On the 27th of February, the Minister of State for Information, Broadcasting, National History and Literary Heritage, Marriyum Aurangzeb made an unexpected announcement — a film and culture policy, unlike any other before, would come into force immediately.

After years of pleas and arguments by filmmakers, the business of film is finally being recognised as a legitimate trade by the government. The bill she described talks a good, ambitious game.

According to the minister, apart from conferring the status of an industry, the policy anticipates establishment of a massive film finance fund, building of film academies, restoration of the Directorate of Films and Publications, abolition of duty on import of film equipment, film censor fees and sales tax, inclusion of artists in the government’s health scheme and a 70 percent rebate to foreign film producers on travelling allowances and eatables.

The outgoing federal government says it is bringing in a comprehensive film policy for the country. But nobody within the film fraternity seems to have a clue what it actually is and who’s defined it. Icon tries to find out ...

The policy also stipulates that only Pakistani films will be screened on national days.

Film studios will be set up under a public-private partnership with the government providing land for the project, while 80 percent rebates would also be given on the construction of cinemas in certain areas.

Pakistani films would be exhibited in China and vice versa (the Chinese government has a rigid policy on foreign film exhibition, but the minister said that “a decision in principle to that regard has already been taken”).

Despite eardrum-shattering applause from the attendees at the convention where the minister revealed the bill’s salient features, the policy itself opens up room for skepticism and a lot of questions.

The chief of these questions is, “where is the policy document?”

The answer: nowhere.

Nadeem Mandviwalla (Mandiwalla Entertainment), Satish Anand (Eveready), Sultana Siddiqui (Hum), Jerjees Seja (ARY), Rehmat Fazli (Geo), Humayun Saeed — the movers and shakers of the industry — have no idea where, or even if, the document actually exists.

There is a reason for seeking the policy’s paper. The bill raises complicated questions which may lead to potential pitfalls and dead-ends or open channels for devious bureaucratic exploitation.

My search for official papers led me to Mobashir Hasan, the Chairman of the Central Board of Film Censors or CBFC (basically the Islamabad censor board) — who seems to be coordinating things even though film is now a provincial subject — and later a very brief telephonic conversation with the minister of state.

She tells me that the policy’s papers do indeed exist, and that they are to be presented to the cabinet at the time of my writing this feature.

Things are moving crazy fast, I am led to believe — and with due reason, I suppose. With only a few months of administrative powers left, the present government needs every ace in the hole for its next election campaign.

Answering my questions, the minister clarifies that the features she announced are all approved by the finance ministry and the prime minister.

The policy’s impact will bear fruit after 10 years,” Marriyum Aurangzeb says. “That’s what has happened in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and China; their industries have grown in the last 10 years. The same model and the same instruments are being applied on our film industry.” It should be mentioned that Saudi Arabia has no film policy and until a couple of months ago, cinemas were officially banned.

“[The policy] builds the cultural and film infrastructure [on the whole],” she tells me. “It is not for an individual, or a broadcaster, or a filmmaker, or an exhibitor. It will not benefit a particular segment of the film industry, it’s actually for the entire industry.”

The policy’s impact will bear fruit after 10 years, she says. “That’s what has happened in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and China; their industries have grown in the last 10 years. The same model and the same instruments are being applied on our film industry,” she says. It should be mentioned that Saudi Arabia has no film policy and until a couple of months ago, cinemas were officially banned.

“The incentives are financial instruments,” she continues, “like, for example, we don’t have the required filmmaking equipment in Pakistan. So, the import duty and sales tax on film equipment will be exempted.

“The incentives I’ve announced are part of the Finance Bill, which we will be announcing in May, inshallah. Whichever government comes, it will become part of the federal government policy in terms of tax,” she clarifies.

Aurangzeb also tells me that after the bill is passed, filmmakers may be able to apply for a bank loan with zero percent interest.

“There are about twelve, thirteen incentives for the industry. (The bill) is not individualistic,” she stresses again, as if aware of the questions swirling around it and the potential for its manipulation.

This is not the first time people in film business have heard proclamations of a film policy that sound too good to be true. In 2007, a three-day convention on film was held in Islamabad which brought together cinema stalwarts from across the country to formulate recommendations for the government. Those recommendations were then presented in person to the then prime minister Shaukat Aziz and many promises were made about acting on them. Soon, however, Aziz had resigned as PM and the country was plunged into political chaos. To this date, nobody knows what became of the recommendations. In contrast, this current policy seems to have been compiled with only piecemeal input from a couple of members of the film fraternity and most have admitted to Icon that they were not consulted.

“Hopeful” and “happy” are nonetheless two words one hears unanimously from the film fraternity. A smidgen of a policy is better than no policy — and the one proposed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting pledges an awful lot, without specifying the details. One of the chief specifics omitted by the ministry are the benefits and facilitations provincial governments may get.

Technically, after the 18th Amendment, each province has independent power over its culture policy. Provincial film censor boards, for example, are supposed to be independent — that is, until their decisions are overturned contrary to the law by the CBFC, the main administrative body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

Any worthwhile analysis of the bill’s actual worth depends on the official document, and not press releases or bullet point agendas.

The Policy — A Cursory Glance

Through a source, a summary of the culture and film policy’s proposal was procured by Icon. The document — which is dated a month ago and may be subject to change — spells out a list of recommendations by the I&B (Information and Broadcasting) Division, and suggests key amendments, facilitations and financial initiatives from the government. For us it is simply a means of gaining insight into a supposed legislation that no one actually understands in full.

Among the key highlights, the ministry has deviated from its initial plan to establish a National Film and Broadcasting Commission. Instead, this job will now be handled by a revamped version of the already-existing DEMP (Directorate of Electronic Media and Publications) — a division of I&B; the document refers to the new division as DEMF&P (the F would stand for Film).

An alternate proposal to this department is the formation of the “Pakistan Film Group”, a far more diverse and independent-sounding directorate inspired by China’s Shanghai Film Group. This separate entity, free from previous charters or impediments, would potentially offer better facilitation to the overall cinema industry as per my estimation. The depth of their function, of course, depends entirely on the body’s structure.

The declaration of Film and Broadcasting as an “industry” has been requested by the Ministry from State Bank of Pakistan in the document — a formality crucial for this entire exercise.

In the column of ‘Tax Exceptions’, a 70 percent tax rebate on filmmaking for foreign and national filmmakers is recommended by the I&B. Furthermore, income earned by local filmmakers will be tax-exempted for the next five years. (Modalities and percentages were still under negotiation by the FBR, as per my understanding).

I&B also advises that companies registered under the Companies Ordinance for 10 years be exempted from income tax if the films qualify for the “Culture and Heritage Score Card” of the newly formed film division of DEMF&P (more on that below); the proposed term is at least for the next five years. It is not clear what this ‘score card’ is.

I&B also suggests that import duties be waived on cinematograph and filmmaking equipment, and that sales tax on them be exempted for the next five years. A list of 23 film-specific items was provided by the Pakistan Film Exhibitor’s Association. But the document explicitly kicks out loudspeakers, amplifiers, music distribution systems, LED screens, illuminated signs and step-lights as non-essential equipment.

Interestingly, an ‘Artists’ Assistance Fund’ (AAF) is also proposed, which would expand upon the already existing Federal Government Artist Welfare Fund of Rs200 million (how and when the latter fund is used, is a matter for a separate article and a greater debate). The AAF calls for Rs735 million of seed money — a breakup of which would include Rs200 million available with the Cabinet Division, Rs35 million from I&B and an addition of Rs500 million to be injected with the approval of the prime minister.

The document says that Rs735 million is “insufficient” and “meagre” and would “cover only a limited number of deserving artists.” The “need of the hour” the paragraph states, is Rs5 billion, that “may be provided on yearly basis for a period of five years.” It is not clear what is the reasoning for such a massive amount.

The formulation of a database is suggested, which would catalogue artists in need and slash out duplications. The cost of “outsourcing” the software is listed as half-million by the Pakistan National Council of Arts (PNCA) — a body associated as an adviser of the policy. The request to fund the database was (humorously, or pathetically, depending on how you look at it), declined by the National History and Literary Heritage division (a subset division of the I&B), for lack of funds, as per the document itself.

Establishment of a ‘Film Academy’ (budgeted at Rs65 million) and a film studio is also a part of the plan. The plot, provided by the government, is housed next to the PNCA at H-9 Islamabad. Apparently Islamabad is the next hub of filmmaking in the country.

“Entrepreneurs, desirous to construct cinema houses in rural areas may be given either 80 percent rebate on the construction of cinema houses or income tax exemption for three years,” says the document. (The text actually mentions the amount as 1.80 percent, which could be a typo; 1.8 percent hardly makes any sense).

A ‘Film Finance Fund’ (FFF) is also proposed with a seed amount of Rs5 billion. As if the amount isn’t enough (and it is, if one looks at the business turnout for the entire previous year) the FFF also invites private entrepreneurs to come forward and contribute.

Eligibility criteria of film projects by the DEMF&P would have themes “reflecting national identity, culture, heritage etc., aiming towards projection of country’s real soft image.” Films like Waar, Yalghaar or Saya-e-Khudaye Zuljalal will get special love, because the FFF supports subjects of “counter-extremism and terrorism.”

THE FLAW IN THE SYSTEM

From what I’m led to believe after my own (though incomplete) conversation with Ms Aurangzeb, the policy sounds well-intentioned, but incomplete and amateur. At its present state (judging from the document at our disposal and the corroborating press releases provided by the Ministry of Information and Broadcast), there is room for both bureaucratic and corporate exploitation.

One of my biggest reservations is the fact that the policy only pertains to the federal level. If the DEMF&P doesn’t create a viable plan to support provincial cultural divisions (which from what I’ve surmised is limited to the FFF and AAF’s initiatives, and does not mention support for creating further film academies in the four states), I fear, the policy would only end up mimicking Nafdec’s story. Nafdec, or the National Film Development Corporation, if you recall was established in the 1970s and soon became a white elephant, controlling film imports, arbitrarily censoring films and running a lone cinema in Islamabad.

Interestingly, an ‘Artists’ Assistance Fund’ (AAF) is also proposed, which would expand upon the already existing Federal Government Artist Welfare Fund of Rs200 million (how and when the latter fund is used, is a matter for a separate article and a greater debate). The AAF calls for Rs735 million of seed money — a breakup of which would include Rs200 million available with the Cabinet Division, Rs35 million from I&B and an addition of Rs500 million to be injected with the approval of the prime minister.

The FFF and the AAF are dodgy concepts, unless minutely regulated, with their records made available to the public — or at least to the press (considering how tough it was to find one outdated policy document, I know that’s hopeful thinking).

Budget-wise, a push for Rs5 billion — whether approved as a one-off or yearly investment — is preposterous to imagine for the FFF and the AAF; the latter would have to do with the measly 735 million rupees, I gather. 

Approval of such an astronomical figure is highly unlikely, and even the “meagre” Rs735 million is susceptible to misuse or waste. No one I know from the industry has ever benefited from the existing Artist Welfare Fund; some claim the process is long and doesn’t bear results. A proper regulatory body — preferably one with a quick-to-act committee made up of artists and industry executives — should be high on the government’s agenda.

The FFF, in particular, evokes a number of fundamental concerns and discrepancies. It perplexingly, identifies the fund as a “commercial loan aiming to incentivise filmmaking”, with loan disbursement and the recovery administered by the designated banks on service charge basis. From what I gather, the loan is set-up by the government, facilitated by the banks, yet it doesn’t talk about a return strategy for filmmakers.

FFF may have been formulated with a simple mindset to empower the neophyte filmmaker. However, without specific clauses mentioning the need for distribution agreements or collateralisation of assets as mortgage, how could any bank finance a motion picture? Or is the government taking the risk themselves as a guarantor?

Internationally, films are insured by insurance companies in case of production hazards and their distribution is locked in by a credible domestic or foreign distributor (which only happens after the project has finalised contracts with a casts of known actors). Only then is a loan sanctioned. The utter disregard for distributors is a crucial flaw in FFF’s plan.

Then, although compartmentalised, the divisions and their structures wouldn’t work if the management is entirely run by state officials who have little to no knowledge of the film business. An active and influential core committee of experienced film people (especially those from the multiplex generation) is a required crucial addition.

From experience we know that no rule of law is entirely infallible (state and federal tax rebates, for instance, are exploited all the time by film studios worldwide). However while the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s gung-ho activity is commendable, it is questionable what a policy that has not taken stakeholders into confidence or consulted with them properly will produce. Especially when that policy is being made by a government at the fag end of its tenure.

Published in Dawn, ICON, March 11th, 2018