FTII Itanagar Boycott Update: Students Eye Mid-January Return for Verification, But 'Not Automatic Classes'

Itanagar-In a significant development amid their year-long struggle for a functional campus, students from the Screen Acting and Documentary Cinema departments at the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) Itanagar- the country's third national film institute, have announced plans to report back to the campus by mid-January. This measured step, described as a "good-faith attempt to review on-ground progress and keep dialogue open," follows nearly a year of protests over incomplete infrastructure, missed deadlines, and academic disruptions.

However, the first batch of 45 students emphasized that their return is strictly for verification and discussion, not an automatic resumption of classes, and they continue to demand a point-by-point written response from authorities, including clear completion timelines. The announcement comes just days after the release of 2026 admission forms, which students criticized for lacking transparency on faculty and facilities while announcing a 5% fee hike across key charges.

Background: A Year of Protests Over 'Collapsed' Campus and Academic Losses

The FTII Itanagar boycott traces its roots to December 2024, when the first batch was admitted to a campus that was only 30% complete, despite promises of a "state-of-the-art" facility following its 2018 foundation by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Operating as an extension of the Satyajit Ray Film & Television Institute (SRFTI) Kolkata, the 50-acre site in Jote, Arunachal Pradesh, was envisioned to boost film education in Northeast India with courses in acting, direction, and cinematography. Instead, students faced immediate hardships: no functional studios, preview theaters, sound studios, dance or makeup spaces, limited cameras, faulty classrooms, erratic water/electricity, and inadequate medical support.

Formal complaints via letters to SRFTI and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting began in December 2024, escalating to two academic halts in March and May 2025 over "months of sustained neglect." A brief resumption in August 2025 followed Ministry assurances of "quick fixes," but construction stalled again, leading to November demands for essential resources. By December 4, 2025, students boycotted Semester 2 entirely after RTI disclosures revealed the Ministry had paused 2025 admissions due to the campus's unfitness, yet forced the existing batch to endure it.

Security lapses added terror, especially for female students in Type 4 quarters: unattended doors allowing strangers entry, absent/drunk guards locking up at 10 p.m., lockouts at night, and a midnight incident with a bloodied, intoxicated worker whom students had to aid themselves amid unresponsive staff. Despite national media attention and two prior halts, no substantive interventions occurred, framing the boycott as "self-defence" for education rights under Article 21.

Recent Momentum: Acknowledged Progress, But Review Falls Short

Following an online interaction with a review committee on 21 December 2025, and an announcement on 23 December of a proposed high-level visit by Ministers and senior officials scheduled for 5–6 January 2026, students observed a noticeable increase in construction activity on campus. This improvement is acknowledged. However, the announced visit did not take place for reasons unknown to students, and beyond this temporary acceleration, no formal assurance or timeline for completion has been issued.

Regarding the review committee interaction, students wish to clarify that while they respect the committee’s expertise, many did not experience the discussion as patient or exploratory. The interaction appeared primarily oriented toward establishing that the Institute is “ready to start the course,” rather than engaging meaningfully with long-term infrastructural gaps. Students reiterated that their protest has never been about whether every facility is needed in the first week of the semester. It is about whether the required infrastructure will exist when it is academically needed.

"Repeated assurances that certain facilities are “not needed now,” without binding timelines, are difficult to accept, especially when earlier written deadline of campus completion (31 Dec) have already been missed. Students are paying full fees for a professional programme and reasonably expect access to a complete film-school ecosystem over the duration of their training, not merely syllabus completion. In the interest of transparency, students have requested that the review committee’s report be shared with them", a statement from the first batch students read.

The January rollout of 2026 forms has drawn sharp rebuke: While not opposing growth, students highlighted the prospectus's lack of faculty specifics, sparse facility imagery, and "internally contradictory and unethical" disclaimers, questioning readiness for newcomers while existing students pay full fees for an incomplete ecosystem. The 5% across-the-board hike, without justification, exacerbates inequities, prompting a forthcoming detailed representation. "Transparency and clarity are essential for prospective students to make informed decisions," they asserted. The continued absence of direct engagement with the Joint Secretary, despite repeated requests, remains concerning.

Upon mid-January arrival, students will inspect proposed interim facilities, CRT rectifications, and December 9 commitments, followed by a Vice-Chancellor meeting to record progress. Resumption requires fulfillment of all conditions, including essential infrastructure (Preview Theatre, Sound Studio, etc.), medical/safety enhancements, professional PR/branding, and high-level engagement, potentially including Joint Secretary involvement, repeatedly requested but absent.

"This decision should not be seen as unconditional acceptance," they clarified, emphasizing verification over automatic classes. Their goal remains safeguarding film education's integrity: "Until the campus is complete, every promise remains provisional."