Veteran actor Paresh Rawal has pulled back the curtain on one of India’s most prestigious film honours, calling the National Film Awards a “game” in which lobbying and backstage manoeuvring often prevail over artistic merit. In a candid interview with the news platform The Lallantop, Rawal recounted how he was initially told he would receive the Best Actor award for his performance in two early-1990s films — only to ultimately lose out after others “lobbied aggressively”.
The disclosure carries weight given Rawal’s decades-long presence in the industry and his status as a former parliamentarian. He said that while he respects the National Awards, he cannot ignore what he calls the “technicalities” and “mess” behind the scenes. He remarked, “Sometimes a film isn’t even submitted properly. That is part of the game. Lobbying happens. Aggressive lobbying.” He added pointedly, “If lobbying happens at the Oscars, then why not here?”
Read more: John Cena Thanks Shah Rukh Khan For Calling Him ‘Rock Star’: ‘Won’t Forget Your Kindness’
Paresh Rawal Shares His Experience
Rawal’s most specific anecdote centres on his roles in the 1993 films Sir and Sardar. While filming in Mauritius at the time, he reportedly received calls from industry insiders informing him that he would be awarded for both films. However, when the awards were announced, he received recognition only for Sir, while the Best Actor accolade for Sardar went to Malayalam star Mammootty. Rawal says he was told that the difference boiled down to lobbying: “You didn’t lobby; we did — aggressive lobby… and Mammootty got it.”
For Rawal, this wasn’t a frustrating anecdote—it became a statement on industry mechanics. He admitted that his view of awards changed: while earlier he might have valued them, now his benchmark for true recognition is far simpler. “When my director says ‘Cut’, when my writer says they’re happy with my work — that is my award,” he said.
The National Awards are central to India’s film culture—they represent national recognition of cinema across languages and regions. Rawal’s revelation threatens to reframe their image. By suggesting that rewards are contingent not only on performance but on persuasive outreach, he questions whether artistic excellence is always the decisive factor.
His remarks also echo concerns frequently raised in other domains: films not submitted in time, jury operating procedures lacking transparency, and the weight of industry or political ties influencing outcomes. Rawal’s framing of the awards as a “game” underscores his belief that structural advantage often trumps talent.
It is worth noting that Rawal has consistently expressed respect for the institution—even while criticising its process. He said he considers two awards particularly meaningful: the Dinanath Mangeshkar Award and the P.L. Deshpande Award—both free from the spectacle of national-level state honours. His shift from trophy-chasing to craft-focused signals a broader philosophy: “Even if I get the award, I accept it. But I won’t step out of the house for every award.”
Rawal’s critique arrives at a moment of heightened scrutiny for award shows, both in India and abroad. Globally, conversations about the Academy Awards’ lobbying, campaigning and voting practices have grown louder. By drawing a parallel to the Oscars, Rawal underscores that these dynamics are not unique to India—they reflect wider industry realities.
Within Hindi cinema, where awards increasingly intersect with brand value and visibility, Rawal’s comments may renew audience scepticism. For actors and filmmakers, recognition remains important—but if the pathway to it feels entangled in influence and back-channel deals, legitimacy suffers.
While Rawal didn’t name specific individuals beyond the Mammootty reference, the industry response has already begun. Some applaud his candidness, describing it as a rare moment of transparency from a senior-nation actor. Others argue that the anecdote remains personal and that many awards have honoured deserving films and talent.
On social media, the reaction splits between “Finally someone said it” and “It’s a bitter man talking”. Reddit threads, forum comments and discussions echo this divide—some viewers highlight Rawal’s point about submission lapses; others caution against seeing lobbying everywhere.
Rawal underscored one more important point: for him, the reward lies not in the trophy but in the applause of peers. He cited a midnight phone call from fellow actor-legend Naseeruddin Shah, who told him “what a performance” after watching Mumbai Meri Jaan, as the truest form of recognition.
Whether his comments prompt reforms—such as clearer submission norms or more transparent jury protocols—remains uncertain. But by speaking out, Rawal has forced a conversation about how awards are awarded.
In the end, Rawal’s message is both blunt and sobering: even the most prestigious accolades cannot escape the sway of politics and influence. And for an actor whose craft spans comedy, drama and public life, the real measure of success may not be the statue, but the work itself.