Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
A petition submitted to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan by a group of 20-odd male writers, filmmakers, and cultural figures has sparked a debate in Kerala’s film circles. The signatories — among them Malayalam literary stalwarts like Paul Zacharia and MN Karassery and filmmaker Don Palathara — urged the state government to review its film funding scheme for women, scheduled caste (SC), and scheduled tribe (ST) filmmakers, implemented through the Kerala State Film Development Corporation (KSFDC).
The petition leaned on veteran filmmaker Adoor Gopalakrishnan’s recent remarks at the film policy conclave in Thiruvananthapuram, where he described the scheme as “extravagant” and argued that some beneficiaries lacked the training to produce quality films. The petition questioned whether a Rs 1.5 crore grant for debutants was justified, noting that of the eight films produced under the scheme so far, only one had received international awards — and that film’s director was the only one with formal training in cinema.
The signatories said that while the scheme was launched with good intentions, it had fallen short because of poor implementation and lack of clear regulations. They urged the government to review how funds were utilised, to consider whether debut films truly needed such large budgets in a state where quality films could be made for Rs 25–50 lakh, and to ensure beneficiaries acquired technical and aesthetic training in advance. They also called for a permanent system of review and suggested that a committee of senior industry professionals be appointed to oversee the scheme, warning otherwise that government investment would be wasted.
But to many, including the beneficiaries of the scheme, the petition read less like constructive criticism and more like a dismissal of the filmmakers themselves. Two sharp responses — one from Shruthi Sharanyam, director of B 32 Muthal 44 Vare, and another from Dr Biju, one of Malayalam cinema’s most prominent directors — explain why.
Shruthi, herself a beneficiary of the scheme, called the petition defamatory. She said she and others were being treated as if they had committed the “crime” of participating in a government-sponsored scheme. “I am a trained and practising filmmaker with a master’s degree in cinema and 18 years of experience,” she wrote on Facebook. “I didn’t just show up without knowing what I was doing, as you allege.” She questioned what gave signatories, few of whom had made films themselves, the authority to dismiss the work of directors simply because it did not match their sensibilities.
Her statement also pointed out what the petition glosses over — that beneficiaries were not simply handed cash. KSFDC acted as the producer, tightly controlling funds, rights, and festival submissions. She alleged that most filmmakers under the scheme never received a copy of their films to submit to festivals independently or share with curators. Only two, to her knowledge, had that privilege, which is why their films were able to participate in international festivals. In her case, she still does not hold a copy of her film.
Shruthi described how KSFDC, even after repeated requests, failed to send required Vimeo links to festivals. On one occasion, she submitted the link herself to avoid losing a screening opportunity, only to be threatened with copyright action by KSFDC. She later realised that, as the film’s writer, she also held rights under IPRS law. For a long time, she said, she endured such difficulties in silence, which some took to mean she was staying quiet because she was receiving favours from KSFDC. “Leave us alone,” she concluded, warning that she would pursue defamation lawsuits against any future complaints or campaigns targeting her and her peers.
Dr Biju’s statement was equally pointed. He called the petition factually wrong, pointing out that at least three films from the scheme had been screened at international festivals. If others had not travelled widely, he argued, it was because KSFDC, as the official producer, had failed to submit them. “Who are you to decide that the other films are bad just because they weren’t selected for a festival? What is your credibility?” he asked, noting that even signatories’ own films had not always reached festivals.
He also reminded critics that filmmakers never directly handled the Rs 1.5 crore grants, and all financial transactions were managed by KSFDC. If flaws existed, it was the system, not the directors, that required reform, he said. “Don’t scapegoat first-time directors from marginalised groups.”
Biju also questioned the motivations behind the petition, describing many signatories as “Adoor devotees” indebted to the veteran filmmaker, and suggesting their loyalties may have shaped their stance. What shocked him, he added, was seeing the names of respected writers like Zacharia and Karassery “alongside socially regressive sycophants” who endorsed the idea that women and SC/ST filmmakers could only succeed after training in “technical and aesthetic skills.”
“I stand with all my sisters and brothers who have already made reasonably good films in this progressive movement of the state government,” he wrote. “I salute you and your films, which you have created with your blood, sweat, and dreams.”
In a Facebook post, filmmaker Kunjila Mascillamani also questioned if the concerns stated in the petition would have even come up if the scheme were reserved for men or for filmmakers from “general” (dominant caste) backgrounds.
It may be noted that allegations of misogyny, harassment, and opaque decision-making have dogged KSFDC’s leadership, especially under its former chairperson, the late Shaji N Karun. Several female filmmakers backed by the ‘Films Directed by Women’ scheme have accused the institution of delays, insults, threats, and interference. Critics at the time had pointed out that these were not just peripheral complaints, but warnings that a scheme with the stated goal of empowerment may be failing those whom it was intended to uplift.