Giant model of a question mark greets visitors at the entrance of Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) in Pune. Next to it, a smaller model of symbol is attached to a chair on which sits a crude installation of a pot on top of a stone to symbolise a man. The message is obvious. Since June, students of India’s best known film institute have been protesting the appointment of Gajendra Chauhan as Chairman of the Governing Council of FTII. They contend that the institute is being foisted with a relative non-entity, but one with clear political affiliation.
Inside the gate, visitors pass by half a dozen mock graves where models that depict films, artistry and music lie buried. There is bold, derisive graffiti and caricatures. Some, to be honest would have been entertaining on another occasion. A hundred yards ahead, a temporary shed has been erected bang opposite a squat colonial style bungalow that houses the FTII director’s office. That is the nerve centre of the protests, the place where the dharnas happen.
The protests are an aberration for a city dubbed the Oxford of the East and hailed for its academically inclined culture; the typical student in the city is studious, non-rebellious, and on-campus flare-ups are far and few in between. But the news of disruptive on-campus activism at the FTII no longer evokes too many raised eyebrows. It is a campus where vociferous protest has been a way of life and a history of agitations,
The latest in a series of strikes by the students is probably one of the longest in the FTII’s 54-year-old-history. It has made news in media and top Bollywood actors, also FTII’s alumi, have voiced their concern, many of them empathising with the students.
To add political flavour to the on-going drama, Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi dashed down to the campus one July day, confabulating with the protestors. The matter has made it to the Parliament and reportedly, even been taken to the Prime Minister’s doorstep.
Prashant Pathrabe, the Director of Press Information Bureau, Pune who assumed additional charge as Director, FTII in early July, appears to have been air-dropped into a full-blown maelstrom. While the students deem Pathrabe, who is in effect the Principal of the institute, as an outsider who doesn’t have much of an idea about the needs of a film institute, Pathrabe says that there is a dire need for the students to observe discipline.
But the headlines are just one part of the protests. The agitation masks the complexity of problems faced by the country’s premier film and television training institute. The problems stem from a mix of excessive student activism, policy confusion, delayed academic years and a dated curriculum. As the protests over Chauhan’s appointments continue, the administration has made a crackdown on the students of the 2008 batch of the film stream, many of whom have still not completed the course.
Consider this. Many of the students land jobs even without completing their courses, putting in question the value of the post-graduate diploma. In 2010, no new admissions were conducted and in 2014, students for only the TV wing were accepted. The examination for the 2015 batch is due on August 23, and as the selection and admission process takes around six months, it seems that the earliest that classes will begin for the 2015 batch will be March 2016.
Over the years, several directors and chairmen of the Governing Council have come and gone; some were nominated from the civil services cadre, others anointed for their eminence in arts. These include Girish Karnad, Mahesh Bhatt, Shyam Benegal, UR Ananthamurthy, Mohan Agashe and Mrinal Sen. But few, if any, have succeeded in reinventing the FTII.
Not so long ago, a Group of Experts, including well-known personalities such as Saeed Mirza (he was also the last Chairman and since his term completed in March 2014, the seat has been vacant) and Kundan Shah, was formed to create a ‘Detailed Project Report for the revitalisation of the FTII.’ Nothing has worked yet.
Does the chairman matter?Defending the stand on opposing Chauhan’s nomination, one of the protesting students says, “The post is a powerful one and the Chairman has a say in designing the syllabus that is currently in the process of being finalised, and so the incumbent needs to have done substantial work in the medium… We want a transparent process to appoint both the Chairman and the FTII society members who people both the governing as well as academic councils that decide policy matters.” He declined to reveal his identity.
But a senior faculty member equates the Chairman’s post as a largely ceremonial one that is comparable to that of a Field Marshall viewing the troops. “He (the Chairman) comes in once in three months, spends time listening to the grievances of both students and faculty and is usually too busy to be pro-active,” says the faculty member on conditions of anonymity.
The fact remains however, that the Chairman, who is a government nominee, can decide to take a pro-active stand and can exercise influence on the working of the institute. And as the appointment comes at a time when the institute is trying to change its curriculum and expand its infrastructure, many of FTII’s stakeholders, including its students and faculty members, are wary of a change. The students protest, thus, is not just because of ideological differences. That is why it matters that in an institute that offers courses for both TV (one-year, 48 students) and film (three-years, 60-70 students), it is the latter who seem to be the main protagonists for much of the rebellion.
“They need to acknowledge what they already know - that the course as it exists cannot be completed in the stipulated time...they need to allow changes in the curriculum to make the course doable in the three years as required,” observes Kedar Awati, a faculty member who has been at the FTII for nearly two decades and is presently Acting Dean, Films.
Batch of 2008: victims or villains?Faculty members agree that it is almost impossible to complete the current course in the stipulated three years, and it ought to be designated as a 4.5-year programme. At the same time, the case of the 2008 batch is curious. Though the batches of 2007 and 2009 have completed their courses, most from the 2008 batch are still on the campus. Half of them have not completed their mandatory diploma films.
In early August, the institute’s administration threatened to evict around 30 students of the 2008 batch who had completed their courses in May, but were still alleged to be occupying the hostels. Those who had not completed their film projects were told that the work would be judged on “as is where is basis.”
It meant that the films would be appraised even though they were incomplete and the students would have to vacate their hostels a couple of weeks later. The issue has since acquired centre stage in the current agitation, and even pushed the La Affair Chauhan, the plank on which the current uprising originated, somewhat to the back burner.
The students however say that the disciplinary actions against the 2008 batch are diversionary tactics. “These are merely tools and techniques to break the strike,” asserts Vikas Urs, former general secretary of the FTII students’ association. “Actually the three-year duration of the course is only on paper. In reality, it takes at least four and a half years to complete the curriculum, and this too if there are no delays beyond our control,” argues Ranavir Das, a student of film direction from the 2012 batch. Each diploma film is a collaborative effort. The sound engineer, cinematographer and editor need to work in tandem with the director - and may also require post-production work in Mumbai. Thus, delays can occur at a host of points, throwing schedules out of gear.
Several attempts to restructure the curriculum to keep pace with changing times were thwarted either by student agitations or government apathy. The most serious effort came in 2000, when the then director, the actor Mohan Agashe, prepared a blue print to change the integrated three-year course into three independent one-year courses. He did a comprehensive SWOT analysis of the institute. Just before Agashe joined, the FTII had gone without a Director for almost a year after the incumbent T C John Shankarmangalam ‘resigned in disgust.’
Changes made by the then Chairman of the Governing Council, Adoor Gopalakrishanan were initially implemented but later reversed by the Information & Broadcasting Ministry, and Shankarmangalam was hounded out of the FTII. Agashe’s blue print included a one-year foundation course followed by two years of specialization requiring qualification based on merit to get admission. It was designed by the FTII faculty after Australian guest lecturer John Carroll conducted workshops for them on the syllabus. The idea was that students would rotate through all the disciplines. This might have helped them find their interests and choose specialisations. While the course was later put in practice at the Australian Film TV and Radio School in Sydney, the students in FTII rejected it. They didn’t like the idea of applying for each academic year afresh and qualifying for it.
Acclaimed filmmaker Girish Karnad was then the Chairman of the governing council. A subsequent strike lasted 45 days and only ended when the Information & Broadcasting Ministry (under the then BJP government), turned back the clock to the old course. Curiously it retained the new proposals on the number of projects that the students needed to do in the second and third year of the course, causing a backlog.
Though the students were appeased, the strength of the class was now 40 per cent more and the future batches were set to inherit a legacy of disaster. The FTII did not have equipment and infrastructure to deal with the additional students. For instance, presently the film wing is supposed to have 30 permanent faculty members.
But it has only 12 and the rest of the teachers work on contract. Some of the posts are reserved for candidates belonging to the SC/ST category but remain empty for want of suitable resumes. Many a time, candidates are turned off by the poor pay scales.
In 2010, there was a renewed attempt to design a syllabus that would not exceed three years duration. It also got the nod of eminent Kannada writer and critic, the late Dr UR Ananthamurthy, the then Chairman of the Governing Council.
All seemed well until a financial report was prepared by consulting firm Aon Hewitt, as mandated by the Planning Commission, for disbursal of ₹40 crore to the FTII. The students lambasted it as a proposal to privatize the FTII, claiming that the annual course fee of ₹80,000 would increase by several times. They declared a strike, which scuttled any chance of reviewing the curriculum.
Cut to today. According to Awati, a four-year course in some of the film specializations is doable, but will not be approved either by the Information & Broadcasting Ministry or the HRD Ministry. “The possibility of a post-12th standard five-year integrated master's degree course in filmmaking is something that occasionally comes up for discussion, but this has not been followed up,” he says, adding that as there is no age restriction on entry, many of the students are aged 30 or above, and might balk at the idea of a four-year diploma programme. Asserts Agashe: “While a fresh review of the Memorandum of Rules of the FTII and the implementation of a definite action plan can resuscitate a severely ailing institute, the concerned ministry has to provide clear vision, consistent policy and a definite action plan for the FTII. The identities and exact roles of the students, faculty, Director and the Governing Council Chairman should be clearly defined.”
Central university statusDespite the hurdles, many think that FTII has enough potential to be a world-class institute. Many of the faculty contend that declaring it a Central University could be a magic wand that can wave away all problems at one stroke.
In India, a Central University needs the approval of the Union Cabinet and has to be ratified by the Parliament. It comes under the purview of the HRD ministry. Movement in this direction has already begun, and the FTII recently sent a note, as requested by the Ministry, to the Prime Minister’s office. “For too long, the FTII has been treated as a step child (of the I&B ministry) and have been regarded as a media unit rather than an academic institution,” avers a senior faculty member. Though FTII is an autonomous body, decisions taken by its Governing Council need the Ministry’s ratification.
Several recommendations, including those to improve service conditions of the faculty, gather dust in the ministry. The granting of Central University status will change the ground realities enormously, says Awati. “The status of faculty members goes up...students go out with a master's degree...and research work becomes a reality. There will also be a clear definition of privileges and responsibilities as well as a clear demarcation of these responsibilities. Consequently there will be a degree of accountability from all concerned that is notably absent in the institute today.”