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.

Axis of Pragmatism

Updated: Feb 27, 2025

In an era of shifting global alliances, Beijing and Moscow have reaffirmed their partnership, but to what end?

Beijing and Moscow

On the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin reaffirmed their “true friendship” in a lengthy phone call. The conversation, initiated by Putin, came at a moment of renewed geopolitical flux when diplomatic overtures between Moscow and Washington are gaining momentum, and Beijing, ever the astute power broker, is maneuvering to maintain its influence.


The timing of the call was telling. Since launching its brutal offensive in Ukraine in 2022, the cost of the war has ratcheted for Russia, with Western sanctions battering its economy despite Putin gaining the upper hand. Amid these strains, China has not wavered in its support for Moscow - at least rhetorically. Beijing has avoided outright condemnation of Russia’s actions, instead casting itself as a neutral arbitrator, advocating for peace while simultaneously strengthening economic and strategic ties with its northern neighbor.


China’s motivations are layered. For Xi, Russia is a crucial partner in his vision of a multipolar world order, one in which Western dominance is eroded and alternative power centers emerge. The relationship is rooted in pragmatism rather than sentimentality. Russia provides China with energy and raw materials at favorable rates, while China supplies Russia with economic lifelines and diplomatic cover. This mutual dependence has deepened since 2022, with trade between the two nations reaching record highs and China stepping in as a key purchaser of Russian oil and gas, cushioning the blow of Western sanctions.


But China’s calculus is more complex than mere economic convenience. As Washington and Moscow inch closer to potential negotiations over Ukraine (driven in part by former U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed engagement with Putin), Beijing is positioning itself as an indispensable player. By extending support for peace talks while keeping its ties with Moscow intact, China is ensuring that any resolution to the Ukraine conflict will not sideline its interests.


Historically, the Sino-Russian relationship has been marked by both cooperation and rivalry. During the Cold War, ideological differences led to a bitter split between Beijing and Moscow, culminating in border skirmishes in the late 1960s. However, after the Soviet Union’s collapse, successive Chinese and Russian leaders found common cause in opposing U.S. hegemony. The two nations have since embarked on a strategic partnership that, while not an outright alliance, has strengthened in response to mutual concerns over Western influence. Military cooperation has intensified, with joint exercises and arms agreements signaling deeper coordination. The two countries also align in their opposition to Western-led institutions, advocating instead for alternatives such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS.


Yet, despite the show of unity, cracks exist. China, ever mindful of its economic interests, has refrained from providing direct military assistance to Russia, wary of provoking Western sanctions that could hurt its own economy. Beijing has also sought to maintain robust trade ties with Europe, threading a delicate diplomatic needle. Furthermore, China’s long-term ambitions in Central Asia, once firmly within Moscow’s sphere of influence, are gradually encroaching on Russian interests, as Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative extends deeper into former Soviet republics.


The upcoming visits between Xi and Putin, first in Moscow for World War II commemorations and then in Beijing, underscore the enduring nature of this partnership. But they also raise questions about the limits of their alignment. Whether Putin is comfortable with this dynamic remains to be seen.


Meanwhile, the shifting currents of U.S.-Russia diplomacy add another layer of complexity. Trump’s call with Putin and recent face-to-face meetings between Russian and American officials have led to the first serious discussions on a negotiated settlement in Ukraine. If a deal materializes, China will want a seat at the table, not only to protect its own interests but also to shape the post-war geopolitical landscape. So, while the Dragon and the Bear may march together for now, their paths may yet diverge.

Comments

bottom of page