Imagine dedicating your life to your craft, mastering it over decades, and then feeling subtly sidelined. That's the sentiment veteran actor Anupam Kher is expressing, and it's sparking a real debate about merit, media influence, and who gets a seat at the table in Bollywood. With over 500 films under his belt, Kher, known for his outspoken nature, recently shared his candid thoughts on the exclusive 'roundtable interviews' that often spotlight prominent actors at the end of each year. But here's the rub: despite his extensive experience and undeniable talent, Kher reveals he's never been invited to participate.
During an interview on 'Unfiltered with Samdish,' Kher reflected on his illustrious career and openly addressed the question of whether he feels undervalued within the industry. He believes it boils down to whose validation you're seeking. As Kher puts it, "It depends on the kind of people who decide if I am good enough." He suggests that a certain group wields influence, determining who rises to prominence and who remains in the shadows. "There is a section of people who try to decide who they want to make into a big name and who they don’t. That always happens, and it is because of the mediocrity of people." In essence, Kher implies that some decision-makers might favor promoting less accomplished individuals, potentially hindering the recognition of true talent.
And this is the part most people miss... It's not just about personal ego; it's about the potential impact on the industry itself. Kher elaborated, claiming that a select circle within the industry and media actively attempts to steer an actor's career trajectory. He pointed to his own experience as an example, stating, "There is a section of people in the media who decide things like, ‘We don’t want to invite Anupam Kher to an actor’s roundtable’."
Then comes the bold statement that's sure to ignite conversation: "They have never called me, and acting-wise, main inn sabka baap hoon (I am a much better actor than these people). I run an actual acting school." This isn't just boasting; it's a direct challenge to the perceived gatekeepers of Bollywood, a declaration of his superior skill and expertise. To further emphasize his point, Kher revealed that he even contacted a senior editor to question why they seem so enthusiastic about interviewing "mediocre actors." But here's where it gets controversial... Is Kher's assessment accurate, or is it simply a case of sour grapes? This raises a fundamental question: who decides what constitutes 'mediocre' acting, and what criteria are used?
Kher acknowledges that it bothers him to know that some individuals may not wish to see him succeed. However, he emphasizes that he's learned to accept this reality and find strength in self-reliance. He shared that true confidence stems from detaching oneself from the need for universal approval. "Everyone wants to be liked, and I still feel that way. But the day you understand that you don’t need to be liked by everyone is the day you become the king." He even wrote a play about his own failures, showcasing it to the world, a testament to his resilience and self-acceptance. "At that point, you stop caring about what people think," he concluded. This begs the question: Is universal approval overrated? Does focusing on external validation ultimately hinder artistic growth and self-discovery? Perhaps Kher's journey offers a valuable lesson for anyone striving for success in any field.
So, what do you think? Is Anupam Kher justified in his frustration? Is there a hidden agenda influencing who gets recognized in Bollywood, or is it simply a matter of different tastes and preferences? And more importantly, does the media have a responsibility to promote diverse talent, or should they focus solely on what they believe will generate the most viewership? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
