Lagan - Once Upon a Time in India was released in 2001 directed by Ashutosh Gowariker and has prominent film stars like Amir Khan and Gracy Singh. This film not only presents various postcolonial discourses, but also sheds light on cultural discourse, religious symbolism, nationalism and imagined communities, as well as the politics of the subaltern. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To begin with the cultural aspect of the film, Ashish Nanday, a cultural theorist, once said, “Cricket is an Indian game accidentally discovered by the English” ”. In his book The Tao of Cricket, he identifies three obsessions of contemporary India: cricket, politics and Bombay cinema. This film combines all these elements within the historical Indian cinematic model of long hours, almost four hours, which metaphorically presents the struggle for independence and the ongoing struggle to recover what was lost during the period of colonization. This makes this film a text for the study of postcolonial and cultural discourses where the idea of ​​cultural hegemony comes into play and how the colony enacts the colonizer's way in others to defeat him. Cricket is one such example where the game created by the colonizer is used by the colonized in the film to achieve victory against the colonizer. This concept is also given by Homi K Bhabha who talks about ambivalence and mimicry between colonizer and colonized. According to him, this does not always weaken the colonial subject, but rather it is "two powers". In this case cricket is also considered a symbol of nationalism and to be more precise it is seen more as a nationalist symbol than a colonial one. Another feature of this film would be the representation of a subaltern as the protagonist, which could give a hint towards the representation of the subaltern on a larger platform, but it could also be studied as a text that reaffirms the hegemonic nationalist project in which the subordinate has no place. The portrayal of the subaltern in this film moves the story in a completely different direction. It is highly misrepresented and this once again caters to elitist nationalism and what is visible is the construction of the “other” to create a notion of nationalism. The film does not represent any direct nationalist symbols such as nationalist slogans or references to the motherland, but rather creates a psychological impact on its audience by creating a foreign other so that the audience views it as nationalist propaganda. This relationship of the white colonizer is shown as that of an exploiter while the Raja's relationship with his population is one of benevolence and it is because of such bipolarity in the characters that the audience generates a nationalistic tendency in the wake of their emotions. Although there is a scene where people blame the Raja for the increase in taxes but the tables are turned by his redemption and thus he becomes a noble man who is a victim of the situation. There are other characters who have been portrayed similarly like Lakha, who spies on the Indian team on behalf of the English due to his personal hatred for Bhuvan and also Ram Singh, an aide and translator until he is shot during the match by Russell. . The fact that the fate of the subaltern has been portrayed as the fate of the nation shows the lack of manifestation of caste, creed and gender politics. Even though the protagonist is a subaltern, the way the struggles are addressed is more that of an elitist. The struggles of the subaltern had no voice in this narrative, even if they claimed to have represented the same thing. This also applies to the.