs at the FTII. According to them, faculty members, particularly those who are ‘permanent’ and hold key posts are ‘complacent’. Many of them are not available for guidance when needed.

Raising a moot point: What have the students achieved? What is the reason behind their opposition to Chauhan? They have not substantiated allegations of ‘saffronisation’ of the course? Can a film course get any colour? Students aver they are fighting for ‘freedom.’ But can’t they show their freedom of expression when they make a film for the public.

This apart, no one from the public is allowed to scrutinise the FTII’s functioning. We are only getting different ‘versions’ of what is happening there. In sum, it is true that the Institute needs overhauling of all its departments. Simultaneously, its curriculum has to be at par with other film schools globally. If the government is not ready to lose control of the FTII, at least it must be sensitive to the students’ legitimate demands.

Clearly, the FTII is not just a heritage showpiece but an unique living Institute. It must thrive and nurture and produce new talent. For that the Government, students and film fraternity need to come together. Only then can the Institute serve the society creatively.

By Nikhil Gajendragadkar