Attempted AIBE.
Saw the question paper.
Wondered how 50%+ janta fails this.
Saw the janta.
Got my answer.
Like case law waale questions mey cheat karo, I can understand, but don't be asking me answers to 'which section of the bns covers witness protection'.
Since an Indian Passport isn’t proof of citizenship, can I hold an Indian and Swiss passport simultaneously? Can I hold a Swiss Passport (which would make me a Swiss citizen) without surrendering my Indian passport? Make it make sense????
@MEAIndia
That is the fraud.
American power on screen is “craft.”
British power on screen is “heritage.”
Indian power on screen is suddenly evidence of political conditioning.
Same cinema. Same nationalism. Different skin colour.
The Economist has a wonderfully colonial rulebook for cinema. When America straps a camera to Pentagon hardware and sells state power with a soundtrack, it is “spectacle.” When a film is made with CIA-adjacent mythology around national revenge, it is “serious storytelling.” But when India puts its own enemies and terrorist attack scars on screen, suddenly the magazine reaches for the psychiatrist’s couch.
That is the real joke here. Fighter jets, spies, commandos and national vengeance are perfectly acceptable as long as the flag fluttering in the background is American or British. Then it is culture. It is craft. It is cinema doing what cinema does. The Economist has invented a very elegant little rule for cinema: Top Gun: Maverick can fly on Pentagon muscle, RAMBO & Zero Dark Thirty can ride CIA mythology, James Bond can sell six decades of British spy glamour, Dunkirk can turn wartime memory into national legend, and all of that is called storytelling. But the moment India puts terror, retaliation and national memory on screen with Dhurandhar, the magazine starts diagnosing the audience instead of reviewing the film.
What @TheEconomist cannot digest is not one film. It is the fact that Indians are no longer outsourcing their memory to London’s approval. A country that has lived through decades of Pakistan-sponsored terror is apparently expected to process all that pain in whispers, with tasteful disclaimers, and preferably under the supervision of foreign editors who still think they are qualified to explain India to Indians.
And that is why the review reeks. Not of sophistication, but of the old imperial tic: Western nationalism on screen is a nation telling its story; Indian nationalism on screen is a pathology requiring diagnosis. The costume has changed. The sneer has not.
The funniest part is that The Economist probably thinks this is fearless criticism. It is not. It is just another imported lecture from people who never mind propaganda when it wears aviators, a tuxedo, or a CIA badge, but develop exquisite moral sensitivity the moment India stops being apologetic on its own screen.
Just FYI: Decades of Pakistan-sponsored terror are apparently meant to be processed quietly, apologetically, and preferably without ever producing a mass-market cultural response. That is the old script. India is no longer following it.
Bill Maher on the Islamic slaughter of Christians in Nigeria: "They are literally trying to wipe out the christian population of an entire country. Where are the kids protesting this? They don't care because the Jews aren't involved"