Love, hate or fixation? Why India can't get enough of Pakistan. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Hasty generalization

Drawing broad conclusions about a large group based on limited or anecdotal evidence.

Examples include: - "We reel with glee when we beat them at cricket, erupt in outrage when they out-throw us in a javelin contest..." - "Audiences shout and cheer with full fervour when they watch them, and tolerate no word of criticism (however mild)..." - "Loving these films has become the new Aadhaar card. If you don't love them, your nationality, your Hindu-ness and your patriotism are all suspect. It is as simple as that." These statements treat a very diverse Indian public as a single, uniform entity and present extreme reactions as if they are universal norms, without data or nuance.

3 suggestions

Qualify broad claims with scope and uncertainty, e.g., change "We reel with glee" to "Many fans seem to take great pleasure" or "A vocal section of viewers often reacts with glee".

Replace absolute statements like "tolerate no word of criticism" with more measured phrasing such as "often react strongly to criticism" or "some fans have attacked even mild criticism" and, where possible, cite specific examples.

Modify "Loving these films has become the new Aadhaar card" to something like "For some commentators and online voices, enthusiasm for these films is treated almost like an identity test" and clarify that this is not universally true.

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex social or cultural phenomenon to a simple, one-dimensional explanation.

Key passages: - "Loving these films has become the new Aadhaar card. If you don't love them, your nationality, your Hindu-ness and your patriotism are all suspect. It is as simple as that." - "To me, it seems that the lovers of this sort of cinema seem to have a deeply complex, highly toxic love-hate situationship with our neighbouring country. It seems like their most secret fantasy is to cosplay as a Pakistani warlord. Or just be a Pakistani warlord." These lines compress a wide range of audience motivations (entertainment, aesthetics, habit, marketing influence, etc.) into a single, psychologically loaded explanation and present social dynamics as binary loyalty tests.

3 suggestions

Acknowledge complexity: e.g., "For some viewers, enthusiasm for these films appears tied to ideas of nationalism and identity, though others may simply enjoy them as entertainment."

Reframe the "secret fantasy" claim as a hypothesis or metaphor, not a factual psychological diagnosis: e.g., "At times, the fascination with characters like Rehman Dakait almost suggests a fantasy of cosplaying as a Pakistani warlord, at least in the cinematic imagination."

Add recognition of other possible explanations (marketing, star power, genre popularity) to avoid implying a single cause for all audience behavior.

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged language or imagery to persuade rather than relying on balanced reasoning or evidence.

Emotionally loaded phrases include: - "more hyper-masculine, more aggressively patriotic, and more firmly rooted in dusty slums and pinds full of butcher shops and strutting roosters and kohl-eyed spies who themselves strut like roosters." - "Loving these films has become the new Aadhaar card." - "We need to arrive... at a place where we do not have to rave, rant and exist in a state of mild arousal about Pakistan at all times." These choices are vivid and rhetorical, but they also push readers toward a particular emotional reaction (disgust, ridicule, moral superiority) rather than inviting them to weigh evidence.

3 suggestions

Retain vividness but reduce derision: describe settings and character types factually (e.g., "many recent films emphasize gritty border-town settings and stylized depictions of spies and gangsters") without animalistic or mocking imagery like "strutting roosters".

Clarify metaphors like "new Aadhaar card" as rhetorical devices: e.g., "It can sometimes feel as if..." rather than stating them as literal social facts.

Replace "state of mild arousal about Pakistan at all times" with a less provocative but clear phrase such as "constant, heightened emotional fixation on Pakistan".

Biased language

Using loaded, mocking, or value-laden terms that implicitly judge a group or position.

Notable examples: - "our more desperate news channels now invite Pakistani experts for panel 'discussions'." - "deeply complex, highly toxic love-hate situationship" - "their most secret fantasy is to cosplay as a Pakistani warlord. Or just be a Pakistani warlord." - "rave, rant and exist in a state of mild arousal about Pakistan at all times." These phrases frame certain media outlets and audiences as desperate, toxic, or sexually fixated, which undermines neutrality and paints them in a uniformly negative light.

3 suggestions

Replace judgmental adjectives with descriptive ones: e.g., change "more desperate news channels" to "some news channels seeking higher ratings".

Avoid pathologizing terms like "highly toxic" when describing large groups; instead, specify behaviors: "This pattern of constant outrage and celebration can create an unhealthy fixation."

Rephrase the "secret fantasy" and "mild arousal" lines as clearly metaphorical and less accusatory, or attribute them explicitly to the author's subjective impression: "At times, it almost feels as if..."

Straw man argument

Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opposing view to make it easier to attack.

The article implies that: - "Loving these films has become the new Aadhaar card. If you don't love them, your nationality, your Hindu-ness and your patriotism are all suspect." - "Audiences... tolerate no word of criticism (however mild)..." This constructs an extreme version of the pro-film or hyper-nationalist position—where any criticism is completely forbidden and love of these films is a universal loyalty test—without acknowledging more moderate or varied views among audiences and commentators.

3 suggestions

Explicitly acknowledge that reactions vary: e.g., "While some online voices equate criticism of these films with a lack of patriotism, many viewers and critics engage with them more nuancedly."

Cite specific examples (e.g., particular controversies or social media backlashes) instead of implying that all audiences behave this way.

Reframe the claim as a concern about a trend rather than a universal rule: "There is a worrying tendency in some circles to treat enthusiasm for such films as a test of patriotism."

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting only one side of an issue or caricaturing the other side without fair representation.

The piece strongly criticizes Indian hyper-nationalist/pop-culture attitudes but does not: - Present any direct quotes or arguments from people who enjoy these films for reasons other than nationalism. - Include perspectives from filmmakers, critics, or viewers who might defend the films or the cross-border fascination as cultural exchange. - Explore possible positive aspects of Pakistani representation in Indian media beyond fashion and aesthetics. As a result, the "other side" (fans, media, filmmakers) appears only as a target of critique, not as a complex set of viewpoints.

3 suggestions

Include at least one paragraph summarizing how supporters of these films or media practices justify them (e.g., as patriotic storytelling, catharsis, or commercial necessity), ideally with references or quotes.

Acknowledge that some viewers may separate their enjoyment of films from real-world politics and do not see them as loyalty tests.

Note any counterexamples where Indian media has portrayed Pakistan or Indo-Pak relations in a nuanced or conciliatory way, to avoid implying that all content is of one type.

Cherry-picking / Omission of key information

Selecting only examples that support the argument while ignoring relevant counterexamples or broader context.

The article lists several films and cultural products (Gadar, Uri, Gadar 2, Dhurandhar, etc.) and focuses on hyper-masculine, warlike, or obsessive elements, but does not mention: - Films or shows that depict Indo-Pak relations more sympathetically or complexly. - Indian public or media responses that are more measured or indifferent. - Any data on viewership patterns, box office trends, or survey results about attitudes toward Pakistan. This selective use of examples strengthens the thesis but may not reflect the full spectrum of cultural production and public sentiment.

3 suggestions

Add examples of films or media that present more nuanced or peace-oriented narratives, and explain how they fit (or fail to fit) the claimed pattern.

Mention any available data (polls, studies, box office comparisons) that either support or complicate the claim of a national "fixation".

Clarify that the listed films and trends are illustrative, not exhaustive, and acknowledge that they may not represent all of Indian cinema or public opinion.

Confirmation bias / Narrative fallacy

Interpreting evidence in a way that fits a pre-existing story, and constructing a coherent narrative from selective facts.

The article weaves together films, ads, sports reactions, fashion trends, and home décor names into a single story of a "toxic love-hate situationship" and "full-on-stalking" of Pakistan. Each example is interpreted as evidence of obsession, without considering alternative explanations (global fashion trends, pan-Islamic or West Asian aesthetics, marketing strategies, etc.). This creates a compelling narrative but may overstate coherence and causality.

3 suggestions

Explicitly acknowledge that some of these trends (e.g., fashion, décor) may have multiple influences and are not solely about Pakistan.

Use more cautious language when connecting disparate phenomena: e.g., "Taken together, these trends can be read as a kind of fixation—but they might also reflect broader regional and global influences."

Invite alternative interpretations rather than presenting the "toxic love-hate" narrative as the only plausible reading.

False dilemma

Presenting only two opposing options when more possibilities exist.

The article frames attitudes toward Pakistan largely in terms of love vs. hate vs. indifference, and suggests that "The opposite of love is indifference. That's the goal. That's what represents true healing." This implies that mature or "healed" national sentiment must be indifference, overlooking possibilities like critical engagement, respectful interest, or principled concern without obsession.

3 suggestions

Acknowledge a spectrum of possible attitudes: e.g., "Perhaps a healthier goal is to move from obsession—whether loving or hateful—toward a calmer, more proportionate engagement that neither demonizes nor romanticizes Pakistan."

Clarify that indifference is one proposed ideal, not the only marker of maturity.

Recognize that some level of interest or concern between neighboring countries is normal and not inherently pathological.