An interesting scene was witnessed in the tripartite meeting held at the Legislative Management Committee between the committee, the government, and stakeholders on the bill to amend and unify film-related laws.

Director Manoj Pandit, looking at Communications Minister Jagdish Kharel, said - We consider films to be cultural products. Therefore, keep the film under the Ministry of Culture, not Communications. At first glance, this scene, which looked like a lawyer in a 'courtroom drama' giving his final statement while looking at the Chief Justice, was no less than a film. After listening to Pandit, Minister Kharel, who was listening to the stakeholders seriously, took a stand that since technology is involved in the film, it should be kept under Communications. There have been discussions not only in the meeting between the

committee, the government and the stakeholders, but also in the previous two meetings, about which ministry to keep the film under. Taraman Swar had raised this issue in the theoretical discussion between the government and the MP. 'Another issue that needs to be raised theoretically is - which ministry should this film sector be kept under? Looking at the practice of the world, it seems that it is sometimes kept under the Ministry of Communications and sometimes under the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. The debate in our country is that it should be kept under the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. We should be clear about this,' Swar had said.

In that discussion too, Kharel had said that film should be included within the Ministry of Communications. Some MPs including Shri Krishna Prasad Adhikari also touched on this issue at that time. After the tripartite meeting, the committee seems ready for a clause-by-clause discussion. The 96-point suggestions submitted by 11 film-related organizations to the committee and the Ministry of Communications also explain film from a cultural perspective.

After all, among the important issues of the bill, why are filmmakers keeping the issue of the ministry at the center of the debate? Why do filmmakers want to keep film under the Ministry of Culture. And, why is the Minister of Communications taking a stand that it should be kept under the Ministry of Communications? Does the issue of which ministry this sector falls under make any sense in the development of the film sector? Why do filmmakers want to uproot films that are kept under the Ministry of Communication and merge them with culture? 

‍To change the government's approach to the film sector, they have been demanding that films be taken towards culture, says director Pandit. 'How should the state view films?' The approach needs to change. Film is a cultural product. I am going to fight a long battle to ensure that it should be under the Ministry of Culture,' said Pandit. 'Media is a weapon of power. But culture belongs to the people.'

In particular, in the film sector itself, there is now a debate about which ministry is closer to this sector. Pandit seems confident that the suggestions given on the bill will develop films as cultural products.  Manoj says that if films are taken to the Ministry of Culture, the Minister of Culture should be the one who understands films.  'Such a minister will see films as creation rather than as an administrative sector that needs intervention. Film is now seen as a part of journalism. Film does not provide news or information like journalism, says Pandit, "It is a medium for giving experience. That is why it is a cultural product. Until now, the media has been looking at film as a broadcast." Director Naveen Subba, who has been questioning the

Film is now seen as a part of journalism. Film does not provide news and information like journalism does - Manoj Pandit, director bill, says that since film is a medium of expression, it should be treated like other music and literature. "There are all kinds of mediums of expression in Nepal, such as literature, music and painting. All of them are part of culture. However, our understanding is still that film is communication. Film is not communication, it is expression," said Subba. "After all, a film remains as a cultural heritage after it is made. A film called Aama, Maitighar, Sindoor is a cultural heritage. It will remain like a temple until later. That is why film should go into culture."

Director Subba says that while enjoying the status quo, he has become accustomed to viewing films under the ministry that has already been placed under it. He does not explain film as technology. The reason is that film is not a technology, it is an expression that is said to be using it. Subba adds, ‘Like AI comes. Yes, AI is a technology. But, film will express itself using that AI. It is not about creating technology for this, it is just about using it.’

Naveen says that the state is trying to censor films as a medium. That is why the censor board is now using scissors on films. It is not just the censor board that is censoring films at various stages, but this mentality and practice has been taking place. Subba argues that films should be moved to this ministry as there is no censorship of other forms of culture. ‘Just as there is no censorship of songs. There is no censorship of literature. That is why films should be taken to culture.’

Director Subba believes that even looking at the world’s practice, those who have placed films in the cultural sphere are ahead of others in the development of the film sector. For example, let’s look at Korea, which has now developed music and films as benign forces. Korea has placed films under the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Japan has also placed films under this ministry. There is no censorship of films in America either. In most European countries, films are also seen as culture. Nor as information.

However, in India, a neighboring country that has been colonized by Britain, film has also been placed under the Ministry of Communications. Compared to other countries, what is the situation of British and Indian films in terms of film production, its influence, and its hold on the world market? That is why Subba argues that the ministry under which the film is placed has a special meaning in its development. ‘Wherever film has been placed under culture, excellent films have been made.’ Subba says, ‘When film was used as a medium during World War II, the practice of placing film under this is found in Britain,’ says Subba, ‘But film is not a medium, it touches many things, such as industry, tourism, and trade.’ However, its main focus is expression.’

Director Dipendra Gauchan, who has reached the legislative committee as a stakeholder, believes that no matter which ministry the film is placed under, the Film Development Board should be made autonomous for its development. Gauchan feels that as long as the Film Development Board is autonomous, it does not matter which ministry it is placed under to develop the film sector. ‘No matter which ministry the development board is in, the development board should be able to work autonomously.’ If the board was independent to work for the development of the film sector, no matter which ministry it was placed in, the film would have developed,' said Gauchan, 'The main thing is that the board should do the work that is needed to develop the film sector. If that happens, it does not matter where it is placed.'

Filmmaker Shanta says that instead of limiting the debate on Nepali films to communication and culture, we should move towards other delicate issues of film. She believes that no matter which ministry the film is placed under, most of the problems will be solved if the board is made autonomous. 'First, the board should have been autonomous. No matter which ministry it is placed under, the government should have protected the filmmakers and supported them in film production. The board should have played a role in that,' says Shanta, 'There should have been an environment where the board could work independently.'