Professor Found Guilty of Sexual Harassment by ICC-SH, SRFTI

Great news: Got the report by ICC for Sexual Harassment on my complaint against a professor of SRFTI. The same one for which I was called a liar and an ugly bitch and a mentally ill person on loose. I do think this is a landmark in the fight against sexual harassment on campuses and that the manner in which ICC has conducted and presented the report is exemplary. Take a look at this walking, breathing history, people.

The charges that ICC-SH looked into were the following:

1. The said man while functioning as assistant professor requested for sexual favour and indulged in verbal and non-verbal conduct of sexual nature on several occasions with me
2. Indulged in unwelcome physical contact and advances leading to sex by coercion with me
3. Once slapped me, attempted to strangle me once while sexually abusing me. Entered my room in the hostel without knocking and thereby interfered with my privacy, made humiliating treatment to me.

Conclusion:
1. The charges of sexual harassment against the professor have been established.
2. The behaviour, remarks and actions of the professor fall under the definition of sexual harassment and thus fall within the purview of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013

Recommendations:
1. That a strong disciplinary action is to be taken against the professor
2. SRFTI authority is requested to look into any adverse effect on academic work, attendance, etc. of the complainant and that of witnesses in regard to the complaints and subsequent inquiry
3. SRFTI should provide protection to complainant and their witnesses against further blaming, slandering, threats and/or attempts of physical assault by students and by any other person/s connected to SRFTI as fallout of this inquiry and subsequent actions by authority.

There is one portion of the Recommendations which was common even to the previous report submitted on cases of sexual harassment by two other professors. The professors were found guilty. Did SRFTI do ANY of the following recommendations which have been repeated here?

• Prepaparation of a Sexual Harassment Policy for SRFTI immediately
• SRFTI authority to create awareness about the Issue and the Policy at different levels:
• Awareness session for students to be conducted every year at the beginning of the academic year
• Attendance in awareness session for students to be made mandatory
• Awareness session for faculty and non teaching staff at regular intervals
• Regular monitoring of situations at SRFTI in regard to sexual harassment – this can be conducted once in two months or so by the ICC. 

The observations and findings of the ICC-SH which need mention:

• The continuous failure of the professor to appear in any of the three regular hearings and in spite of the fact of being served with two ex-parte hearing notices, it appears to be avoidance on the part of the professor to attend the hearings. Coupled with this, his complaint of biasness & overzealousness of the ICC / Inquiring Authority in conducting the Inquiry seems to be entirely subjective. Both taken together, it depicts an attitude of non-co-operation on the part of the professor.
• Observed that the complainant and her witnesses stick to her complaint
• Behaviours and physical actions of the professor towards me in several occasions amounts to sexual harassment and falls within the purview of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013.

The professor has been found guilty. I am awaiting action from SRFTI. Will there be any? Is this the report which SRFTI tried to bury by dissolving ICC-SH? I need answers. And action. Come on. Tell the world what you are going to do about a violent case of sexual abuse by a man who possessed power over his student by virtue of his professorship in SRFTI.
It was an ex-parte hearing because the professor did not turn up even for one hearing. He kept delaying the process stating various reasons.

The rape charge is being looked into by Calcutta High Court. [SRFTI forwarded my complaint to the police without my permission so…]

Debamitra Mitra, Director, SRFTI, is in Close Proximity with Professor Found Guilty of Sexual Harassment

31st March 2017

When a new director was appointed SRFTI and when her proximity with one of the professors SRFTI had found guilty of sexual harassment was widely discussed, we wrote to the minister of I&B stating our apprehensions about the same. Now it has come to our notice that for a long period of time during the enquiry into our charges of sexual harassment against the professor, he and the current director shared the same address.

Are you kidding me! A person who shared a house with a professor who was found guilty of sexual harassment is in a position of power now. And that too power which rules over girl students who complained against the same professor. In one and a half months of her appointment she dissolved the ICC for Sexual Harassment and slut shamed and defamed complainants and harassed a complainant's mother. How would it be if the mother of the accused boy in Jadavpur University is made Chairperson of ICC-SH there? This sounds like that to me. (Not that the situation is any better there, now)

Stop protecting the guilty professors. If you have any shame left remove this woman from the position of power. There is an obvious and direct conflict of interest. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, now is the time to act. Or bury your head in shame. Secretary Ajay Mittal, is this what you meant when you said that I was imagining it all? Is Debamitra Mitra's appointment my imagination as well? How long will you support sexual harassment? Till it reaches your home?

76 Filmmakers and Supporters Write to Director, SRFTI, Debamitra Mitra Regarding Dissolution of ICC for Sexual Harassment

Several members of the FTII alumni, as well as the current students sent a joint letter today to the director SRFTI with copies to the Registrar, SRFTI, Secy, I&B, Joint Secy I&B and Amala Akkineni to express their concern regarding the recent developments on the campus with regards to the 6 sexual harassment complaints filed in December 2015 by 4 students against their professors. Here is the letter:

The Director
SRFTI
Kolkata.

Dear Madam,
We are a group of ex-students of the FTII, Pune, and it is with deep concern that we write this letter to you. We are anxious about the recent developments on your campus with regard to the 6 sexual harassment complaints filed in December 2015 by 4 students against their professors.
Our response to the fact of multiple complaints by women students against faculty members and fellow students was of distress. But we saw it as a positive development that SRFTI gave the women students the space to speak confidently and fearlessly. We also lauded the prompt action against the accused faculty members. The constitution of the ICC headed by a faculty member, Putul Mahmood, inquiring and investigating the complaints seemed to be a step in the correct direction to ensure that justice would be sought. As a community of filmmakers deeply connected to cinema education in the country and to your premier film institute (many of us have been on the campus as selection committee members or for workshops) we have followed the developments with concern. It was reassuring to note that the complaints were treated with utmost importance and action was taken to ensure a fair investigation.

Many of us are a part of online feminist discussion groups where a few groups posted a letter, dated 22 March 2017, which they have received from you in response to their letter. Through this exchange we became aware of the decision to dissolve the ICC. You have written, “Please be assured that there are strong reasons for formation of a new ICC.” In the same letter you have indicated that this administrative decision has been ratified in the Governing Council.

The disturbing news of the current ICC being dissolved, before its three-year term is over and while the aforementioned cases are ongoing, (despite the fact that its workings have been in strict accordance with norms laid down by the government) has prompted us to write to you. This step puts into question both the work done by the ICC since the time the complaints were made, as also the integrity of your own faculty member in charge of the investigation. It is unfortunate that the important work put in by the ICC, that also includes respected activists with sound understanding of the laws pertaining to sexual harassment, is being discarded.

We can see the impact this will have on the women students who have complained, on the faculty member who has already faced hostility for her role in the ICC, and for the devastating precedence this will set. This will subvert the work that the ICC put in.

We are unable to comprehend why the institute felt it was necessary to dissolve the ICC when their report has been submitted and the previous Governing Council has ratified it and found the accused faculty members guilty. The accused have challenged this in court so it becomes all the more necessary for the institute to stand by the finding and recommendations of the ICC. We would be grateful if you could make public the reasoning behind your sudden decision.

We are disturbed that the women students on campus are vulnerable and are facing constant abuse, harassment, violence, threats and ostracization. This is an outright violation of the basic human right to live with dignity and function freely and fearlessly as students of creative arts.
We are disturbed when you say ‘’I cannot discriminate my students on grounds of genders or on any other narrow considerations’’ and again ‘’... nefarious attempt by some misguided wayward women to bring disrepute to the entire women community’’.

In these sentences there appear to be pre-existing judgements, both about 'gender being a narrow consideration', as well as about the idea of 'misguided wayward women'. While we appreciate your attempts at forging a gender neutral policy on the SRFTII campus, we are worried that those discriminations that have been present historically, due to gender-specificity, e.g. sexual harassment of women, will be made totally invisible.

Similarly, while the case is sub-judice, it seems that you have already pronounced a judgement against the complainants, by naming them as 'misguided wayward women'. We acknowledge this as your personal moral view on sexuality. However, we are of the opinion that institutions that teach creative arts cannot afford to have such prescriptive approaches to sexual rights, especially for women.

We are alumni of FTII and the three accused faculty members are our peers. This is painful for us but there is no doubt that as professionals who are invested in film education and our film schools we expect these campuses to be spaces where students can speak freely and fearlessly about their vulnerabilities or any harassment they might face. This can be achieved only if the systems put into place to ensure justice are respected. Dissolving this very same committee appears to be an attempt to disregard the very system that was meant to bring justice.
We would like a reassurance that the ICC will get your full support to ensure a speedy trial so as to restore an environment on campus that is conducive both to gender justice and to learning. We remain deeply connected to your institute and it is on this basis that we have written to you to express our dismay.

Thank you
Sincerely

1. Ajay Raina, Direction 1990
2. Ajayan Adat, Audiography 2016
3. Aman Wadhan, Direction 2016
4. Amit Tiwari, Acting 2012
5. Anupama Chandra, Editing 1999
6. Amala Popuri, Audiography 2000
7. Anindya Shanker Das, Direction 2016
8. Anushree Kushwaha, Acting 2016
9. Aparna Subramanian, Sound recording and TV Engineering 2010
10. Arindam Ghatak, Editing 2005
11. Arjun Gourisaria, Editing 1989
12. Aruna Raje, Direction 1969
13. Asheesh Pandya, Audiography 1988
14. Ashwini Malik, Direction 1993
15. Batul Mukhtiar, Direction 1995
16. Bina Paul, Editing 1983
17. Chandita Mukherjee, Direction 1975
18. Deepti Khurana, Direction 2011
19. Deepti Gupta, Cinematography 1998
20. Dinker Sharma, Acting 2014
21. Dipti Bhalla Verma, Editing 1984
22. Firoza Khan, Direction 1989
23. Fowzia Fathima, Cinematography 1998
24. Gadadhar Puty, Editing 1982
25. Gauri Durga Chakravarty, Production Management 1998
26. Gauri Patwardhan, Editing 1989
27. Hansa Thapliyal, Direction 1998
28. Heer Ganjwala, Direction 2015
29. Irene Dhar Malik, Editing 1991
30. Jabeen Merchant, Editing 1996
31. Jill Misquitta, Direction 1980
32. Kamal KM, Direction 2004
33. Kavita Joshi, Direction 1996
34. Kavita Pai, Editing 1999
35. Kislay, Editing 2015
36. Mahadeb Shi, Editing 1985
37. Manoj Lobo, Cinematography 2004
38. Namita Nayakchopra, Audiography 1991
39. Nandan Kudhyadi, Direction & Screenplay 1979
40. Nandini Bedi, Editing 1987
41. Nishtha Jain, Direction 1998
42. Pankaj Rishi Kumar, Editing 1992
43. Paramita Ghosh, Editing 2011
44. Pinky Brahma Choudhury, Direction 1993
45. Prateek Vats, Direction 2011
46. Pooja Sharma, Cinematography 2006
47. Puloma Pal, Editing 2007
48. Raja Sayed, Cinematography 1988
49. Ravi Choudhary, Acting 2012
50. Ramchandra PN, Direction 1990
51. Reena Mohan, Editing 1982
52. Ruchika Oberoi, Direction 1998
53. Samarth Dixit, Editing 2014
54. Sameera Jain, Editing 1982
55. Samvartha Sahil, Screenplay 2014
56. Sanjeev Sood, Cinematography 1984
57. Sanjiv Shah, Editing 1981
58. Satya Rai Nagpaul, Cinematography, 2004
59. Satyajit Pande, Cinematography 1999
60. Saumananda Sahi, Cinematography 2009
61. Shabnam Sukhdev, Direction 1995
62. Shobhit Jain, Editing 1993
63. Shubham, Acting 2009
64. Sriram Raja, Editing 2016
65. Suresh Rajamani, Audiography 1987
66. Surabhi Sharma, Direction 1998
67. Tanu Loht, Acting 2012
68. Tanusree Das, Editing 2005
69. Uma Tanku, Direction 1999
70. Vinay Kumar, Acting 2012
71. Viraj Tadwalkar, Electronic Cinematography 2015
72. Vipinkumar Vaghmare, Electronic Cinematography 2015
73. Yashasvi Mishra, Acting 2013
74. Srishti wadhwani - Acting 2011
75. Abhijeet Khuman Direction Television, 2014-2016
76. Swati Jaswal, Editing 2016

This update first appeared as a Facebook post by filmmaker Nishtha Jain

Amala Akkineni's letter to Sexual Harassment Complainants at SRFTI

28th March 2017

Amala Akkineni's letter to us three complainants

Dear Kunjila, Sreecheta and Layashree
my heart goes out to you and I truly wish I can do more than offer you my sincere and heartfelt support, empathy and condolences for all your suffering.
While it may be the norm to belittle "modern" girls and their fight for justice in a patriarchal society dominated with surface morality, the system if followed will work. Think of this as the turning of India's rusted wheels for justice. Think of this as your fight for all women in India and be strong.

I have taken this up at the highest level possible for me and will continue to advocate ethical behaviour of both management and Board towards the issue and ICC. Unless someone at the top is willing to step in there is little hope for attitudes to change. We are not here to make judgement but to address the issue of women's safety and in the current scenario it is questionable.
Shocked to see the video links. Really shocked. Good you have this proof os despicable behaviours. Once again, my heart goes out to you and I pray SRFTI student nightmares are over for ever. Be strong and be well. India must change and will move on.
Regards,
Amala

I'm in love with this woman. I have not heard such an honest voice from SRFTI in ages in this issue.

Maneka Gandhi, Ministry of Women and Child Development Intervenes, Writes to SRFTI

On 27th March 2017, I moved to Mumbai. SRFTI was still a mess. The new Director, Debamitra Mitra had harassed my mother. Acting Chairperson of Governing Body, Amala Akkineni had provided some hope with her letter to me. Meanwhile, complainant Layashree Joshi contacted the Ministry of Women and Child Development through Twitter. Minister Maneka Gandhi wrote back to her. On 28th March 2017, she wrote to SRFTI as well. This was a great victory for us.

Amala Akkineni's Letter - A Ray of Hope

27th March 2017

A Ray of hope from Amala Akkineni. Faith in humanity restored, now need to prepare for the bigger battle. Amala Akkineni wrote to me regarding the harassment my mother faced from Director of SRFTI, Debamitra Mitra

'Dear Kunjila,

I am really sad to read your email and hear about the ordeals you have been through. It is sad that such a response has happened despite the assurances given by the Director to listen and attend to every complaint. Had she patiently and politely listened to and filed your complaint as required , it would have been resolved . This is both disturbing and unnecessary on all counts .
I am taking up the matter with the board and the Ministry. My sincere apologies to you and your mother on behalf of all of us 🙏🏼. Do understand that India is waking up to the issue of sexual harassment and is still in infancy to know how to behave in such cases . No degree on earth tells one how to behave empathetically .Every step of the way victims are harassed , morally judged and exposed to public humiliation. In extreme cases the law is abused to take revenge on the innocent . In both extremes people do not know what or how to proceed and people sit by watching helplessly.
I suggest you give your best effort to your grad film and wait till internal dialogue takes its course . Thank you for your trust and patience .
With best regards
Amala Akkineni'

What is SRFTI Hiding?

25th March 2017

Hello,
Please listen carefully. This is a very mucky mess. There is a larger nexus of students, professors, influential people, filmmakers etc involved and we, a small group of women are at the receiving end of this violence. We are aspiring filmmakers who have a lot to do, a lot of films to make. It is just not fair that our future is being trampled upon by such people who have all the power they need to crush us under their feet. So listen with your soul, please. 

2nd March 2017: Internal Complaints Committee for Sexual Harassment [ICC-SH] of Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute [SRFTI] submitted its report on a case I had filed against a professor. [The professor’s name has been made public in the media, I just don’t want to do that here.] Rape was ONE OF THE SEVERAL charges in my complaint. The complaint in its entirety was made public by me long ago when I was under a massive attack by the powers mentioned above. You can read it here.
Around the same time I also publicly came out as the rape complainant in SRFTI because people even publicly wondered if I was for real. The video can be found here. 

It is already very shameful that a sexual harassment complainant has to constantly prove herself right while the accused just have to wave their magic wands and say spells like ‘slut shame’, ‘relationship’, ‘seduced’, ‘jilted lover’ etc. So for the last time, I am making something clear: I was never in a relationship with that man. And nobody has the right to tell a woman something as stupid as ‘you could not have been raped because you were in a relationship with him’. Also, jilted-lover-getting-back-at-the-unsuspecting-professor theory would have made sense if he was the one who terminated the non consensual sex. [That was all there was to it except for his manipulation and coercion in so many levels]. It was me. Some time after he asked me if he could have a threesome with me and my then boyfriend. All right? 

Please keep in mind that SRFTI forwarded my complaint WITHOUT MY PERMISSION to the police and therefore I have to fight a court case now. That was on the charge of rape. The ICC-SH looked into charges OTHER THAN RAPE and submitted its report on March 2nd.
I have not been given the report yet even though it should have been done long ago. Ideally, depending upon the content of the report, action should have been taken by SRFTI. For example if the professor was not found guilty he should have been cleared of blame. If he had been found guilty subsequent action should have followed. This decision would have happened on 10th March, which was when the Governing Council [GC] meeting was scheduled. This is the meeting which was chaired by Amala Akkineni and had Madhu Bhandarkar! present. [The same Bollywood Director accused of rape and the complainant later mysteriously withdrew her complaint]. In this meeting instead of the action I mentioned, it was decided that the ICC-SH shall be dissolved! 

Kindly put two and two together. What is SRFTI hiding? Why have they not given the report to me? Why is it that in a meeting where the report should have been discussed and action taken on the professor, the body which submitted the report was dissolved? There are carcasses everywhere that it stinks so bad. Let me also point out that another case against another professor was also under investigation by the same ICC when the decision to dissolve it was taken. 

Soon after this is when a resurgence of slut shaming of me happened. My complaint against the professor which is a public document was one of those in which 90% of people yelled ‘She couldn’t have been raped’, because in some cozy corner the accused was casually waving his magic wand and whispering the spells i mentioned earlier. But one man cannot do it. He was supported by the vicious nexus of SRFTI and its power houses. Students who are usually powerless also become powerful and bare their teeth in arrogance when they have the backing of professors and higher authorities.
Soon after this Director Debamitra Mitra was so emboldened, she told my own mother that her daughter was staying with the professor and made the complaint only after that. She was so emboldened, that she wrote a group of feminists the exact words she told my mother. That women including me were ‘misusing’ the Sexual Harassment Act, we were ‘nefarious’ and ‘wayward’. Where is this power coming from? As an employee of Government of India, whatever your personal beliefs are, you will definitely think twice before saying that the Sexual Harassment Prevention in Workplaces Act is something which is being misused. Yet, she, forget being a government employee, certainly our government is in deeper shit, being a woman and a citizen dared say that. Where is she drawing her power from? Why is she confident that I could not have been raped even when ICC-SH had not even investigated the rape charge? Where is my report? Give it to me. What are you hiding? Show it to me.

Nefarious Women of SRFTI

23rd March 2017

Maitree (a network of women's rights activists and individuals) had written to Debamitra Mitra, Director, SRFTI protesting the dissolution of SRFTI Committee for Sexual Harassment. Debamitra Mitra responded in the most preposterous way possible. Below is the complete letter. The highlight is mine.

Dear Ms. Kapur,
This is to acknowledge receipt of your mail dated March 20, 2017. To be honest, I have been inexplicably shocked and surprised to receive it as it has been difficult to accept that such a mail could come from someone of your stature, vision, mission and wisdom. The most unfortunate aspect of your initiative to get into an important administrative decision which was endorsed by the eminent members of the Governing Council is the implied suggestion that rules and law of the land have been mercilessly trampled by an insensitive administration of the Institute. The mail obviously raised a serious question on my administrative honesty, integrity and competence. It also projects me as a person who is completely bereft of any sympathy or compassion for the victims of sexual harassment.
Everybody needs to appreciate and acknowledge that I am a woman too, and being so, I am equally concerned about the dignity, security and safety of my girl students. However, as their guardian in the institute, I cannot discriminate my students on grounds of genders or on any other narrow considerations. I have always felt that while a girl student must be made to feel assured of full protection against any kind of harassment, she should also understand that misuse or abuse of law with ulterior motive cannot be allowed or tolerated. We cannot afford to maintain philosophical indifference in the face of any nefarious attempt by some misguided wayward women to bring disrepute to the entire women community. There are several instances where law made to protect the interest of citizens have been abused. Section 498A of the IPC and the RTI Act are a few examples.
Please be assured that there are strong reasons for formation of a new ICC. I would request you to believe that the Institute administration headed by me cannot and will not do anything that can be translated as against law or as deliberate denial of justice to my own dear female students who become genuine victims of sexual harassment. However, I shall also continue to be tough wherever there is an attempt by any woman to misuse the provisions of the Act to settle other scores.
Regards.  
Dr. Debamitra Mitra

Director
Satyajit Ray Film & Television Institute
E.M. ByPass Rd, Panchasayar
Kolkata-700094
Phone: 913324328355, 24328356, 24329300
Fax: 91332432-0723
Web: http://www.srfti.ac.in

There is only one more thing I'd like to add here and that is #Debamitramitraresign

Director Debamitra Mitra Harasses Mother of Rape Complainant

22nd March 2017

Director of SRFTI, Debamitra Mitra. Picture Courtesy: Newsmen.in

I don't know if you'll believe me when I say this. But this happened. Amala Akkineni, the acting chairperson of SRFTI (a film school known for its alarming number of sexual harassment cases more than cinema) had asked me to walk into Director Debamitra Mitra's room and ask her anything I wanted to know. She had ensured that sexual harassment complainants like me will be given justice. Let me give you a sample of the justice I got from Debamitra Mitra. 

Since I had to leave for Bombay to do the colour correction of my film, my mother had said that she'd give a letter expressing concern over the developments related to sexual harassment in the institute to Director Debamitra Mitra. Below are the things Debamitra Mitra did when Mother met her for the same.

Debamitra Mitra told my mother that the professor who raped me and I were staying together in the institute. She ASKED MY MOTHER TO SIGN A PAPER which said that my mother had denied Debamitra's claim. She told Mother that her daughter's complaint of rape was made only after her having stayed with him. [Insinuating that I had 'enjoyed' staying with him and that abuse was an afterthought]

Yes, she was talking about the same professor against whom I am fighting a case of rape in Calcutta high court, the same professor who has not attended even one hearing of the internal inquiry. Debamitra Mitra should appear for that man in court with this kind of slut shaming skills. 

She also went ahead and asked my mother if she'd heard of section 498. 'Write it down if you haven't' she said. Debamitra Mitra 'informed' my mother that section 498 was abolished because of increased misuse of it by daughters in law. If anyone has her number please feel free to ask her what she meant. She also gave her a sweet assurance: 

"Now Srfti will not harass her (me) because she will be going out from SRFTI by 31st march. Now a woman director has come"

My mother felt faint and a doctor had to be called. Her BP had shot up. She had to ask for a vehicle to be arranged for her to get back home. She missed the train she had to catch today to Delhi.

Ms. Debamitra Mitra, do you have any explanation for this that you did to my mother? I am coming back. You will have to answer me. You will have to face the consequences of what you did to a mother who stood with her girl when she was sexually harassed. I am not going anywhere till you are told, taught, by women like me what you need to know. 

#Debamitramitraresign

The Watermark Scandal: Hear it From the Film World

This is an attempt to collect statements of filmmakers and film enthusiasts from around the country and world and see what they think of the watercrap watermark issue in SRFTI. Will also be adding comments from film students. Anybody who wishes to protest to this draconian law in SRFTI can leave their statement as comment. I shall update it as soon as possible.

Photo credit here. Poster created by author. Anyone can use or modify with or without credits.

Statement: "Of course it’s unheard of anyone dictating to put the producer's logo on any film. NFDC has never asked for it. Logo is not a part of any film. It’s only for publicity. Even DVDs don't carry it. Any mark on the film's print can only be decided by the filmmaker. Only television carries a logo while a film is telecast. Students should take SRFTI to court over this dictat."- Gurvinder Singh, filmmaker

Statement:

My statement is a one liner. Compulsory water marking student films is wrong. SRFTI's name should obviously appear in the credits where it belongs and nowhere else. Students should have the right to make as many dvds of their work, as this is a part of their portfolio.
regards, anand

Statement: Watermarking a film with the producers name is just not right. It is a cheap and an unreasonable demand. This proposal from a film institute of all places is very shocking. A work of art should be respected and the film students should be given all rights to disseminate their films without any ugly watermarks. Leena Manimekalai, filmmaker, poet.

Statement: SRFTI should immediately revise its obtuse practice of demanding a watermark on students filmmakers' copies of their films! It's ridiculous that filmmakers are not allowed to keep a clean copy of their own work.
Anand Gandhi photograph courtesy

Full statement:

..every pixel, every glitch in every frame belongs to its creators..
The decision of a reputed film institute like SRFTII to watermark student films is unfortunate to say the least. What is behind this sudden urge to stamp the school’s identity in the films of its students? If it is to spread SRFTII fame across the world, the talents who come out the school and the quality of their films would do that; the credits at the beginning and end can very well proclaim it and so there is no need to deface every frame in their work for that. These shortsighted acts only reveal the dark shadows of ‘proprietary’ mindset which is not befitting a great public institution like SRFTII. The cineastes of the country urge the institute to reverse their decision and reaffirm the true spirit of education as well as creativity.
cs venkiteswaran
Picture courtesy

Full statement: I am a big narcissist but I feel that SRFTI is more narcissist than me. What if the director or a superstar one day decide let's have our watermark throughout the film. This is exactly like that. Imagine if all the people who worked in the films had their own watermarks throughout the film. The producer having their watermark is similar. It's shocking that this is coming from an institute like SRFTI which teaches cinema.

Statement: "It is pretty obvious to me that a filmmaker who values his/her work of art would not let an authority impose an unintended change to their work. Asking for watermark on one's film is just vandalism forced by the authorities and it is a crime against art."- Don Palathara, filmmaker.

 Full statement: I watched some films from SRFTI at a festival recently and was horrified to see the watermark. It’s not a question of how ugly the symbol looks but of the skewed nature of this mandate. A filmmaker’s work cannot be branded without consent. The producers can be acknowledged in unobtrusive ways. The watermark is an oppressive way of asserting ownership over creative work produced in an academic space. This decree is undemocratic and inexcusable. Prachee Bajania, Film Student, FTII, NID.

Statement: An art is a part of the artist’s soul. Yes, SRFTII/government fund all the projects, but how dare they justify messing every frame with their watermarked logo? Engraving the producer’s name/logo on an art is worse than vandalism. How can someone send such a crappy copy to film festivals around the globe. No other film school will ever enforce such a stupidity. Students should follow all the rules and regulations amended by the authority. Yes, point taken. But that doesn’t mean they can treat all the student directors who ask for a copy of their final year projects like estranged beggars pleading for money. As we all know, SRFTII faculty don’t give a crap about students who protest. But, imagine the situation of that empire, if the kid was not there to speak out loud that the emperor has no clothes. Protest against the atrocity of bureaucrats who are wasting our tax money. “United we stand, divided we fall.” KRNNIVSA students in solidarity with all the SRFTI students.- Georgy Abraham, Film Student, Kerala.

The Watermark Scandal: Independence Day Special Bulletin from SRFTI

Hi everyone. Please take a look at this notice which was displayed in the Department of Editing, Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute till i took it off to click a picture of it. Whatever is displayed on boards should be displayed before public too.

The Watermark Scandal Exhibit A: Order signed by Mr Debashish Ghoshal, Dean in Charge, with instruction to be circulated in all departments.

This time i am trying to approach the problem with a calm mind so that i can save some energy for creative purposes like making films, writing etc. Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute is a film school and all of us here are people who enrolled to learn cinema, lest we forget.

The Problem.

Like the notice says, a student shall be provided with just one copy of their film. Whichever project it is. I, for example, just finished the principal photography of my diploma project. So suppose after edit and sound and colour correction, i go to get a copy of my film. [The reason why i am calling it 'my' film and not 'our' film is here in this Facebook post. Things change here in SRFTI.] Then somebody from the Editing department will give me a copy of my film with a watermark on it. That is the ONLY copy of the film that i, the director will have. For the rest of my life. Apart from violating my right to the my own body of work let me also show you how ugly the thing looks. Below is a frame from my Playback project called 'When Father Came'. The only copy of the film i have with me.

Exhibit B: A frame from my playback project titled 'When Father Came'. On the top left and right you can see 'SRFTI' and 'Only for Preview' watermarked. This is the only copy i have of the film.

Implications

1. Firstly, the rule treats students like shit. The process of making a film, small or big, starts with an idea. From there to give it a body and shape and to do everything it takes to make it take the form of cinema is done by students. Yes, there are technicians who help us through this. Like light people, people who manage equipment, those who help with location permissions etc. In any case SRFTI/the Govt. of India/any of the professors do not have claim to even one frame of any of the student work. So then in the end when there is a watermark called 'student copy', or watermark of the ugly logo of SRFTI, or simply SRFTI watermarked on the frame it is a violation of our rights to our work of art.

2.Suppose i am sending my film to a film festival. For students of cinema especially those who are aspiring directors, film festivals are the biggest opportunities to showcase their work. Take any film festival, like IDSFFK. Now even in this stage there are problems in SRFTI which i think should be viewed as a corollary to the Watermark Scandal. That is the Selection Committee Scandal.

The Selection Committee Scandal

Till the previous AC[Academic Council] meeting, the 'selection committee' in SRFTI was a farcical one. First it had people who knew nothing about cinema in it. For example,

The FRO [Film Research Officer], Mr Sougatha Bhattacharyya. Do you know that this man made a 'documentary' and sent it to festivals where he was supposed to send student films? The film is horsecrap and that is what makes it worse. Some employee drawing salary from a government job decides that his own film which is horsecrap can be placed over student films and be sent to festivals. Yes, he has every right to do that but not without first doing his job of informing students about festivals.Not by stealing these students' opportunities.

Vaibhav Hiwase, final year student of Direction says ‘About one and half year back, I sent my short film 'Gavhankur' to Clermont-Ferrand film festival, which is one of the most important short film festivals in the world. As per my knowledge this festival is a great platform for the experimental film. My film falls into same category so I sent it there on my own, as institute (FRO) never communicated with me regarding this fest. Few days later, on d fest website I see three films: mine, venkat's diploma film (8th batch) and FRO'S film (a documentary)! To my surprise, FRO never informed me about the festival, but he sent his own film for d fest. I don't have any problem in him sending his own film to fest, it's his right, but my point here is, he is treating students as his potential competitors and hence he is not informing them about the festival, that is extremely corrupt behaviour from his side, he being FRO, institute has given him responsibility to handle film fest submissions, he is not keeping any transparency in it.’

What's more. SRFTI encourages the same man to make more films.

For example every year a batch of students come to SRFTI from BNA [Bhartendu Natya Akademi], Lucknow. Based on the number of students who arrive, SRFTI collaborates with them and make two or three short films. When i was in first year some senior students were asked to direct these projects. Last year too, a junior of mine directed one such project. It turned out to be better than most faculty directed films and even films for BNA earlier directed by ex students. Now, by the look of it, FRO and faculty are directing those films, again denying students an opportunity to practise their craft. Let us not even consider the quality of films. My understanding of cinema might be different from yours. What i find horseshit could be a masterpiece for you. Even in such a scenario, whenever filmmaking opportunities arise within the institute it is my opinion that students should be allowed to make their (good/bad) films and not faculty their own (good/bad) films. This nasty tradition of looking at students as one’s opponent is a tradition in SRFTI and it is quite saddening.

The Watermark Scandal Exhibit C: Sougata Bhattacharyya, FRO, directs a BNA project. Source: Mr Bhattacharyya's Facebook page

That’s just one member of the selection committee we are talking about. Others are faculty. And it’s no secret that faculty have their favourites. I, for example, am nobody’s favourite. So when this selection committee sits to evaluate which films will be sent to IDSFFK, professor A might have had a problem because i am one of the girls who complained against his co-worker who had sexually harassed me. Prof. B might be somebody who said that SRFTI had made a mistake by selecting me. [Yes, a professor said this to me and i had made a complaint in my first year] Prof. C, for all you know, could be somebody whom i had questioned on the very issue of film selection.

Till last week when the AC [Academic Council] meeting happened, this was the situation of the selection committee. Due to the demands of students like us, they have agreed to have an all-external members-selection committee. When this will be implemented is something to which nobody has an answer. So we can leave this corollary problem over here.

Now back to the issue of watermark.

Implications

2. Contd.

It is now clear how institute has not, till today, sent ‘all’ films to any festival or even encouraged the sending of films by students. If a student wins an award, then it’s a different story. We students have always wondered, if there was no time limit given by the festival as to how many hours/minutes of films can be sent by one institute or organization, then what is the problem in sending all student work. Surely, that is the most logical and egalitarian way of handling festival submissions? We were told by the ex-director Mr Sanjaya Pattanayak, that SRFTI was not doing it because it wanted to send films of a certain standard. For all those who want to see a sample of this standard i invite you to SRFTI to watch films directed by FRO, Mr Sougata Bhattacharyya. I don’t think anybody will have any questions after that.

So now let us say that the old committee or the new all-externals-committee decided that my film is not to be sent to IDSFFK. I, as the director of the film feel that it should be sent. Since this is a festival which doesn’t ask for an entry fee, i go ahead and submit my film. Till this part it’s okay, for selection process i can send a copy with a watermark, if you insist. Now the film gets selected [This is, apart from an example, a true incident. Institute had decided not to send my film Gruhapravesham and IDSFFK selected it last year.] Now what do i do? What does any student do at this stage?

The student has to go to the department of Editing and has to say that their film has got selected and request for a copy of their own film without the [damn] watermark. Is the student going to get it? No. The student’s ‘request’ will be processed and SRFTI will decide if they need to send the film or not and if they decide to send it SRFTI will send the film themselves.

As a result of this student will not get to know if their projects have been sent on time or if they have been sent at all.

Why are we so skeptical about SRFTI? Because, as students, we know better than to trust SRFTI with anything and particularly not with films. Since this is handled by the Department of Editing i shall now explain why it is all the more dangerous.

1. The department of Editing has a history with student projects. I am going to state instances where this was made clear by the behaviour of editing students themselves. Please bear in mind that i am mentioning only those incidents to which i have evidence and witnesses. Those numerous stories of ex-students where they have been pushed against the wall by this department has not been recorded and perhaps never will be unless they speak up.

2. The student who was my editor ‘accidentally’ lost a memory card of a day’s shoot. Later i got to know from people who had been present there when he said that he had deliberately thrown it away because he wanted to take ‘revenge’ on me for personal reasons. I am fighting a court case against him now.

3. An editing student accidentally deleted raw footage of one whole day of one of my classmates’ Diploma film. The director of the film confirmed that it was an accident which again shows how irresponsibly work is handled by students of this department. This is of course, not to say that all editing students function this way. The problem is when this kind of unprofessional and irresponsible behaviour is not stopped by the department. In fact by not taking action against these students the department is encouraging such behaviour.

4. Debjani’s [Final year student of Direction] short film was ‘missing’ from the department of Editing for two months. ‘They [the department of Editing] first said it is lost. Then I wrote a letter. After that they told me it is lost and I have to do sound sync and subtitles again. But Guha sir [Debashish Guha, professor, Editing] taken responsibility and found it,’ she said. They never gave her any explanation as to how or why the film was ‘missing’ from the department.

I just stated some instances to give a picture of how things are done over here. So as a student, when the Editing department tells me that they will send my film to some festival i have no reason to believe them and i won’t.

Implications

3. We saw what the implications of watermark is in sending films to festivals. Now let’s forget film festivals for some time. What about when we show our work to senior directors/cinematographers as and when we get the opportunity? This is another major way by which we find work after leaving film schools. Suppose i get an opportunity to meet Haneke. [Never be stingy with your imagination when you have the chance to use it] I’ll be like

‘Hi sir, *drool* can you please *drool* watch my student film? *drool*

Haneke: Yeah sure, i am very busy making films but i’ll always have time for you, kunjila [told you, imagination…]

‘Here it is sir’. *drool*

Haneke: ‘What is that ugly thing on the top left of the frame?

‘Err...sir...it’s a logo’

Haneke: ‘What logo?’

‘Sir...it’s the logo of the film institute where i studied’

Haneke: ‘What!- Are you serious!’ I can’t watch a film with this thing on it! Why on earth is its logo on your film?’

‘Sir...because sir...they said they want to because they are the producer.’

*Thunderous, wonderful laughter of Haneke*

‘Sir…?’

*Thunderous, wonderful laughter of Haneke continues*

‘Sir, are you alright?’

Haneke: My dear child, don’t they know that all films are produced by someone or the other. Are they really that stupid to put their own logo on their work of art? *laughter continues*

Err...yes sir, they are, by the look of it…*resumes drooling*

-the rest of this conversation shall be printed as soon as it actually happens.

So this is the kind of situation i am talking about. Why wouldn’t the director of the film have a copy of the film like they made it? Without any logo or watercrap sorry, watermark? Even though i am stating the obvious let me illustrate with examples so that i feel good, generally.

Film: Pather Panchali

Director: Satyajit Ray

Produced by: West Bengal State Government

Watermark status: No watermark

Proof below

The Watermark Scandal Exhibit D: VLC Snapshot from Pather Panchali. Captured by Prahas

Film: Anhe Ghore Da Daan

Director: Gurvinder Singh

Produced by: National Film Development Corporation of India [NFDC}

Watermark Status: No watermark

Proof below

The Watermark Scandal Exhibit E: VLC snapshot from Anhe Ghore Da Daan captured by author

I selected these two films for specific reasons. Ray’s masterpiece because SRFTI is named after this legendary filmmaker [Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute, lest they forget] and personally, like most of india, Pather Panchali is one of my favourite films too.

Gurvinder Singh’s film because it was one of the latest films produced by NFDC and this body is also under the same Ministry of Information and Broadcasting that SRFTI functions under.

In this context let us look at how ridiculous these work of art would look if the respective producers, like SRFTI had said that they wanted to have their logo watermarked on the films. Then it would mean that the world would have watched those films like this.

Watermark Scandal Exhibit F: Pather Panchali with Producer logo. Logo credit here

The Watermark Scandal Exhibit G. Anhe Ghore Da Daan with producer logo. Logo credit here

 Implications contd.

4. At their leisure if a director felt like watching their own film they would be watching it with the watercrap on it which will make them feel like an idiot and leave them with no desire for making anymore films. At least that’s what happens to me whenever i see that seal of authority on my work.

What are the reasons SRFTI is giving for this regressive practice?

1. Some student director from an earlier batch along with his cinematographer re-edited his film and did not give credits to the editing student. The department doesn’t want this to happen again.

Shattering the warped logic easily: If a student decides to behave unprofessionally or unethically that student should face the consequences of it. There are many disciplinary actions that can be taken in such a situation. Did SRFTI do that? A boy from Bihar called me ‘behen ke laudi.’ Is the solution for this to ban all people from Bihar in SRFTI? Or better still, since i have not once stopped questioning SRFTI from the day i entered it, would they ban all girls or all mallu girls in SRFTI? That’s what is called stupid. Also a clear sign that people’s brains are currently not in their skulls.

2. As the producer, SRFTI has every right to do this.

This time, i am not taking the trouble to shatter this argument. Gurvinder Singh, the maker of Anhe Ghore Da Daan, a frame of which you saw earlier will dispel it for you. Like i said, the mentioned film was produced by NFDC. Now listen to what he says. ‘Of course it’s unheard of anyone dictating to put the producer's logo on any film. NFDC has never asked for it. Logo is not a part of any film. It’s only for publicity. Even DVDs don't carry it. Any mark on the film's print can only be decided by the filmmaker. Only television carries a logo while a film is telecast. Students should take SRFTI to court over this dictat.

[Emphasis in bold added by the writer]

But alas, people like Gurvinder Singh are not in the governing council of SRFTI. Even in the Academic Council, the dean of FTII[Film and Television Institute of India] is reported to have said that he would like to implement this rule in FTII as well. So yes, get ready, FTII.

3. Everybody does it

Wait, are we talking about masturbation here? No, SRFTI, nobody does it. No, not masturbation, everybody does that. Ha ha. Gotcha confused. So, believe it or not, nobody puts a logo on a film like that. Alright? And the last time somebody gave 'everybody does it' as a reason it was during Sati. 

4. SRFTI should be informed before students send films to festivals so that in case they win a cash award SRFTI can claim the money as the producer. A watermark ensures this

Dear o dear SRFTI, please take all the money you need. All of us students know of all the corruption you people have been up to just to eat money. Please eat and shit money all you want. We are willing to give it in writing in stamp papers that if the award goes to the producer of the film, your share shall be given. That's what bonds are for. Watermarking the logo is not the solution. 

I am ending this note by showing you what this place is up to right now. Please see the picture below. The campus is filled with these banners saying SRFTI is celebrating 70 years of independence of the country. Really? What can hold more proof to the fact that this place of learning knows nothing about the concept of freedom? On this ‘independence day’, SRFTI, i spit on you. [But will eat the sweets after spitting on you] On this independence day, you are able to erect such a banner simply because you have chosen not to hear the pellets and people of Kashmir, the Una dalits, the people of Bastar and your own students right under your nose who are bellowing for their freedom to make films.

SRFTI Celebrates Independence Day. Thoo.