In January 2009, Amitabh Bachchan, the lion of Indian cinema, reacted on his blog to the increasing success of the film Slumdog millionaire with a caution. tapping into an anxiety about how India is represented abroad, he asserted: “if SM [Slumdog millionaire] projects India as third World dirty underbelly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky under belly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations.” Bachchan intensified a furious controversy both inside India and abroad over whether the film was a form of “poverty porn,” whether it was Indian or not and whether its representations showed real problems in India or a stereotype of poverty served up for foreign audiences.

Slumdog millionaire is, perhaps, an ill fit for Fredric Jameson's argument in “third World Literature in the era of Multinational Capitalism” (Social Text 15 (1986)), that third World texts operate as national allegories. Based on an Indian novel (Q & A by Vikas Swarup), adapted by a British screenwriter (Simon Beaufoy) and British director (Danny Boyle), co-directed by an Indian (Loveleen Tandan), financed from Europe, set in India and starring Indians — the film has origins complex enough for many Indians to claim it as desi while others disavow it as foreign.