Gajendra Chauhan has made a quiet exit from the FTII, in marked contrast to the tumult that had greeted his appointment over a year ago. Academic activity had come to a halt in the premier film training institute for more than three months and politicians made hay
The tumult that had erupted after Gajendra Chauhan had taken over as Chairman of the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) is in sharp contrast to the quietness with which he has gone away, with hardly a few people noticing his exit. It is also in contrast to the ruckus-filled one-and-a-half year tenure (which was marked by a 139-day protests by the students), that he completed at the FTII.
like his departure, many changes that this institute underwent during his tenure too have remained unnoticed. Notably, Chauhan strove hard to remove many obstacles that had plagued this institute since a long time. For instance, the introduction of a new syllabus and a credit-based choice system and electives; the long-awaited conversion of six post-graduate diploma courses to a masters’ degree; making the FTII open to all, and enforcing discipline in the campus. The decisions he took in the midst of controversies should have far-reaching consequences in the near future.
Whatever he has done, good or bad, we leave it for the chroniclers to decide. But let us analyse the controversial facet of his tenure for what it was. The moment Chauhan was appointed as the Chairman of the premier institute’s governing council, there was acrimony among the students who resorted to massive protests that continued for over 100 days — the longest agitation ever in the history of the FTII. The underlying cause for the protests was that the students felt Chauhan did not deserve to be in the appointed position as he did not have the credentials to head the institute, unlike those of former chiefs like Shyam Benegal, Girish Karnad and U Krishnamurthy. Students even went on a hunger strike and some eventually landed in hospitals in the ensuing fracas.
Top Hindi film personalities added to the chorus, with noted actor Rishi Kapoor, who joined the students in their protest, saying, “If they don’t want you, they don’t want you. Pushing for the chairmanship is getting you nowhere. let self-pride play a role and retire.” Film-maker Amol Palekar was of the view that, “if I would have been in place of Chauhan and I would have seen that my fraternity does not want me, I would have withdrawn”.
It is true that Chauhan is not among the leading lights of the film fraternity or even the acting fraternity in particular. His major claim to fame was that of his role as the Pandav, Yudhishthir, in the television serial, Mahabharat, on Doordarshan. However, cinematic credentials did not seem to be the real reason behind the protests against him. Had that been the case, then what explains the institute’s strike culture — for both academic and administrative reasons — that has been a norm at the FTII ever since its inception in 1961. Till date, the institute has witnessed about 40 agitations.
The 1991 students’ protest over the structure of instruction for various courses in the institute continued for over 100 days. Again in 1996, when noted film-maker Adoor Gopalakrishnan was Chairman, students went on a hunger strike against the introduction of a new course structure which shortened the duration of the courses from three years to two years. In 1997, eminent film-maker Mahesh Bhatt resigned amid agitation over alleged mismanagement of the institute.
Yet again, there were protests in 2011, when students held demonstrations at the institute’s directors’ office against a draft Hewitt Associates report which insisted on upgrading the institute to global standards. History is thus replete with many examples of student unrest under the chairmanship of even eminent personalities.
Can an individual alone run an instituteIJ As a matter of fact, one man alone cannot either lift or destroy the institute. Clearly, the students adopted an elitist attitude. It is, therefore, obvious that the protests had little to do with Chauhan’s lack of credentials and more with his political affiliation. The problem was not his absence of capability, credibility or stature — though that could be a reason to argue against his appointment — but that he was appointed by the Narendra Modi Government and was see as right-wing.
The battle was not between the students and Chauhan but between the Right and the left. This is why, left-wing students’ organisations like the All India Students’ Association, Kolkata-based Satyajit Ray Film Institute and students at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, all came out to extend their support to the protesting students. This explains why many students among them were not only leftist and ‘Centrist’, but they were also backed by the BJP’s political rivals.
Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi, who visited the FTII campus under the garb of expressing solidarity with the agitating students, added fuel to fire and said, “We want to take the fight to Parliament. A person who is mediocre has been put on top of people who don’t want to be mediocre.” He added, “The RSS and its wings promote mediocrity. I have seen this everywhere. They will say you are anti-national, anti-Hindu. They are scared of you. That is the nature of a bully.”
Gajendra Chauhan’s parting advice to the students was to shun politics. However, it is unlikely to be heeded by anyone, and the FTII especially, which has a track-record of indulging in unrest. In any case, there are various student agitations going on in institutes across the country where the left-liberals have a large presence. Take Jawaharlal Nehru University and the most recent one at Delhi University. Protests have almost become a widespread phenomenon. In this sense, Chauhan’s suggestion is a bit idealistic and, perhaps, also not implementable.
Students, in any society, and definitely in a democratic society like India, are often flag-bearers of issues and agents of change. During the Emergency, they were on the streets of Delhi, fuelled by an anti-Congress mood. When Jayaprakash Narayan took charge of the movement, students became the backbone of the protest. But he had put two conditions. First, the movement would be entirely non-violent. Second, his leadership would be absolute. These two mantras made the agitation a massive success. During the Mandal agitation, where students took the lead over issues of employment and reservation, bandhs, dharnas, loss of property etc took centre-stage.
However, today, using free speech as a fig leaf or wanting a nationalist agenda to be promoted, students are again in the forefront. It’s not, therefore, feasible that campus members will not get into politics. A number of leading politicians have come from students’ movements, be it Arun Jaitley or Nitish Kumar or Sitaram Yechury or Rajnath Singh or Venkaiah Naidu or Prakash Karat.
let us hope that the new appointee at the FTII, whoever he is, will be able to work alongside the students. At the end of the day, it’s not politics that is important; the reputation of the institute is at stake. If peaceful movements can enhance that reputation, fine. Else, there is no justification for needless agitations that have other, barely cloaked, purposes.
(The writer is Senior Assistant Editor, The Pioneer)