Clash of Entitlements: FTII vs Gajendra Chauhan (Part I)

The government’s clash with FTII students is a classic case of Hubris colliding.

One of the spokesmen of the striking FTII students group apparently said to the media recently that he regretted having voted for Narendra Modi during the Lok Sabha elections in 2014, given all that unfolded at FTII this year. The angst is touching.

In most educational institutes of any stature anywhere in the world, political consciousness is a time-honoured element of discourse. If that had been the case at FTII, none of this, in their essence, should have been that much of a surprise. Being so unaware, disregarding numerous red flags and then waking up and lunging angrily at low-hanging fruit is compounding the felony. The consequence of choice unfolds thus.

Modi’s government believes India has chosen them to saffronise it. They are convinced that they are entitled to enforce this agenda now. Gajendra Chauhan’s choice as FTII Chairman is a ludicrous one; there is no doubt about that. Everybody, even the government, knows that. But how the FTII students have responded to that, and how they have been supported, is actually even more ludicrous.

Gajendra Chauhan is a Non-Issue

For starters, it was a wrong battle to pick. Chauhan’s is a ceremonial post; at the very most he would come to the campus six times a year, and would have meetings, leaving him with no time for anything else. The institute is run by the governing council through the Director. If Chauhan tried to enforce any objectionable agenda through the council as its head, that would have been the reason and time to protest. Chauhan reflects badly on the people who selected him for this space, not the people studying there.

The real issue was those four (or is it five; there are conflicting reports) highly objectionable members (out of 12) chosen in the governing council, clearly picked to forward the saffron agenda. That was the real problem and that is the fight those students should have gone for. Given how indefensible that is, that is a fight they would have won in a very acceptable form in a matter of days.

Chauhan is a non-issue, at least for now. The students have accused him of having no knowledge of world cinema and called him a ‘porn star’ – which is typical of the lack of respect FTII students are famous for. More than his qualifications, it really is his sensibility which is a real problem for the students.

They question the kind of space he has occupied in the film industry. This is very ironic for two reasons. One, is that space really that different from what say, Vinod Khanna’s is, who occupied this post more than a decade ago without controversy? Or, does Khanna’s stature as a much bigger star transcend those objections? Is this not blatant chauvinism?

Two, with what face are these FTII students knocking that space? Is it not a fact that 90% of the work 90% of FTII students do after graduation, especially in the last 20 years post NFDC’s glorious phase, is in the commercial space, in both films and television (which very emphatically is Gajendra Chauhan territory)? That is how many of them earn their living. This ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude is no less ludicrous than whatever thought process led to Chauhan being picked for this position.

The irony is that, in all probability, Chauhan would not have affected the students’ life at all. Their focus should have been on finishing their courses and finding suitable film projects. That this has not been the case is entirely symptomatic of the biggest problem that appears to plague most students who pass through here – an incomparable chauvinism of supposedly being the cream of India’s audio-visual talent – the ‘Genius Complex’, as Naseeruddin Shah has dubbed it in the past.

Trademark Chauvinism

It is this chauvinism that makes them feel Chauhan is not a weighty enough name to be associated in any way with their hallowed Institute, and them. What exactly gives them this bluster? Do they believe their selection into FTII is such a great achievement that they see themselves as higher in stature than a practitioner in the film industry, whatever may be the space he occupies there? Is it that the World Cinema they see and discuss and reel names of makes them feel superior to those who they think don’t? Or could it be that they suspect this FTII mantle will actually be the most significant thing they will accomplish in their lives and Gajendra Chauhan sullies that?

How fragile must be that sense of self-worth which feels threatened at the presence of an individual with a different sensibility, who would not even take a single class with them?

To expect an entity which subsidises any institute, in this case the Government, to set the precedent of being dictated to by the students as to who their Chairman should or should not be, ceremonial post or not, transparent process of selection or not, is disregarding the big picture entirely. It is a frightening and undesirable thought in any situation. A suitable application of this idea in one situation in no way guarantees that in another.

It is highly unlikely that the Government will climb down on this decision. If they do due to political reasons, that is a pretty damning precedent to set for themselves. They may dilute it (like a Co-Chairman solution) but that is every bit as ceremonial a solution as the post itself.

It is this chauvinism that makes these students say a thing like them wanting ‘a permanent solution from the government that can bring the glory of the institute back’. Interesting. Where does the ‘glory of an institute’ come from exactly? From the work its students do or from the name of its ceremonial chairman?

(Read the second part of this story here)

(Jaideep Varma has made four full-length films, including three documentaries, one of which won the National Award.)