July 7: For 14 years, the Centre has been struggling with a question: should a government run a film school? If it has the answer yet, it is shy to say so.

Meanwhile, taxpayers are shelling out Rs 10 lakh every year on each student at Pune's Film and Television Institute of India that has been at the centre of a controversy since a small-time actor with BJP links, Gajendra Chauhan, was named its chairperson last month.

"Nowhere in the world does the government fund film schools," says filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, who has headed FTII in the past. "Hollywood has filmmaking course graduates from universities and private institutions. This is an industry that has produced self-taught stalwarts like Satyajit Ray. Why should the taxpayer's money be spent on producing film industry professionals when it would be better utilised building primary schools, health care and infrastructure?" Bhatt asks.

Successive governments have balked at implementing the recommendation of the Geetha Krishnan Committee report on expenditure reforms that had in 2001 advised the Centre to exit FTII and the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI), Calcutta.

Last month, when the students' boycott against Chauhan was in its first week, sources close to information and broadcasting minister Arun Jaitley had said discussions had begun at the highest level to seek ways to privatise these institutes as well as the directorate of film festivals.

"The ministry believes the government should have nothing to do with these film institutions," a senior ministry official said on condition of anonymity. "We want them to be taken over by the film industry in a phased manner."

After a meeting between Jaitley and the student representatives last week, FTII alumnus Resul Pookutty said the minister had hinted that the institute could be privatised if the standoff was not resolved.

But no government minister or official has uttered the P-word in public.

Instead, the government is shovelling in more money to fulfil its commitment made in the 2014 Union budget - by finance minister Jaitley - to accord FTII and SRFTI the status of "institutes of national importance" by the end of this year.

"Every government is wary of the high-brow intellectual brigade which will jump forth and call it an attack on freedom of artistic expression if they take a call on the future of FTII. So money continues to be thrown," says Bhatt.

The 350 students at the film school, who pay Rs 51,000 a year as their course fee, have been boycotting classes for nearly a month. Many among them enrolled at the institute in 2008 for courses that should not last longer than three years. "Last year, the students and the governing council decided not to admit students in some prime PG diploma courses for one year. The stated reason was to clear the backlog of students whose courses were not complete. The 2008 batch has still not completed its course. Which academy runs like this?' a faculty member at the film school says.

The current strike is the 40th in the film school's 55-year history.

"A hell of a lot of money is spent per student in a film school," agrees Shyamal Sengupta, head of the producing department, SRFTI, arguing against privatisation. "If it's privatised only rich kids would be able to afford it. So, privatisation is illogical," Sengupta says. "More than a decade ago the Geeta Krishnan Committee had spoken of privatisation. The I&B ministry had discussed it in Parliament but no conclusion was reached," he adds.

But actor Anupam Kher, who runs a private film school in Mumbai, is convinced privatisation is the only way forward. "Look how it has changed our airports. When people pay for services, education they become serious about it - otherwise who cares about wasting taxpayer money? Where in the world does a government run a film school," Kher says, echoing Bhatt.