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.

Alpine Promises

There is something faintly theatrical about Indian Chief Ministers flying to Davos to sign memoranda of understanding, as if Switzerland’s thin air confers a special aura of credibility. On the opening day of the World Economic Forum, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said his government had signed 19 MoUs worth a heady Rs. 14.5 lakh crore, promising 15 lakh jobs across sectors ranging from green energy to quantum computing. The numbers are grand.


Yet back home, the contrast is harder to ignore. Mumbai, the state’s economic engine and supposed gateway for foreign investment, groans under collapsing roads, unreliable suburban trains, flooding every monsoon and a skyline punctured by unfinished projects. Against this backdrop, it is fair to ask whether the spectacle of Davos offers diminishing returns and whether the money spent on delegations, pavilions and Alpine networking might be better deployed fixing the infrastructure that ordinary citizens actually use.


MoUs, after all, are expressions of intent, often vague, sometimes recycled. Maharashtra has long been a champion of the Davos numbers game, routinely topping investment-tally charts each January. Yet the conversion rate, the proportion of promised investment that actually materialises, remains stubbornly opaque. Governments announce cumulative figures with pride but they are less eager to publish audited follow-ups showing how many factories were built, how many jobs proved permanent, and how many projects quietly withered once the headlines faded.


This year’s announcements follow a familiar pattern. Data centres, renewable energy, logistics and real estate dominate the list. Lodha Developers’ additional Rs. 1 lakh crore commitment to a data centre park was presented as a marquee achievement, even though the company had already signed a Rs. 30,000 crore MoU months earlier under an existing state policy. If such deals hinge on foreign partners, why must they be sanctified at Davos at all?


The government’s defence is that global investors are present at the WEF and Maharashtra accounts for 39% of India’s FDI. All this is true up to a point. Maharashtra’s size, talent pool and financial depth would anyway attract capital with or without snow-capped mountains. What investors also notice, though, are bottlenecks in form of creaking infrastructure and the urban governance that struggles to keep pace with growth. These are not problems that can be solved by signing ceremonies abroad.


Consider Mumbai’s infrastructure backlog. Roads are dug up with ritual regularity and restored poorly. The suburban rail network, lifeline to millions, remains dangerously overcrowded despite years of promises. Drainage upgrades lag behind climate reality, ensuring annual floods. A city that works is the best investment pitch any Chief Minister can make.


There is also a political economy to Davos theatrics. MoUs create an aura of momentum, useful in domestic politics and investor optics alike. But they can distract from the harder, less glamorous work of execution.


This is not to argue that Maharashtra should shun foreign investors or global forums. But engagement should be a means, not an end.


Comments

bottom of page