Just on a matter of fact the article wrongly states that the Indian middle classes have rejected this film en masse. Having just got back from India I can assure you that isn't the case. Amithab Bachhan even withdrew his negative comments about the film after popular backlash. Whether this means the author overstates the film's 'realism' or underestimates the Indian audience's capacity for enduring realism I'm not sure. In any case the whole tone of the article is patronising and silly - believe me $200,000 is not big bucks for most upper middle class Indians, of whom the winner here was and is clearly one.

Of course there are others who love the very fact of the film, despite it's flaws. We know our own community's squeamishness about facing unpleasant truths in a way no nice German journalist does. Personally I was delighted to see something other than Tourist India in a film.

Perhaps Nawathe's story inspired the author of the book "Rupees! Rupees!," on which the film is based. Nawathe doesn't know. The author, an Indian diplomat, never contacted him, nor did Danny Boyle, the director

I thought the title was "Q and A."

Is the difference the country this article originally appeared in?

I enjoyed reading about Karsh Nawathe's personal story, but the author here displays a lack of some very basic journalism skills. Bachchan's comments, for instance, were grossly distorted by the Indian media, as a full reading of his interviews will show (and it's true that he specifically addressed his comments to the film in his blog). Furthermore, to say that there are no blind beggars in Mumbai or that the police aren't corrupt (as I've seen people say elsewhere), or that police stations are never run down or in need of repairs is... plainly ridiculous. For that matter, the Mumbai that is known by that city's upper middle class and elite (such as the film industry elite) is quite different from that known by the impoverished. My friends in Mumbai (middle class and lower middle class, generally speaking), for instance, never go to the end of town that was hit by terrorists last year.

I did find Slumdog to be a bit reductionist in places, and can certainly see where Indian middle class sensibilities may have been offended. But has anyone thought about the fact that the theatres may be mostly empty not because people are offended, but because this is not the kind of film that Indian audiences tend to go see? Still, to say that India has rejected Slumdog Millionaire is preposterous! "Jai Ho!" is not a new term by any means, but when AR Rahman said it at the Golden Globes it instantly became a national slogan, asserting India's creative power and influence in the world. I was in India at the time and can tell you that the film was a source of national pride more than anything else, AND most people I know hadn't seen it, but not because they were offended. They just wanted to go see the new Aamir Khan and Shahrukh Khan movies instead. Let's also not forget that Slumdog Millionaire, while having an Indian cast and crew, is largely considered to be a foreign film in India. It is most certainly NOT a Bollywood film.

Insensitive and uninformed Americans and British folks will continue to ask ridiculous questions and make uninformed assumptions about India and Indians, but negative cultural stereotypes go both ways. What I think Slumdog has done is expand the notion of what India is - Slumdog isn't an exoticized vision of India, or at least it's trying not to be. Although it does use stereotypes, it does so no more than any other Hollywood or Bollywood film might do, and it would be a shame to ignore how it also breaks stereotypes, as well, through the young protagonist.

Why does this Der Spiegel journalist consistently refer to Mumbai as Bombay - even after noting its name has changed?

Why does this Der Spiegel journalist consistently refer to Mumbai as Bombay - even after noting its name has changed?

Actually, a lot of Bombayites do that. Bombay was always the city's name in English and Mumbai was always the name in Marathi. They simply made Mumbai the official name instead of Bombay sometime in the 90s.

Not everyone in Mumbai/Bombay/Whatevs is a Marathi-speaker, and English speakers, especially older ones, tend to use the names interchangeably.