The protest by students at Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) against the appointment of Gajendra Chauhan as its Chairman is gradually turning filmy and theatrical with both sides digging in for a long haul of attrition. If it drags on like this, it is in danger of getting into ‘Tu Tu Main Main’ episode that may become the longest serial on acrimony. With a view to extract some lost ground political parties jumping into the scene have further spoiled their case for which students have to blame themselves for losing their script.
To be fair, students have a right to have a say be it the food prepared in their hostel, the fees structure or even dress code. These are routine things in any campus that generally get sorted out after initial bouts of hysteria, show of iron hand and claims after settlement of victory by both sides. This is how it plays out normally and generally they move on to more serious academic matters.
FTII is an autonomous institute under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of the Government of India. It is aided by the Central Government. Government has appointed a 3-member committee to visit the Institute to and make recommendations for future course of action.
By choosing to strike against an appointment and making it totally subjective the students lost whatever little bit that was in their favour. Mind you, if students wanted to have the best person for premier institute in India as their head there is nothing wrong with that. They could have initiated a process with the Governing Council by which a system could have been put in place for choosing the head of the Institute. No decision-making authority could object to the students’ desire to have a top achiever as head of their institute.
The students could have generated a desirable set of qualifications such as degree/ diploma, number of films acted/ directed, number of awards won, national and international and so on and handed it over to the Governing Council. By working out a minimum basic qualifications list after deliberations and after consultations with some eminent experts in the field, FTII could have arrived at an absolutely essential attributes the chief of the institute is supposed to have.
Such a dialogue would have ensured there would be no arbitrariness and favoritism in the selection and FTII would never become a pawn for political appointment without meeting minimum set of qualification.
By rejecting Mr. Chauhan outrightly, the students have made it into personal issue against an individual. In the absence of a well worked out procedure and norms, when the matter becomes subjective personal prejudices will always prevail. Nobody is sure who should be the Chairman. For arguments sake, should government have appointed, say Shatrughan Sinha? Some would have cribbed he is from BJP. Others may not like a ‘villain’ to head their institute. They may want Amitabh Bahcchan. But will he have time for such a job given his multi-dimensional work? Where do you draw the line? Why not Adoor Gopalakrishnan one of the best directors’ the country has seen. Will he be acceptable? Why not Shyam Benegal? The younger lot may like say Sanjay Dutt or immensely popular Salman Khan as the Chairman. Should popularity be the criterion or person of eminence or achievement?
Where do you draw the line when the entire matter is only subjective?
Personal likes and dislikes should never prevail in such important decisions such as the appointment of head of an institute.
On the contrary, arriving at common acceptable set of guidelines would have been the first step in head hunting a chairman. As long as dialogue is the objective, straightforward without an ulterior motive, most dialogues succeed by some give and take from both sides. Once some candidates are shortlisted based on minimum acceptable guidelines, it is the job of FTII and an interview committee comprising respectable individuals who will select the right candidate for the job. It must be made clear students have no role in that.
Finally, one must grant the view that Government has the final right of whom to choose from, out of the short listed, recommended names. It is always the prerogative of the highest body which should choose the final candidate. By adopting a structured method, chances of selection of a wrong candidate would have been reduced to minimum. On that score, there would hardly be any dilution of merit.
It is unfortunate other factors have largely clouded the issue. By making the issue political, students have harmed their own interest as politicians generally will only try to make sure to take care of their interest first and last. Any government will look foolish if they are forced to take a decision by political coercion. Past students who should have completed their course long back and come back as teaching staff are still around and seem to be calling the shots which makes the case doubly worse.
What should FTII students do now? Here is a golden chance for them.
They should get back to their classes, finish their degree/ diploma and meanwhile, do a favour for the next batch by framing some guidelines which can become the basis for future appointments in FTII.
Only then we can see a Happy Ending to the fast-moving Greek Tragedy.
Comments
0 comment