Lagan - Once Upon a Time in India was released in 2001 directed by Ashutosh Gowariker and features prominent film stars such as Amir Khan and Gracy Singh. This film not only presents various postcolonial discourses, but it also highlights cultural discourse, religious symbolism, nationalism and imagined communities as well as the politics of the subaltern. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay To start with the cultural aspect of 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 in the historical pattern of Indian cinema of long hours, almost four hours, which metaphorically highlights the struggle for independence and the continuing struggle to reclaim what was lost during the period of colonization. This makes this film a text for studying postcolonial and cultural discourses in which the idea of ​​cultural hegemony comes into play and how the colony adopts the path of the colonizer to defeat it. Cricket is an example in which the game created by the colonizer is used by the colonized in the film in order to achieve victory against the colonizer. This concept is also given by Homi K Bhabha who speaks of ambivalence and mimicry between the colonizer and the colonized. According to him, it is not always an attitude that disempowers the colonial subject, but rather a “two-power” approach. In this case, cricket is also treated as a symbol of nationalism and, to be more precise, more of a nationalist symbol than a colonial one. Another feature of this film would be its depiction of a subaltern as protagonist, which could give an allusion to the representation of the subaltern on a larger platform, but it could also be studied as a text reaffirming the hegemonic nationalist project in in which the subordinate has no place. The portrayal of the underlings in this film takes the story in a completely different direction. It is heavily distorted, which once again satisfies elitist nationalism and what is visible is the construction of the “other” in order to create a notion of nationalism. The film does not depict any direct nationalist symbols like nationalist slogans or reference to the homeland, but rather creates a psychological impact on its audience by creating an outsider other so that the audience visualizes it as nationalist propaganda. This relationship of the white colonizer is presented as that of an exploiter while the relationship of the Raja with his population is one of benevolence and it is because of such bipolarity in the characters that the public generates a nationalist tendency in the wake of their emotions. Although there is a scene in which the people accuse the Raja of being responsible for the increase in taxes, the situation is turned upside down by his redemption and he thus becomes a noble man who was 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 British due to his personal hatred for Bhuvan and also Ram Singh, assistant and translator until that he was hit during the match by Russell. . The fact that the destiny of the subaltern has been represented as the destiny of the nation shows the lack of display of caste, creed and gender politics. Even if the protagonist is a subordinate, the way in which the struggles are carried out is rather that of a.