The FTII Solution

The powers that be at FTII have two simple choices. Allow standards to decline, and the debate to descend into irrelevancies of a saffron versus secular narrative, or creatively muscle up the resources and devote all energies towards the pursuit of cinematic excellence.

The FTII, Pune, India’s leading and celebrated film and television training institution, does indeed have an illustrious list, but mostly of older alumni; with a few notables amongst its directors, board of governors, and faculty thrown in. Still, it must have done something right, over the years since it was set up, way back in 1960, to earn its considerable reputation.

But a one-time glamour list has not proved to be sustainable, probably because there has been little rejuvenation, modernization, quality improvement, and moving with the times. Inflation, both in fiscal terms, and by way of expectations, seems to have taken its toll.

The problem may be, just as is the case with many states in the Indian Union, let alone our many institutions of different kinds, that the FTII is steeped in fuzzy ideological dogmas, a befuddling bureaucratic outlook, and an abject dependence on government funds.

There are today, as always, just a limited number of seats, no more than 400, for the post-graduate three-year diploma course. The course fees are deliberately held down to make it accessible to most people, there are faculty shortages, and not even very many short-term courses to make up the budgetary shortfall.

There is also a towering ideological resistance, both from within and without, to any Big Brotherly moves on the part of the government, in return for its largesse; all in the name of being a crucible for creativity and artistic freedom.

So here is yet another institution inherited from long-time socialist India, with the forbidding attitude that its lack of ability to generate its own resources and funds has given it!

This, even though the FTII is ostensibly autonomous, and therefore theoretically and practically free to plough its own furrow. It is only overseen by the central I&B Ministry because that is its administrative conduit through which indents can be raised for more government money to support it.

The fact that a lot of FTII’s famous personalities are a little long in the tooth, speaks for itself. Where are the brash new FTII bred actors, directors, editors, or other less glamorous kinds of Movie/TV/Theatre people?

But from 2014, we may be looking at a Phoenix, rising once again from the ashes. In 2014, by some quirk of fate, the FTII received Rs 80 crore in fresh funding, courtesy the erstwhile Planning Commission. It also started taking three-year post-graduate-course students afresh after a hiatus, and a new syllabus, was, at last, adopted. And then, FTII also announced that it would issue diplomas for courses completed by people between 1995 and 2006!

The Institute seems to have been hijacked for a long time before this by a status quoist mindset. But who is holding it back? If not the students, is it perhaps the faculty, fearful of being turfed out if they allowed any changes. Is it an unimaginative administration, conducted by short-tenure bureaucratic overseers, who neither understand how to run such an institute nor have the necessary energy and commitment?

To wit, the I&B Ministry hired management consultant Hewitt, which put out a report in 2010, suggesting a public-private partnership and expensive/ profitable short courses to bring in the money. This did not find favour for its utilitarian bluntness, its attempt to professionalise artistic endeavour, nor its thrust towards a perceived elitism.

Another committee, this time made up of movie/ TV/ theatre people such as Kundan Shah, Saeed Mirza, Nachiket Patwardhan etc, plus students and faculty to bring up the rear, suggested administrative tweaks to get abreast of the backlog in conducting courses. There are students from 2008 who haven’t managed to finish and leave as yet! And this is because they haven’t submitted their assignments on time, and the faculty/administration haven’t cracked down on them either.

The FTII hostels, canteens and corridors are naturally overflowing with ancient mariners rubbing shoulders with bright-eyed and bushy-tailed ingenues, many years their junior. And everyone can afford to stay on and on because it is cheap at the price.

So, the rot has been settled in for quite some time. Until its present head Gajendra Chauhan, took over, there has been one short-tenure IAS babu or another from the I&B Ministry, running the institute for the last 15 years.

Of the Governing Council of 15 Members, all bureaucrats, barely five of them bother to attend meetings. The faculty has about 70% of its number appointed on a contract basis, and even after all this, there are just 30 teachers to 400 students. There are gender issues too. Over the last 20 years, there have been just three female teachers employed on a tenure basis, and currently all the 21 tenured teachers are male.

The last film person who headed the FTII as Director was Mohan Agashe, but he was hounded out for trying to change the syllabus. So, the fact that the place has gone on strike because Gajendra Chauhan, a relatively obscure saffron Yudhisthir from the TV serial Mahabharata, who does actually have some experience in running film-world associations, is not surprising. But, can he do any worse than his predecessors of recent decades? At least the man wants the job badly.

The real solutions to FTII’s woes however, won’t come from any magic wand solution of kicking out a low-wattage Chauhan, in favour of a celebrity film director who could be inveigled to take the job in his place. It may lie in looking for successful and contemporary role models such as Juilliard of New York. Juilliard is probably the world’s best private music, drama, and performing arts school. There are also scores of top film and television faculties in universities around the world.

These can be invited to set up shop in India, and give this has-been situation in FTII a run for its money, in qualitative terms, and on a private, full-fee-paying basis. Everywhere, it is seen, that they are expensive, and they won’t be cheap when they come here either. But they will provide high standards and robust competition.

Meanwhile, the powers that be at FTII have two simple choices. Allow standards to decline, and the debate to descend into irrelevancies of a saffron versus secular narrative; or creatively muscle up the resources and devote all energies towards the pursuit of cinematic and television production excellence.

It is impractical to expect much money from the government year after year without strings, and without it becoming part of its own agenda and patronage system. It is, therefore, imperative that the FTII raises a great deal of its own finances from rich patrons, foreign collaborations, course fees etc. Only then can it reclaim its glory days and perhaps surpass them.