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.

Charting a Lone Path

By rejecting both Dravidian titans and the BJP, Tamil superstar Vijay is gambling on a third front of his own making.

Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu

In Tamil Nadu’s unruly political theatre, a new protagonist has been scripting his own role for some time now. Actor-turned-politician Vijay, known to legions simply as ‘Thalapathy’ (commander), recently made it official that his party - the TamilagaVettriKazhagam (TVK) - will contest the 2026 state assembly election solo, with Vijay himself as its chief ministerial candidate.


This resolution, passed unanimously at the TVK’s executive committee meeting last week, sets the stage for a dramatic confrontation with Tamil Nadu’s entrenched duopoly - the DMK and AIADMK - while firmly rebuffing the overtures of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). “TVK is neither DMK nor AIADMK to shake hands with BJP for selfish political interests,” Vijay declared, adding that his party would never forge an alliance (direct or indirect) with “ideological enemies and divisive forces.”


It was a message steeped in regional pride and political morality. In a state that has long resisted the saffron party’s ideological expansionism, Vijay’s rhetoric struck a chord. He accused the BJP of stoking communal tensions and attempting to undermine Tamil Nadu’s foundational values of social justice and secularism, invoking Dravidian icons such as Periyar and C.N. Annadurai to underline his point.


With these remarks, Vijay appears to have drawn a red line between himself and the BJP, whose alliance with the AIADMK remains uneasy and transactional. While Union Home Minister Amit Shah has declared that the next Tamil Nadu government would be formed by the BJP-AIADMK combine, he conspicuously stopped short of naming a chief ministerial candidate. AIADMK chief Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS) has been trying to reassert his party’s primacy, insisting that any alliance will be led by the AIADMK and warning that “no party, however big, can dominate it.”


The BJP has long been seeking to script its own Tamil Nadu story, with or without the Dravidian parties. Its overt courtship of popular figures such as Vijay has long been rumoured, and the AIADMK has kept the doors open. “All those who wish to oust the DMK are welcome,” EPS had remarked coyly, when asked about Vijay’s TVK.


However, that door now appears firmly shut. Not only has Vijay rejected the BJP, but TVK’s general secretary for propaganda and policy, K.G. Arunraj, has ruled out any alliance with the AIADMK even in a post-BJP configuration. In Arunraj’s view, the people of Tamil Nadu are yearning for an alternative that is not merely anti-incumbent but transformative.


For now, that vision remains aspirational. TVK has yet to prove its electoral mettle. Vijay’s political brand, though undeniably powerful, is still untested at the ballot box. The party plans to enrol 20 million members, hold 12,500 grassroots meetings and launch a state-wide outreach tour from September through December.


Vijay has also demonstrated a willingness to move beyond platitudes and into policy terrain. He slammed the DMK government’s land acquisition push for the controversial Parandur airport project, calling it “state terrorism” and vowing to lead a march to the secretariat unless the chief minister responded to affected farmers. In another resolution, TVK demanded that M.K. Stalin resign as home minister over a custodial death, citing moral responsibility.


By attacking the DMK on governance and the BJP on ideology, and by refusing the embrace of the AIADMK, Vijay is attempting to carve out a credible third force. His challenge is formidable. The state’s electorate has long oscillated between the DMK and AIADMK, each buoyed by decades of incumbency, welfare legacies and entrenched patronage networks.


But in Tamil Nadu, charisma can also translate into currency. Vijay, whose fan base spans generations and districts, may have just enough of it to make a dent. For now, Vijay’s script is bold and his entry is at a timely juncture. Whether he emerges as hero or footnote will depend on whether Tamil Nadu’s voters are ready to turn the page.

Comments

bottom of page