In the 2012 film Celluloid Man, India’s pioneering film archivist P.K. Nair laments that in the early 20th century, nobody thought of films as cultural heritage, treating it instead as a means of entertainment for the masses. As a result, hundreds of early Indian films, including the first ever talkie, Alam Ara (1931), have vanished without a trace. Nair’s complaint was directed at studio-owners and producers. Had he been alive today and learnt of the recent merger of the various film media units into one umbrella organisation, he probably would have directed the same grievance at the government.
On March 30, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting announced the merger of four film media units, including Films Division of India (FDI), Directorate of Film Festivals (DFF), National Film Archive of India (NFAI), and the Children’s Film Society of India (CFSI), with the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC). This is in line with the recommendations of the Bimal Julka committee, which was set up by the ministry in late 2018 with the ex-secretary of the ministry, Bimal Julka, as the head, and four filmmakers. Its task was to review the functioning of the film media units under its aegis — FDI, DFF, NFAI, and the autonomous institutions, CFSI, Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), and Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI). The committee was to explore the idea of merging FDI, DFF and NFAI into a single organisation, which would have its own structure, and to evaluate the recommended closure of NFDC and CFSI.
A still from Ek Anek Aur Ekta produced by FDI.
Initially, this seemed like a welcome move, since all these state-run film media units and training institutions are in need of long-pending structural reforms and modernisation. There was hope that the committee would arrive at a reform proposal after due consultations with all the primary stakeholders — the film fraternity, students, film scholars, and the personnel of the concerned organisations. But, much to everyone’s surprise and without preamble, the government announced in December 2020 that DFF, FDI, NFAI and CFSI would merge with NFDC, as per the recommendations of the Bimal Julka committee report.
Mired in contradictions
No other details, including the committee’s report, were published in the public domain, and no consultations were done with the filmmakers who worked with these organisations. RTIs were filed seeking details and letters were signed by hundreds of film personalities opposing the merger. Nothing came of it.
In December 2021, it was announced that the various units would be closed by January 31, 2022, but it was only in January this year that the Bimal Julka Committee report was published on the ministry’s website.
A detailed study of the report reveals several contradictions between the findings of the Committee and the conclusions that were arrived at. Some of these are explained here.
A still from Pahuna: The Little Visitors, co-produced by CFSI
NFDC and its predecessor, Film Finance Corporation (FFC), were started with the objective to produce high quality Indian cinema and promote them here and abroad. There were also ideological goals: to foster a culture of film appreciation, and to promote India’s diversity by producing films in various regional languages. This initiative, from the 1970s to the early 90s, created and nurtured a cinema movement, known variously as New Wave, Parallel Cinema, and New Cinema, which was committed to representing the complexities of Indian social realities and aesthetic experimentation. Many films produced under this set-up won critical acclaim across the world and continue to inspire filmmakers.
Despite its success, NFDC could not create a viable exhibition network, preventing many iconic films from reaching their intended audience. More importantly, this dream venture never met its goal of financial self-sustenance.
Filmmaker Shyam Benegal, who has made several award-winning films with NFDC and is currently making a film on the life of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, co-produced by NFDC and Bangladesh Film Development Corporation, says, “The initiative was never funded sufficiently to meet the stated goals. The problem of viability remains, since all art is not viable and requires a certain level of patronage.”
NFDC’s presentation says that the lack of funding has resulted in only two movies being produced in as many years. In response, the report calls the current situation “unjustifiable”. But how much blame for this lies with NFDC? As celebrated filmmaker Girish Kasaravalli points out, it is unreasonable to expect NFDC to produce films when there are no funds. He also warns that independent content-based films will die if NFDC starts to focus only on economic viability.
The story of CFSI, the only organisation dedicated to producing films exclusively for children and young adults, is equally dismal. No chairman has been appointed since Mukesh Khanna (of Shaktimaan fame) resigned in early 2018 citing the lack of sufficient funds. The CFSI presentation says that, due to the absence of a chairperson, no new film has been approved since February 2018. Other staffing problems — including the lack of manpower to maintain 7,000 cans of precious film negatives — are also listed in the presentation. However, none of these issues gets any mention in the Committee’s final recommendations, with the report declaring CFSI as “completely redundant” and attributing its current state to “lack of organisational clarity, commitment and vision”.
Mysterious assessments
FDI has recorded 72 years of independent India’s art, culture and history. It has also been the main catalyst of the Indian documentary movement, patronising filmmakers like Fali Bilimoria, S. Sukhdev, S.N.S. Sastry, Pramod Pati and more. Recently, under the leadership of Virender Singh Kundu, FDI partnered with independent filmmakers to create several films which, with their narrative innovation and formal experiments, have helped push the boundaries of non-fiction cinema in India. Considering this, the Bimal Julka committee’s assessment of FDI too as ‘irrelevant’ and ‘redundant’ is mysterious.
Arguably, FDI’s biggest asset is its rich archive of more than 8,500 films and newsreels that is often accessed by scholars, researchers and filmmakers at its headquarters in Mumbai. Filmmaker Avijit Mukul Kishore, who has often used archival footage from FDI for his projects, says, “This archive is public property and India’s tangible cultural heritage. It needs to remain easily accessible. Many of us are concerned that access to archives will become tedious and expensive.” Benegal has no doubt that it is the state’s duty to fund the preservation and upkeep of archives. But the report does not talk of housing the archives, whether FDI’s or NFAI’s; their future accessibility; or the upgradation of film restoration and preservation facilities.
Historically, all these organisations have struggled to adequately represent the diverse culture of India. How a single, centralised public enterprise hopes to better serve this function remains unclear. While agreeing that a review and comprehensive overhaul is required, Benegal says, “Their merger with NFDC does not make any sense to me. Each of them has a unique function and demands a different approach.”
Filmmaker Ramchandra P.N., who has made several films with FDI’s support, says, “In the last few years, funding for independent projects has reduced drastically, with FDI mainly producing in-house films on themes related to government policies.” He fears that the merger, with its attendant consolidation of assets and human resources, may be a precursor to future privatisation, in line with the government’s other neo-liberal policies.
While the modalities of this new avatar of NFDC are worked out, one wonders if resource efficiency is the government’s only focus or if it will also look at other concerns like fees, faculty, and facilities. And whether it realises how rigid centralisation can kill the diverse and vital functions of film production, archiving and preservation, and public service documentation.
The writer is an independent researcher and filmmaker.
