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.

Calculated Disrespect?

In the world of Indian politics, it is axiomatic that symbolism often speaks louder than words. Recently, at the opposition Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA)’s rally at Dadar’s iconic Shivaji Park, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi turned down a statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj when his party colleague, Mumbai Congress president Varsha Gaikwad, presented the statue of the great Maratha warrior-king to the Congress Leader of Opposition. In a clip that went viral, Gandhi does not even look at Gaikwad and the statue – a gesture that provoked the ire of netizens across Maharashtra and the country. This was not the first time. Earlier in Pune, during a rally ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Gandhi had similarly declined to accept a statue of Shivaji Maharaj on the dais.


In a state like Maharashtra, where the figure of Chhatrapati Shivaji holds immense cultural and political significance and is central to its proud heritage, such gestures do not behove the country’s Leader of Opposition and cannot be dismissed as mere political missteps. Shivaji Maharaj is not just a historical figure but a symbol of pride, a source of inspiration for millions owing not just to his military exploits in facing up to the mighty Mughal and the Deccani sultanates, but for his statesmanship and rare nobility of character.


This is hardly the first time Rahul Gandhi has found himself at the centre of controversy over symbols and figures with strong emotional appeal particularly to the Hindu majority. His repeated criticisms of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a prominent freedom fighter and a polarising figure in contemporary political discourse, have further fuelled the perception that the Congress party, under his leadership, is determined to distance itself from icons of ‘Hindu pride.’


The question here is whether the Congress leader is attempting to appease his party’s Muslim constituency by avoiding overt identification with symbols supposedly linked to Hindu nationalism?

Rahul’s stance appears paradoxical. On one hand, he lost no time in criticizing the BJP for the collapse of a statue of Shivaji in Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, in August. On the other hand, he cannot seem to accept a statue of the very same figure when presented by his own party leaders. This inconsistency is hard to overlook.


The optics of snubbing Shivaji Maharaj while sitting beside his ally, Shiv Sena (UBT) Uddhav Thackeray, only adds to the confusion given it was Uddhav’s father, Bal Thackeray, who founded the Shiv Sena. Uddhav’s silence at such gestures only makes one wonder what his father, a fiery opponent of the Congress, would have thought of his son.


Whether or not Rahul Gandhi’s actions are a calculated attempt to navigate the delicate balancing act between secularism and regional pride is open to debate. But what is clear is that in poll-bound Maharashtra, where the memory of Shivaji Maharaj looms large, symbolic missteps like these may prove costly.

Comments

bottom of page