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.

Dangerous Trend

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

In a troubling display of misplaced priorities, several political leaders and parties in poll-bound Jammu & Kashmir, including Mehbooba Mufti’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the National Conference (NC), have recently shown ‘solidarity’ following the death of Hassan Nasrallah, the militant Hezbollah leader killed in an Israeli airstrike in Beirut. This episode raises a fundamental question: why do sections of India’s political and intellectual elite, who proclaim allegiance to liberal values, often end up pandering to militant causes and championing individuals with a violent, anti-Indian agenda?

Nasrallah, a symbol of Middle Eastern extremism and global terrorism, was responsible for years of violence grounded in hate for Israel and the West. One would expect Indian politicians, especially those claiming to represent the aspirations of Jammu & Kashmir’s beleaguered population, to maintain a prudent distance from such figures.

This is not an isolated instance. For years, prominent members of India’s so-called ‘liberal’ intelligentsia have extended their support to individuals like Yasin Malik, a separatist leader with blood on his hands. Malik’s long record of violence, including involvement in the killings of Indian Air Force personnel, did little to tarnish his image among certain political circles. Even as he was being tried for terrorism, sections of the media and academia feted him as a ‘freedom fighter,’ turning a blind eye to the victims of his crimes.

The double standard is stark when compared to democracies like Israel, where all major parties agree that terrorism is never justified regardless of fierce ideological divisions. This consensus has enabled Israel to decisively deal with its security challenges, even when doing so requires difficult decisions.

Political opportunism still plagues Jammu & Kashmir, where leaders often pander to populist sentiment instead of upholding peace and pluralism. The recent display of solidarity with Nasrallah exemplifies this duplicitous strategy—a cynical bid to appease hardline factions that sympathize with militancy.

It is not just the political class in Kashmir that is at fault. Intellectuals in metropolitan India, many of whom are quick to condemn military excesses or human rights violations by the state, are often conspicuously silent when it comes to acts of terror committed by separatists. They couch their arguments in the language of ‘resistance’ and ‘liberation,’ overlooking the fact that militant leaders like Yasin Malik or Burhan Wani seek not justice but the disintegration of India. India’s leaders must take a page from Israel’s playbook. Terrorism is not an issue that can be tackled with half-measures or soft rhetoric. It requires a resolute stance, not only from the state but also from society at large. Political parties that support or sympathize with terrorists, either overtly or through implicit endorsement, must be called out and held accountable.

Comments

bottom of page