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 Tale of Two Funds

Updated: Feb 6, 2025

Jakarta bets big on Danantara to fuel its economic ambitions, but risks abound in Indonesia’s new sovereign gamble.

Jakarta

Indonesia’s government has just placed a bold wager with the House of Representatives approving the creation of Danantara, the country’s second sovereign wealth fund (SWF) in five years. While many resource-rich nations have SWFs to manage their windfalls, maintaining two parallel funds is an anomaly. The move signals President Prabowo Subianto’s ambition to supercharge Indonesia’s economic growth, yet it also raises pressing concerns about governance, legal oversight and the necessity of a second fund in a nation still grappling with fiscal constraints.


Danantara, an acronym for Daya Anagata Nusantara (the future power of Indonesia), is set to become a financial juggernaut. With an initial asset pool of approximately $600 billion sourced primarily from seven state-owned enterprises (SOEs), it could soon swell to nearly $1 trillion, making it the fourth-largest SWF globally. Its size will put it in the same league as Norway’s Government Pension Fund and China’s Investment Corporation.


Unlike INA, the Indonesia Investment Authority, which was established in 2020 to attract foreign investment, Danantara is designed to play a more active role in managing state assets. It will consolidate control over some of the country’s largest SOEs, including banking giants Bank Mandiri and Bank BRI, energy behemoth Pertamina, and telecom leader Telkom Indonesia. The government argues that streamlining the management of these enterprises will improve efficiency, but skeptics warn that such centralization carries risks.


President Prabowo has grand economic ambitions. He wants to push Indonesia’s GDP growth to 8 percent by the end of his term and fund large-scale initiatives like free school meals. However, his government faces a chronic fiscal deficit which is expected to widen further. Danantara, in theory, provides a mechanism to finance these goals without further burdening the state budget.


Yet the logic behind its creation remains murky. Indonesia already has an SWF in the form of INA, which was launched under Prabowo’s predecessor, Joko Widodo, with a mandate to attract foreign capital. Some officials have suggested that INA will eventually be folded into Danantara, though details remain unclear. If the objective is to improve management of state assets, why not expand INA’s scope rather than create a competing institution?


A more troubling concern is whether Danantara will function as a political tool. Unlike INA, which operates under the Finance Ministry, Danantara will report directly to the president. This raises fears that it could be used to advance political priorities rather than sound financial investments. Given Indonesia’s checkered history with corruption and mismanagement of state resources, placing an entity of this scale under direct presidential control could be a recipe for trouble.


Danantara’s creation was made possible through a controversial amendment to Indonesia’s 2003 Law on State-Owned Enterprises. The revised law grants Danantara sweeping powers, including the ability to merge or split SOEs and create new holding companies. Perhaps most alarmingly, it provides the fund with immunity from asset seizures by law enforcement agencies. This provision, while ostensibly aimed at protecting state assets from external claims, also raises concerns about a lack of accountability.


Indonesia is no stranger to scandals involving state funds. In the early 2000s, the Bank Indonesia Liquidity Support scandal saw over $13 billion in emergency bailout funds misused. More recently, the Jiwasraya scandal—a multibillion-dollar fraud involving the state-owned insurer—exposed deep vulnerabilities in financial oversight. Given these precedents, the idea of a trillion-dollar fund operating with limited legal scrutiny is cause for concern.


With parliamentary approval secured, Danantara is now a reality. The immediate challenge is securing its promised startup capital of $61.3 billion without diverting funds from other critical government programs.


Indonesia’s economic potential is undeniable. It is Southeast Asia’s largest economy, with vast natural resources and a growing middle class. However, economic ambition must be matched with institutional safeguards. Without clear legal boundaries and robust oversight, Danantara risks becoming an opaque financial behemoth.

Comments

bottom of page