 |
Why is the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI) shut now?
The film school administration issued a notice on April 2 suspending classes and other activities on the campus after students gheraoed the dean, director, administrative officer and purchase officer for 24 hours from March 31 afternoon demanding their resignations.
The students are agitating against the scarcity of permanent faculty members, stop-gap heads of departments, irregular classes and the lack of camera workshops.
Institute chairman Buddhadeb Dasgupta has “promised” students a governing council meeting on April 24 where their grievances will be discussed. Classes are expected to resume after the meeting.
When was the film school set up and why?
The film school, an autonomous institute under the ministry of information and broadcasting, was set up on a 40-acre campus on the EM Bypass in 1995. Modelled on the Film and Television Institute of India in Pune, it offers three-year postgraduate diplomas in film and television production and allied subjects.
The four main departments of the institute are direction and screenplay writing, motion picture photography, film editing and sound recording.
The institute takes in 40 students — 10 in each discipline — every year. Eight seats are reserved for students from abroad.
The governing council, constituted by the Union government, is the highest decision making body of the institute.
What trouble spots have the institute hit?
After the first two batches, admission was stalled for three years till 2001. The reason: the SRFTI had moved too fast. It was still woefully short of infrastructure. Equipment had not been bought and even the hostel was not ready. Students refused to attend classes, which led to a temporary closure. They protested against slack maintenance and voiced their demand for proper faculty.
In 2005, trouble simmering on the campus for months boiled over, with students going on an “indefinite strike” to protest alleged academic and financial irregularities. About 100 students from all three batches decided to boycott classes till a governing council meeting was called and their grievances addressed.
Among the issues that were raised were reduction of budgets of student projects, absence of a decision-making authority, mistakes in academic scheduling, lack of transparency in financial matters, poor upkeep of equipment, staff shortage and lack of coordination between the academic and administrative wings.
The main building, housing the academic and administrative wings, was under lock and key for three weeks after the governing council ratified several proposals placed at the academic council meeting.
A showdown between the authorities and the Citu-affiliated workers’ union shut the institute in April last year. About 100 contract labourers had protested against their terms of service. Trouble broke out when guards of the agency that was supposed to take over the responsibility of providing security on campus were denied entry by the existing guards.
Students were the worst affected. The deadlock was resolved after a week when the new agency agreed to absorb the guards shown the door by the authorities.
What ails the institute?
The students have handed over to Dasgupta a list of grievances. Some of the issues raised are lack of proper faculty in motion picture photography, direction and screenplay departments, poor maintenance of equipment in the camera department, reduction of projects from six to four in the specialisation years and lax upkeep of rare prints in the film archive.
“The open air theatre is in a dismal condition. The last screening took place more than four months ago,” says a student.
The agitators have also mentioned lack of transparency in the admission process and film shoots on campus interfering with academic work. Students claim no posts have been sanctioned for the community radio station launched last year.
Film critic and former academic consultant to the institute, Samik Bandyopadhyay, says: “There never was a disciplined approach at the SRFTI. From the beginning, academic programme and shooting schedules have not been maintained. Unless the system is reworked, courses and schedules will tend to overlap. There has never been a full faculty. The posts are there on paper but have not been filled.”
What would it take to make the institute a trouble-free and productive place?
Sanjay Mukhopadhyay, who teaches film studies at Jadavpur University, says: “After Ritwik Ghatak joined the Film and Television Institute of India in the late 1960s, he redesigned the syllabus and encouraged students to think differently. Films became more about creativity than about engineering and equipment. Just equipment and laboratories are not enough. Proper human resource is needed.”
Mukhopadhyay adds: “Regular revision of syllabus is a must. Students must keep pace with not just European cinema but films from south Asia, Iran and every nook and corner of the world. Workshops should be arranged with experts who can comment on these films.”
Film-maker Goutam Ghose, an ex-chairman of the institute, feels “lack of coordination between the ministry and administration” is the primary reason for the perpetual conflict among students, faculty and administration. “One should provide autonomy but also be in control. Things are becoming bureaucratic. For an institute, a lot depends on the commitment of the personnel. Students need to be inspired and handled with care.”
He says funds need to be allocated keeping in mind the needs of the students.
The film-maker emphasised the need for an archive that is properly airconditioned and dehumidified and experts who know how to take care of films.
Sagar Ballary, who had studied at the institute and shot to fame with his first film Bheja Fry, says: “I was part of the second batch and felt certain things were amiss. There was always a controversy about mismanagement of funds. We had our share of strikes and forced the dean and director to resign. We didn’t have hostels or studios. After our agitation, the ministry pumped in money and things were rectified. The institute now has the best equipment and films.”
Reacting to the current trouble, he adds: “I’ve been told that students, especially in the camera department, are very worried. But this is an acute problem all over the country since most well-trained camerapersons are busy shooting most of the time.”
Swapan Mullick, the institute director, says: “Students have to make the best use of the available resources. There might be occasional hiccups, a machine might not function or a teacher might be absent, but on the whole the resources are enormous. It is up to the students to make the most of it.”
Forty-one new posts, most of them academic, have been recently sanctioned at the film school.
“The government has realised the need for manpower, not just for administration but also for academics. We will fill up the vacant faculty posts in the next six months,” adds Mullick.