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 Reset, Not a Romance

The diplomatic chill between India and Canada has rarely been as stark as it was during the final years of Justin Trudeau’s premiership. Accusations, expulsions and frozen channels of communication left a relationship once built on shared democratic values looking threadbare. Yet, after months of acrimony and one sensational allegation that pushed ties to their lowest ebb in decades, both countries have now begun edging back toward normalcy. A new political configuration in Ottawa, coupled with India’s determination to steer relations away from confrontation, has opened a path to something neither country has experienced in years: predictability.


Canada and India have long portrayed themselves as natural partners, two democracies shaped by British colonial rule, bound by an expansive diaspora and linked through decades of academic, scientific and commercial exchange. Canada’s early support for Indian nationalists during the freedom struggle is often invoked in speeches by nostalgic diplomats. After independence, Jawaharlal Nehru’s government found in Ottawa a steady - if sometimes cautious - friend. Over the decades, co-operation deepened even as irritants arose.


But history has never insulated the relationship from contemporary pressures. Under Trudeau, Ottawa’s domestic politics repeatedly spilled into foreign policy. India bristled at what it saw as Canadian indulgence of Khalistani separatism. Ottawa, for its part, accused Delhi of heavy-handedness abroad. By late 2023, the relationship had drifted into something approaching paralysis.


Functional ties

The election of Mark Barney as Prime Minister has broken that pattern. Barney, a pragmatic centrist, has signalled a desire to lower the temperature and rebuild functional ties. His government has quietly stepped back from the more performative elements of his predecessor’s foreign policy, and opened the door to a reset with Delhi. For India, this provides an opportunity to reclaim a relationship that until recently offered commercial promise and strategic heft.


The turning point arrived, symbolically at least, at this year’s G7 summit in Canada when Barney and Modi met on the sidelines and agreed on a roadmap for co-operation. This paved the way for restoring consular operations disrupted during the standoff and for reopening channels necessary for visas, education and commerce. It was the clearest signal yet that both sides were tired of the ice age.


The real test, however, came later, when India’s external-affairs minister, S. Jaishankar, travelled to Canada for talks with Anita Anand, the foreign minister whose own family roots lie in India. Their discussions were not glamorous, but were productive.


Pending projects stalled during the Trudeau years were dusted off. Security concerns were aired without public mudslinging. And both sides committed to operationalising a ‘Roadmap 2025’ - a framework aimed at reviving collaboration in trade, energy, science, technology and higher education.


While not a dramatic transformation, it is a recognition that both countries have much to lose from prolonged estrangement. For Canada, rebalancing is essential to maintaining its credibility in the Indo-Pacific, where it seeks relevance beyond China and the United States. For India, easing tensions allows it to focus on more consequential strategic challenges while preserving access for its vast diaspora and students.


The most sensitive issue of security threats emanating from extremist networks will not evaporate overnight. Ottawa’s pledge to treat violent extremism with greater seriousness will be judged not by communiqués but by law-enforcement follow-through. Delhi, for its part, must accept that diaspora politics in liberal democracies rarely align neatly with the preferences of foreign governments. The reset depends on both acknowledging these structural misalignments and managing them with maturity rather than megaphones.


Still, the early signs of normalisation matter. Consulates are reopening. Ministerial visits have resumed. The two governments are again speaking the language of partnership rather than grievance. Even the rhetoric, so often the accelerant of Indo-Canadian disputes, has softened. The Barney government, lacking Trudeau’s ideological flamboyance, appears content with quiet fixes over symbolic flourish. India’s approach, emphasising dialogue and problem-solving diplomacy,’ reflects a similar preference for stability.


Whether this cautious thaw becomes something more durable will depend on political discipline in both capitals. Ottawa must contain domestic pressures that have previously derailed foreign policy. Delhi must recognise that progress will be incremental, not sweeping.


For the first time in years, the India-Canada relationship is not defined by crisis. The two countries have stepped back from the brink and are reacquainting themselves with the virtues of steady engagement. In an era of fractious geopolitics, that alone counts as progress.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page