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 Divisive Victory

Zoran Milanović’s landslide re-election reflects Croatia’s fractured politics and casts uncertainty on the country’s trajectory within the EU and NATO.

Zoran Milanović

Croatia’s incumbent president, Zoran Milanović, has secured a resounding mandate for a second five-year term, defeating his rival Dragan Primorac by a landslide. With nearly three-quarters of the vote in Sunday’s runoff, Milanović, 58, cemented his position as a polarizing yet formidable figure in Croatian politics. His victory underscores deep divisions within the nation’s political landscape and the challenges awaiting a country straddling Western alliances and domestic turbulence.


Milanović’s re-election was quite extraordinary. Emerging as a fierce critic of NATO and the European Union, his positions have often placed him at odds with Croatia’s pro-Western establishment, particularly the governing Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) party. This antagonism was on full display during the campaign, as his conservative opponent, Primorac, portrayed him as a “pro-Russian puppet.”


Primorac, a former science and education minister, struggled to mount a credible challenge with his campaign failing to resonate in a nation weary of political rhetoric and disillusioned with perceived corruption in the Plenković government.


Although Croatia’s presidency is largely ceremonial, it wields considerable influence in foreign policy, defence, and security. Milanović’s re-election signals potential friction in these domains, given his scepticism towards NATO and reluctance to align with Western military initiatives. His controversial decision to block the deployment of Croatian officers to NATO’s Ukraine mission highlights his divergence from the pro-Western stance championed by Plenković’s government.


This ideological clash reflects broader societal divides in Croatia, a country that joined the EU in 2013 but has struggled to reconcile its Western ambitions with the realities of domestic governance. While Milanović denounces NATO’s involvement in Ukraine, he has also condemned Russia’s invasion—walking a fine line that appeals to Croatia’s mixed sentiments on foreign policy.


Milanović’s confrontational style draws comparisons to figures like Donald Trump. His penchant for fiery rhetoric and unfiltered criticism has earned him both staunch supporters and fervent detractors. His critics argue that his populist tactics and inflammatory remarks exacerbate divisions rather than fostering solutions. His dismissal of NATO initiatives and criticism of Western allies risk isolating Croatia at a time when regional stability is increasingly fragile.


Milanović’s victory is part of a broader narrative of Croatian presidential politics since the nation declared independence in 1991. His predecessors, from FranjoTuđman to Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, have reflected Croatia’s evolving identity as it transitioned from a war-torn post-Yugoslav republic to an EU member state.


Tuđman, the nation’s founding president, embodied the nationalist aspirations of a newly independent Croatia. Subsequent leaders navigated the challenges of post-war recovery, EU accession and economic modernization. Milanović’s ascent in 2019 marked a shift towards a more populist, combative presidency, reflecting global trends of discontent with traditional political elites.


Croatia’s presidency, with its limited executive powers, has often served as a platform for symbolic leadership rather than concrete policymaking. Milanović’s ability to leverage this platform for political battles underscores his skill as a shrewd strategist. His scepticism towards NATO and EU policies could complicate Croatia’s role in regional diplomacy and security, particularly as tensions simmer in the Balkans.


Domestically, his victory underscores the enduring appeal of anti-establishment rhetoric in a nation grappling with economic challenges and political disillusionment. Croatia’s economy, heavily reliant on tourism, has struggled to recover from the shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical instability. Milanović’s ability to address these issues will likely define his legacy. Internationally, Milanović’s re-election raises questions about Croatia’s trajectory within the EU and NATO.


While Milanović’s victory is decisive, it reflects a divided electorate. Voter turnout, at just 45 percent, suggests widespread apathy or disillusionment. The triumph of a polarizing figure like Milanović signals not only his personal appeal but also the absence of a compelling alternative. In this moment of triumph, Milanović’s greatest challenge lies in proving that his resounding mandate can translate into meaningful progress.

Comments

bottom of page