FTII row doesn’t interest me much — to be frank, when I was living in Film City, Bombay, for a while, I did fill the FTII form, but didn’t write it; it was first in the series of exams I intended to write just after leaving the MBA job but didn’t: FTII, IAS, GMAT, DOEACC, etc; finally ended up writing LL.B. accidentally and am now stuck with it.

Anyways, the genesis of the FTII problem lies in the spoils system of the US. Unfortunately, all the TV debates have taken the spoils system for granted. However, they are questioning the choice of the government for the post of the Chairman, for the person chosen, i.e. Gajendra Chauhan, doesn’t have the requisite competence. I think this debate is completely misdirected. There is certainly some merit in the argument that people for responsible position, where ever they have to be chosen, should be chosen by a body responsible for making the choice, albeit on merit; and the decision so made should be questioned, if at all, in instituitional forums competent for it. However, the spoils system disregards merit in favour of political patronage: the only qualification of the present FTII chairman is his adulation of Sangh Pariwar in general and Narendra Modi in particular. Therefore, the decisions made under such a system will indeed be challenged on political forums like media, unions and streets, by all those who stand on the other side of the spectrum.

In the present case, the problem is bigger because an inherently liberal institution is being sabotaged by the right wingers and their agenda. This is the most shabby externality of the spoils system in the recent times and is being propagated with shameless audacity, mainly because of the confidence in the established position of the spoils system. And, the confidence is not misplaced either, for even the so called favourers of merit, i.e. AAP/ Gul Panag, are endorsing the spoils system — what hypocrisy, and ironically nobody inculding the news anchor raises an eyebrow.