With the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leading the government with a two-thirds majority, many artists are curious about how it will address the issues of the film sector. Since the representatives of the film sector within the RSS have reached the decision-making level and some have even reached the parliament, many are interested in how they will address the film sector and how they will solve the complexities of this sector. 

Although the issues of concern of the film sector are not comprehensively covered in the manifesto made public by the RSS, it is worth looking at their performance in the coming days to understand how they will move forward by solving the problems of this sector through the government. Kantipur has prepared this material by talking to filmmakers and stakeholders in this sector about what are the issues of concern of the film sector and what are the complications in it. 

1. Demand for amendment of 56-year-old act, bill

The film sector is still stuck in the 2026 Film Act. That is, production, exhibition and distribution work is going on here based on the 56-year-old act. In the current situation where Nepali films are competing with international films at prestigious festivals around the world, filmmakers complain that making films based on the policies of the Panchayat period is not relevant to the times.

Therefore, filmmakers are waiting for the bill to amend this act, the Film Act, 2081, to be passed by incorporating the demands of stakeholders. In the meantime, after Jagdish Kharel became the Minister of Communications as the interim government formed after the Genji Movement, the bill was discussed for a long time in the Legislative Management Committee. Sometimes with experts and sometimes with stakeholders, the government and the Legislative Management Committee met. Clause-wise discussions were held. This bill, which was presented in the National Assembly on 28th Jestha 2082, has been passed by the National Assembly on 28th . How long does this bill have to travel through the House of Representatives now? 20 questions on the Film Bill, 2081

Filmmakers want to see this bill become an act from Balendra Shah's government. Their only complaint about the bill is that our suggestions should be included in the bill passed by the National Assembly. Earlier, 11 organizations related to films have submitted 96-point suggestions on the same bill to the ministry and the National Assembly. Since the bill passed by the National Assembly does not protect the future of filmmakers, they will also go to the House of Representatives with a demand for amendments, says Khagendra Lamichhane, coordinator of the Film Bill Suggestion Committee. 'We have participated in discussions many times and submitted amendments. The bill passed by the National Assembly has left out many of the things we submitted. The bill still does not cover our future,' he said.

–Khagendra Lamichhane
Filmmakers are hopeful that the new government will amend the bill by incorporating the concerns of filmmakers. 'Our demands are neither in conflict with the law nor with the constitution. We have demanded amendments to the bill to improve this sector. We ourselves are also aware of very sensitive issues. But for the sake of our professional rights and interests and the entire film sector, this bill has to be amended and the act handed over to us,' said Lamichhane, who is also an artist. 'We will continue to raise our voice on this issue until our suggestions are accepted.' Khagendra says that the government has been given the responsibility of developing films not only as entertainment but also as a benign force. The government has also been given the responsibility of developing films not only as entertainment but also as a benign force.

2. Autonomous Development Board - Under Communication or Culture?

The Film Development Board, the parent organization of films, is operating under the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. Filmmakers have been demanding that the board be made autonomous since the board still has to refer major decisions other than the administrative work of film production, distribution, and exhibition to the ministry. For example, the board grants production permits before a film is made. However, once the film is made, the board does not have the right to exhibit it. Films can be exhibited only after the film inspection committee under the ministry has issued a certificate. This means that the board does not have all the decision-making powers in the film sector. Therefore, filmmakers have long been demanding that the board be made autonomous. The issue of the board being autonomous also came up many times during the discussion on the legislative management of the

bill. During the discussion with stakeholders, director Dipendra Gauchan had suggested that the Film Development Board should be made autonomous for the development of this sector. 'No matter which ministry is in charge, the development board should be able to work autonomously.' If the board was free to work for the development of the film sector, the film would have developed no matter which ministry it was placed in,' Gauchan said, 'The board had to do the work required to develop the film sector. If that happens, it doesn't matter where it is placed.'

Director Rajan Kathet argues that the development board should be removed from the control of the Ministry of Communications and made autonomous. 'The new government was formed due to the events after the previous government closed down social media. In such a situation, the reins of the film sector seem to be intact,' Rajan said, 'Many artists have reached the current government. The Prime Minister is the one who represents our region. All the faces around him are from our region. I am fully confident that this government will remove the film from the ministry. Only then can the development board do all the work of the film.'

-Deepak Rauniyar, director
As Rajan said, the demand to remove the Development Board from the Ministry of Communications is an issue that has been raised by filmmakers for a long time. Since film is a culture, it should be taken towards culture. However, the unanimous voice of these filmmakers is to remove it from the Ministry of Communications to make the board autonomous. Meanwhile, former Communications Minister Kharel continued to argue that since film is a medium of communication, it should be kept in this ministry. However, filmmakers still seem to be in favor of the board becoming autonomous only after it is removed from the ministry. Director Deepak Rauniyar says that film should not be seen as a medium of communication. Film should not be seen as a medium of communication.

'Film should not be seen as a medium of communication, telecom, or broadcasting. It is a national identity, it is culture. Even now, film in Nepal is under the media. But countries that view film as a serious issue have placed it in a different area,' said Rauniyar.

According to Rauniyar, in France, film has been placed under the Ministry of Culture (CNC). Korea, which has developed film as a benign force, has placed it under the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (KOFIC). In Japan, film is also placed under the same ministry. 'Nowadays, even in Thailand, film is seen as a form of Thai identity and a creative industry. In Nepal, in particular, film should be taken towards culture immediately,' said Rauniyar.

Director Rauniyar sees the need to make the development board independent and strong. 'The board should not control films - it should regulate them. The board should come up with a long-term plan to support filmmakers, formulate international policies, and strengthen the distribution and exhibition aspects,' Rauniyar argued. 'The board has already started training and workshops, box office activities. Now I see the need to go a little further and work like the CNC of France.''

Actress Keki Adhikari also says that the board is still unable to take independent decisions on many issues because it is tied to the Ministry of Communications. Therefore, Keki says that this government should pay attention to the Film Act by making this sector independent. 'Art is an independent subject in itself. It is a means of rebellion, a place of expression. Therefore, film should be independent. Therefore, if it could be made independent, it could have worked for the benefit of filmmakers. We would not have had to wait long,' she said.

Director Rauniyar adds, 'Countries that make strong films consider film as important as culture, education, identity, economy and diplomacy. That is why they exhibit films as a strong force in the global market, promote them by linking them with national identity and tourism. Now Nepal should not see films as a subject to be controlled, but as an area to be produced.'' Director Naveen Subba says that the concept of censorship is still intact when films are viewed as a medium. Along with the removal of the board from the Ministry of Communications and making it autonomous, the issue of party division of the board is also being discussed among filmmakers. Filmmakers are demanding that instead of appointing a party worker as the chairman of the board, an expert and a scholar who understands films should be appointed as the chairman.

3. End of the Censor Board, Grading System

Nepali filmmakers have long been demanding the abolition of the Censor Board. Since curbing creativity kills the essence of creativity, the demand for the abolition of the Censor Board has been rising for a long time. As Keki said, filmmakers consider films as a medium of expression. They argue that using scissors on that expression is not a democratic practice. On top of that, the film industry also seems to be plagued by censorship due to the cumbersome process that filmmakers have to endure to get it passed by the censors. Deepak Rauniyar's film 'Rajaganj' also endured a long censoring hassle before its release. Not only Rauniyar, there are many examples of most filmmakers in the film industry facing a lot of hassle from the censors.

Not long ago, the Censor Board itself was also dragged into controversy. The 'Film Censorship Procedures, 2082', which came into effect from last Poush 2, mentioned the need to censor films to be screened at the festival, and filmmakers objected to the new procedure. A group of festival organizers approached the concerned body with their objections. Clause 7 of the procedure stated that 'except in cases where the committee has delegated the authority to screen films, only films that have passed the committee's examination will be screened at the festival.'

As filmmakers participating in the festival questioned this point of the new procedure, they raised their voices saying that the cuts to the creation were actually a violation of the freedom of expression of filmmakers. Even then, the active group that had suggested the bill started amending the procedure. After that, the board implemented the new procedure ‘Film Censorship and Classification Procedure 2082’. The new procedure covers everything from self-censorship to classification (grading). However, the same old destiny of restricting all points is clear.

For example, the Censor Board has been giving four types of certificates to filmmakers based on different themes. The Censor Board has been distributing this type of certificate to filmmakers after watching the film. For example, Universal (U) for all age groups, Adult (A) for those above 16 years of age, and Parental Guidance (PG) certificate for films that can be watched with a parent or guardian for those below 16 years of age. To get a certificate, filmmakers had to make mandatory edits on the subject directed by the Censor Board. However, now an amended procedure has been introduced with a provision to classify films other than certain subjects. However, even then, filmmakers are not satisfied. Since the act itself has made provisions to edit films, amending the bill has become the main issue for filmmakers.

Instead of censoring films, only classification should be done.

Director Rajan Kathet demands that the next government change the way filmmakers are being trapped in the name of censorship. He believes that instead of censoring films, they should only be classified. However, the current new procedure has paved the way for classification, but before that, only by looking at whether there are certain subjects in the film or not. 'The Censor Board is under the Ministry of Communications. The state has symbolically created a censor to control films. Now, we need to make grading arrangements according to international practice,' said director Kathet, 'Here, books can be printed, songs can be sung and put on YouTube. A limited audience watches films in the hall. But the number of viewers watching on YouTube is not limited. But they are free to put their creations on YouTube. We filmmakers do not have that freedom. Our films always have to be censored before being shown.'
Rajan sees the need for film experts even in the place where 'grading' is done. 'It had to be freed from the hands of employees, the Censor Board. That is why our film experts had to be placed above the employees. I think the current government can do this work if it wants,' he said, 'It is sad to see an employee taking a decision on the fate of a film. Now, film experts have to be sent to the place where grading is done on a rotation basis.' - Rajan Kathet, director