top of page

By:

Bhalchandra Chorghade

11 August 2025 at 1:54:18 pm

Applause for Cricket, Silence for Badminton

Mumbai: When Lakshya Sen walked off the court after the final of the All England Badminton Championships, he carried with him the disappointment of another near miss. The Indian shuttler went down in straight games to Lin Chun-Yi, who created history by becoming the first player from Chinese Taipei to lift the prestigious title. But the story of Lakshya Sen’s defeat is not merely about badminton final. It is also about the contrasting way India celebrates its sporting heroes. Had the same...

Applause for Cricket, Silence for Badminton

Mumbai: When Lakshya Sen walked off the court after the final of the All England Badminton Championships, he carried with him the disappointment of another near miss. The Indian shuttler went down in straight games to Lin Chun-Yi, who created history by becoming the first player from Chinese Taipei to lift the prestigious title. But the story of Lakshya Sen’s defeat is not merely about badminton final. It is also about the contrasting way India celebrates its sporting heroes. Had the same narrative unfolded on a cricket field, the reaction would have been dramatically different. In cricket, even defeat often becomes a story of heroism. A hard-fought loss by the Indian team can dominate television debates, fill newspaper columns and trend across social media for days. A player who narrowly misses a milestone is still hailed for his fighting spirit. The nation rallies around its cricketers not only in victory but also in defeat. The narrative quickly shifts from the result to the effort -- the resilience shown, the fight put up, the promise of future triumph. This emotional investment is one of the reasons cricket enjoys unparalleled popularity in India. It has built a culture where players become household names and their performances, good or bad, become part of the national conversation. Badminton Fights Contrast that with what happens in sports like badminton. Reaching the final of the All England Championships is a monumental achievement. The tournament is widely considered badminton’s equivalent of Wimbledon in prestige and tradition. Only the very best players manage to reach its final stages, and doing it twice speaks volumes about Lakshya Sen’s ability and consistency. Yet the reaction in India remained largely subdued. There were congratulatory posts, some headlines acknowledging the effort and brief discussions among badminton enthusiasts. But the level of national engagement never quite matched the magnitude of the achievement. In a cricketing context, reaching such a stage would have triggered days of celebration and analysis. In badminton, it often becomes just another sports update. Long Wait India’s wait for an All England champion continues. The last Indian to win the title was Pullela Gopichand in 2001. Before him, Prakash Padukone had scripted history in 1980. These victories remain among the most significant milestones in Indian badminton. And yet, unlike cricketing triumphs that are frequently revisited and celebrated, such achievements rarely stay in the mainstream sporting conversation for long. Lakshya Sen’s journey to the final should ideally have been viewed as a continuation of that legacy, a reminder that India still possesses the talent to challenge the world’s best in badminton. Instead, it risks fading quickly from public memory. Visibility Gap The difference ultimately comes down to visibility and cultural investment. Cricket in India is not merely a sport; it is an ecosystem built over decades through media attention, sponsorship, and mass emotional attachment. Individual sports, on the other hand, often rely on momentary bursts of recognition, usually during Olympic years or when a medal is won. But consistent performers like Lakshya Sen rarely receive the sustained spotlight that their achievements deserve. This disparity can also influence the next generation. Young athletes are naturally drawn to sports where success brings recognition, financial stability and national fame. When one sport monopolises the spotlight, others struggle to build similar appeal. Beyond Result Lakshya Sen may have finished runner-up again, but his performance at the All England Championship is a reminder that India continues to produce world-class athletes in disciplines beyond cricket. The real issue is not that cricket receives immense attention -- it deserves the admiration it gets. The concern is that athletes from other sports often do not receive comparable appreciation for achievements that are equally significant in their own arenas. If India aspires to become a truly global sporting nation, its applause must grow broader. Sporting pride cannot remain confined to one field. Because somewhere on a badminton court, an athlete like Lakshya Sen is fighting just as hard for the country’s colours as any cricketer on a packed stadium pitch. The only difference is how loudly the nation chooses to cheer.

A Democratic Betrayal

Updated: Mar 12, 2025


Brussels
Calin Georgescu

Few things are more dangerous than unelected bureaucrats who claim moral superiority while trampling on democratic principles. That is precisely what is happening in Romania where Calin Georgescu, a nationalist and staunch critic of Brussels, has been barred from running in May’s presidential election. The decision by the country’s central election authority and backed by European Union elites has exposed European liberalism which celebrates democracy only when the results are convenient.


At the heart of this crisis is the annulment of Romania’s December 6 election, a move so brazenly anti-democratic that it would have been condemned had it taken place in Hungary or Poland. Georgescu, a pro-sovereignty candidate, had been leading the race when, just two days before the final round, Romania’s highest court scrapped the entire process. The official reason? Allegations of Russian interference - allegations that remain unproven and which Moscow has denied.


This decision alone was troubling. But the outright ban on Georgescu’s candidacy reveals the real agenda at play. The election authority argues that “it is inadmissible” for a previously disqualified candidate to run again. But who made this rule? Romania’s Constitution does not explicitly prevent disqualified candidates from standing in re-run elections. The ban reeks of political calculation rather than legal necessity.


The response from Romania’s electorate has been telling. Protests erupted outside the election bureau as furious supporters of Georgescu, many of them ordinary Romanians disillusioned with Brussels, clashed with security forces. The anger is not simply about a single election but about the broader feeling that their country is being treated as a vassal state of the European Union, its sovereignty undermined by foreign elites who have no stake in the daily struggles of Romanian citizens.


The EU’s condescending attitude towards Romania has been evident for years. Since its accession to the bloc in 2007, Romania has been treated as an inferior member state, constantly scolded for its governance while Brussels extracts cheap labour and resources. Romanians have grown weary of lectures from Germany and France about the rule of law when those same countries ignore their own democratic failings.


The reason Georgescu gained such a strong following in the first place is that Romanians are rejecting the EU’s empty promises. Two decades of membership were supposed to bring prosperity, yet wages remain low, young people are fleeing to Western Europe for work, and local industries have been hollowed out by foreign corporations. Romania now finds itself reduced to a periphery state in the European economic hierarchy, useful only as a cheap manufacturing hub and buffer against Russia.


The growing Euroscepticism in Romania is part of a broader trend across Eastern Europe. From Hungary’s Viktor Orbán to Slovakia’s Robert Fico, nationalist leaders are winning because they speak for voters who feel abandoned by the European project. Brussels brands them as ‘populists’ and ‘authoritarians,’ but the truth is simpler: they are responding to the democratic will of their people.


The same European elites who lecture Eastern Europeans about democracy had no issue overturning Brexit votes in the UK Parliament, ignoring Dutch and French referendums on the EU Constitution, or interfering in Italy’s elections when Giorgia Meloni’s government came to power.


Georgescu’s exclusion from Romania’s presidential race is yet another example of this double standard. European diplomats, including those from Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Spain, have rushed to defend Romania’s courts, claiming that the ban is necessary to safeguard democracy. But what democracy are they referring to? A democracy where ‘Russian interference’ is selectively invoked to silence critics of the EU while pro-Brussels candidates are given a free pass?


For all its talk of democratic values, the European Union has shown once again that it prefers control over consent. If democracy is to mean anything, it must include the right of people to make their own choices - however inconvenient they may be to the ruling elites in Brussels.

Comments


bottom of page