The most important part where Bhabha is different from Said and Spivak is that he considers the colonial phenomenon as an opportunity for cultural exchange, and, unlike Spivak, subaltern can actually speak for themselves and this speech emerges as a mimicry and is hybrid.In Bhabha’s words: “Stereotyping is not only the setting up of a false image which becomes the scapegoat of discriminatory practices. It is a much more ambivalent text of projection and introjections, metaphoric and metonymic strategies, displacement, guilt, aggressivity; the masking and splitting of ‘official’ and fantastic knowledges” (Bhabha, 1986: 169). Bhabha points out that the fantasies of the colonial stereotypes often appear as horrors. The discourse of colonialism is frequently populated with ‘terrifying stereotypes of savagery, cannibalism, lust and anarchy’ (Bhabha, 1994: 72). In his essay ‘Of Mimicry and Man’, Bhabha builds on these ideas and explores how the ambivalence of colonized subject becomes a direct threat to the authorities of the colonizers through the effects of ‘mimicry’. Bhabha describes mimicry as ‘one of the most elusive and effective strategies of colonial power and knowledge’ (Bhabha, 1994).