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.

Diplomacy in a time of Chaos

The Nepal crisis is testing India’s role as South Asia’s anchor amid increasing political turbulence.

South Asia’s latest bout of turmoil comes from Nepal, where widespread protests have left the political order in tatters. The pattern is eerily familiar. Over the past few years, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar have experienced similar convulsions. Different triggers, but similar outcomes of political chaos and social disarray. At the heart of this maelstrom sits India, tasked with navigating the fallout of its volatile neighbours while remaining true to its democratic values.


First, Sri Lanka, to India’s south, spiralled into crisis in 2022. Plagued by unsustainable debt and economic mismanagement, the island nation faced acute shortages of medicines, fuel and food. Mass protests culminated in the Rajapaksa family fleeing their stronghold, with the presidential palace stormed by angry demonstrators. India extended financial aid and diplomatic support, but the Rajapaksa exodus marked a painful chapter in regional stability.


To the east, Bangladesh’s recent turmoil was triggered by a controversial quota policy last year. What began as a student protest in Dhaka rapidly morphed into an insurgency as radical groups hijacked the movement causing Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, a stalwart in South Asian politics, to seek refuge in India.


Myanmar’s descent into civil war after the 2021 military coup remains a grim reminder of the region’s fragility. Despite scheduled elections later this year, dozens of ethnic armed groups continue to wage war against the junta, and the country’s prospects of democratic restoration appear bleak.


And now, Nepal - the jewel of the Himalayas - has joined the list. Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s resignation follows a brutal crackdown in which 19 protesters were killed and hundreds injured. The trigger was a government ban on 26 social media platforms, including Instagram and Facebook. But the anger ran deeper than digital censorship. Gen Z protesters demanded an end to endemic corruption, unemployment, and political instability. Nepal’s parliament and Supreme Court were torched and its ministers were thrashed. Even opposition figures were not spared. Oli’s retreat was not so much a triumph of democracy than a capitulation under pressure.


The immediate challenge for India is to manage the humanitarian and security implications. Nepal shares an open border stretching 1,750 kilometres with India across five states - Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Sikkim, Bihar and West Bengal. Cultural and familial ties run deep between the populations. Furthermore, Kathmandu relies heavily on Indian exports, particularly oil and food, with bilateral trade standing at $8.5 billion annually.


Beyond economics and people-to-people ties, there are strategic calculations. China’s Western Theatre Command is stationed just across Nepal, making Kathmandu a potential fulcrum in Beijing’s ambitions to project power into the Indo-Gangetic plains. Moreover, over 32,000 Gurkha soldiers from Nepal serve in the Indian army under a special agreement, creating additional interdependence. Against this backdrop, India’s concerns about refugee flows, cross-border insurgency, and demographic manipulation are far from academic.


For all these risks, India is not the United States. It does not meddle in its neighbours’ affairs as a matter of policy, nor does it seek to impose solutions. New Delhi’s approach is one of strategic patience, backed by a record of assistance when invited. From supporting East Pakistan’s liberation in 1971 to offering billions in aid to debt-stricken Sri Lanka, India’s role has often been one of quiet stewardship rather than overt intervention.


The wider lesson of South Asia’s upheavals is not that democracy has failed but that it is fragile. India stands as a counter-example to the region’s instability. With 1.4 billion citizens governed by civilian institutions and regular elections, India has demonstrated time and again that democracy, however messy, works in the end.


The choice facing India today is stark. Either it helps its neighbours nurture democratic processes or it stands by as instability festers, empowering foreign influence and creating security vacuums. The recent protests in Nepal have shown that staging a revolution is far easier than preserving its outcomes. The rise of Gen Z leaders such as Balendra Shah, Kathmandu’s 35-year-old mayor and former rapper, may offer a glimmer of hope, but the path ahead is uncertain.


Ultimately, India’s diplomatic tightrope walk will be about securing a future where stable borders and not conflict zones, define South Asia. Without a peaceful neighbourhood, India’s ambitions of economic growth, technological advancement and global leadership will always face a looming shadow.


The choice India faces is not whether to intervene, but how to do so without compromising its democratic ideals. In this test of diplomacy, silence is not an option.

Comments

bottom of page