The song from the film Bootpolish (1954), “Nanhe munne bachche teri mutthi mein kya hai…  Mutthi mein hai takdeer hamaari… Humne kismat ko bas mein kiya hai” echoes a classic Nehruvian vision: the potential of children in a newly independent India lies in their clenched fist and they will make their own destiny. The allegory of this vision is sealed in the final scene where Bola and Belu (the child protagonists) of the film are seen wearing school uniforms, holding hands and walking towards the arched entrance to their school, called Nav Bharat School (New India School). 

Their joyful singing and shouts of ‘Mahatma Gandhi ki Jai! Nehruji ki Jai! Aaj se Hindustan azad hai!' ('Hail Mahatma Gandhi! Hail Nehru! India is free from today) to no one in particular, were marker of the moral and didactic nature of such films. In the national circuit, such films took a more instructional tone given their emphasis on schooling the nation that was at its infancy stage. The ‘social realist’ films in the early 1950s and even in the later years had children as the flag bearers of the Nehruvian state and even established archetypal visions of childhood that have dominated Hindi cinema over decades. 

Gandhi (not unlike traditional Indian parents of that era), saw cinema as a threat to children. Gandhi even called it a ‘sinful technology’ and equated it with evils like gambling, sutta, horse racing, etc. But Nehru’s vision was clearly different. At the time when India was trying to find its feet as a newly independent nation, his vision for children was far ahead of its time. He believed in cultivating young minds to be curious, critical, and compassionate and his role around the children's film movement is critical to remember. 

Nehru envisioned a dedicated cinema for children, leading to the establishment of the Children’s Film Society, India (CFSI) on May 11, 1955. Through this state-funded body, Nehru showcased his affection and commitment to India’s youth. He was seen organising breakfast with kids and premiering their films in the Rajya Sabha and even taking them to Russia for cultural shows. CFSI immediately after being formed caught attention with its production Jaldeep (1956), that went on to win the Best Children’s Film prize at the 1957 Venice International Film Festival. Since then, CFSI continuously produced, exhibited, and distributed content for children—from feature films, shorts, and animations to television episodes and documentaries, with over 250 films across ten languages. 

CFSI has had some of the most important filmmakers of Indian cinema—Amol Gupte, Shyam Benegal, Mrinal Sen, Sai Paranjpe, Santosh Sivan, Ram Mohan, Rituparno Ghosh, Tapan Sinha, Nandita Das, MS Sathyu, and Pankaj Advani, to name a few. CFSI also made mandates to involve diverse range of experts to understand the complexities and needs of children and childhood—be it educationists, psychologists, and film practitioners. This initiative through the medium of films was an active investment on the part of the state in the formation/creation of new notions of childhood in newly independent India. Moreover, CFSI played a foundational role in focusing on cinema for children and about them — an area that has become increasingly significant in the 21st century. 

Yet, how many of us today are aware of CFSI’s role in Indian culture? Its place in our cultural imagination seems to have shrunk as decisively as Nehru’s contribution to the cause. There is a political aspect to this forgetting. The Nehruvian dream has been taken over by a neoliberal culture where small-budget enterprises are losing out to commercially viable enterprises. 

Although some films like Charandas Chor (1975) Chor Chor Chhup Chhup Ja (B.V. Karanth 1975), Jadoo Ka Shankh (1974), and Sikandar (Sai Paranjpye 1976) briefly revitalized the children film movement, they could not sustain the enthusiasm for long. The seventies though promised to be a good one for the children’s film movement compared to others, it eventually faded. As veteran filmmakers moved on to broader pursuits, no young directors stepped in to fill the void. Despite the good reception of these films by both child and adult audiences, the lack of a viable marketing circuit and its large dependence on steady government support are some of the fundamental reasons why this cinematic enterprise couldn’t thrive at its full potential. The failure of Kitab (1977) at the box office was perhaps the final nail in the coffin of an already failing children’s film movement—financial support for children’s films reduced considerably later.

This failure of CFSI in relation to the popular industry was also related to the fact that these films lacked alternative spaces apart from mainstream theatres. The lack of initiative on the part of school authorities to give space to films in pedagogical practice was also negligible hampering the overall distribution. The absence of low-rent theaters in cities and towns added to the problem of arranging regular theatrical releases of children’s films. I remember going to the CFSI office in Mumbai back in 2016, with its dusty shelves and dilapidated chairs—the place echoed with memories of forgotten dreams and the once-vibrant legacy of children’s cinema in India that a state envisioned. Despite many efforts, these problems related to distribution are one of the many reasons why children’s films by CFSI did not find theatrical releases at all, barring a few exceptions. Gattu (2011) was one of the first CFSI films to receive a theatrical release in multiplexes, almost fifty years later. 

Since January 2023, CFSI has been officially dissolved as a separate entity and has been merged with the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC), along with Films Division, the Directorate of Film Festivals, and the National Film Archive of India. This merger that is intended to unify Indian cinema’s diverse genres, raises its own broader concerns about the role of the state and access to archival history. Filmmakers across the industry time and again have expressed disappointment over the lack of consultation by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) with the larger film fraternity when this amalgamation was proposed. A merger of this kind requires a transparent process and an open dialogue across the spectrum—film historians, educators, practitioners, and cinephiles. This needs a vibrant democratic culture where interdisciplinary conversations can enrich the film fraternity.

Regardless of these conflicts, one should remember that the archives of CFSI are a significant public resource that holds the stories and ideals of past generations of filmmakers as well as child artists.  Apart from issues of transparency and production, there is also a need to bring back children-centric films into popular culture, in a more serious manner, while some efforts are noteworthy that have revived child-centric films in a more nuanced manner— Marathi films Killa (2015) and Fandry (2013), and Tamil film Kakkai Muttai (2014) are few great examples in the contemporary context. 

This is one way to retain Nehru’s original vision of engaging the nation’s youngest population into the idea of India. 

(Sonia Ghalian is a film scholar who focuses on children’s cinema. She teaches as visiting faculty at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, and as an Adjunct faculty at Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Dubai)