Now that even his film industry colleagues, including some heavyweights have objected to the appointment of Gajendra Chauhan as chairman of the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), his position becomes extremely untenable. The government may stand behind him and threaten to rusticate the students, but they will not win this battle.
Poor Chauhan is caught in a tough spot — he must have been pleased when given this prestigious post, but after the hostile reaction of the students, the government has been less than firm in its support to him. In effect, the ministry has asserted the government’s right to appoint its own man, but at no stage has anyone said it was a great choice. Indeed, hints have been dropped that many other worthies were considered, but it was assumed that they would not have the time to devote to the post. Ergo, is one to assume that being unemployed, and thus having a lot of time on one’s hand is a must for getting the job? Now, in an answer to an RTI application it has emerged that he was the only candidate in the race. It’s an unholy mess, really, caused by “non-application of mind”, as the babus and judges are prone to say. Surely no one had thought that Chauhan had any professional stature, much less the gravitas to run an institute that produces creative people?
The problem is, someone did. No one knows how exactly it happened, but one can surmise — Chauhan has been with the Bharatiya Janata Party for several years and has actively campaigned for the party. When the party came to power, he would have expected a reward. But so would have others, with perhaps a better track record. This is when a complex set of factors, including a powerful godfather become important. The godfather puts in a word in the right circles and the candidate’s credentials are closely examined — not the objective set of qualifications, but rather party loyalty, pliability and ability to push the party line. Those are more important than merit. As Chauhan’s name moved up the hierarchy and reached the very top, those who may have asked “Gajendra, who?” would have been informed that he was a 100 per cent partyman and was being backed by powerful people. It is doubtful if after that anyone raised questions, much less protested. The ministers would have had no option but to sign off his appointment, whatever their personal thoughts about him.
Right-wingers often ask why there is so much noise when one of their own is appointed to a government post — isn’t this what the left does? They have a point. All governments like to put their own party sympathisers in key posts — institutions, boards, even private sector companies where the government holds an interest. These are the loaves and fishes that have to be distributed to the faithful who have stuck with the party through thick and thin; besides, it ensures that crucial levers remain in the government’s hands. Cinema, history, education and culture in general are close to the heart of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, because it firmly believes that it can influence Indians, especially younger ones; they wouldn’t trust an outsider.
The problem is that the right wing, i.e. the RSS and the BJP, simply does not have enough people who are either qualified or command respect in their respective domain. And the ones that they do may not always pass the loyalty test. For example, why could the government not appoint heavyweights like Shatrughan Sinha or Anupam Kher to the FTII or the Central Board of Film Certification, instead of Chauhan or Pahlaj Nihalani? Simply because neither would have agreed to all interventions from the ministry or from ideologues. That, in the Sangh scheme of things, would be unacceptable. Hence, better to scrape the bottom of the barrel, where forgotten but flexible loyalists reside.
The same is playing out in academia. Great “scholars” like Rajiv Malhotra, whom right-wingers admire, are being accused of plagiarism. To say his critics are anti-Hindu is a childish response. The Indian Council of Historical Research is in the hands of someone who bats for caste hierarchies. The National Book Trust is now headed by Baldev Sharma, former editor of the RSS organ, Panchjanya. None of these worthies command any respect in their fields. It reminds one of what economist Jagdish Bhagwati had said about the BJP’s in-house talent during Atal Behari Vajpayee’s rule: “If these guys are economists, I am a Bharatanatyam dancer.”
The Sangh and its supporters keep whining about how the left-liberal mafia has taken control of cultural institutions and it’s about time they were chucked out. Do that by all means, but by nominating people of quality. Surely, over a period of six decades, the Sangh could have bred its own cadre of intellectuals to move in smoothly when their own party came to power? Mere resentment against the Congress, liberals, leftists and “English-speaking types” is not enough. Where are those who can counter them on an equal level?
Perhaps this lack of intellectual depth partly explains why, whenever a question is raised about the shoddy quality of Sangh nominees, it is met with abuse and invective. When you have no sensible or logical answer to offer, you can just shout back and drown the debate in noise.
The government has threatened to not just rusticate the FTII strikers, it has also let it be known that it may shut down the institute or privatise it. Destroying an institution is of course the easy way out — building one, with the right kind of leaders at the helm calls for far more rigour and hard work. Pique can never be substitute for policy. The better option would be to find ways to salvage the situation and hand over FTII — and, for that matter, other organisations — to qualified professionals, who may be independent-minded but who are widely respected. Some of these names will be in the party, some not; but it will demonstrate that the government is open-minded and has the best interests of the country, and not its hacks, at heart.
