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.

Diplomatic Mirage

As Russia tightens its grip and Ukraine demands a seat at the table, the future of the war is being negotiated without its primary victim.

Russia

The war in Ukraine has entered a new, more insidious phase. A Russian missile barrage on Saturday killed at least fifteen people, reducing residential buildings to rubble, plunging homes into darkness, and leaving a central city reeling. The strike on Poltava alone claimed eleven lives, four of them children. In Kharkiv, another drone attack killed one person, while three police officers died in Sumy. Russia, undeterred and unrepentant, continues its campaign of destruction with a strategic precision designed not just to cripple infrastructure but to terrorize an already exhausted population.


Yet, while missiles rain down, a different kind of battle is playing out behind closed doors. In Washington and Moscow, the future of Ukraine is being discussed in hushed conversations that pointedly exclude Kyiv. President Donald Trump and his aides have floated the idea of a negotiated settlement that could swiftly end the war. Trump’s former National Security Advisor Keith Kellogg insists that Ukraine must hold elections, even as it battles an existential threat. But democracy under bombardment is a contradiction in terms, and for Ukraine, holding elections under martial law is constitutionally impossible.


Meanwhile, in Moscow, the Kremlin presses its advantage. Reports of Russian advances in eastern Ukraine, particularly near the city of Toretsk, suggest that Putin’s forces are leveraging military gains to strengthen their position at the bargaining table. This is war by other means: a strategic combination of battlefield success and diplomatic manoeuvring designed to force Ukraine into a weaker negotiating position. Every missile strike, every encroaching battalion, underscores the Kremlin’s desire to dictate the terms of any future settlement.


President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for his part, is acutely aware of the risks of being sidelined. He has insisted that Ukraine must be present at any peace talks, and those talks must include its key Western allies. The idea that Washington and Moscow could strike a deal over Ukraine’s fate without Ukrainian involvement is not just undemocratic - it is ominous. A settlement forged in Kyiv’s absence would amount to a tacit endorsement of Russian expansionism, rewarding aggression and setting a perilous precedent for future conflicts.


Russia, for its part, has little reason to negotiate in good faith. The battlefield momentum has shifted. And in the West, war fatigue is real. The longer the conflict drags on, the harder it becomes to justify the billions in military aid.


Zelensky understands this. A peace process that sidelines Ukraine is not a peace process but is a surrender disguised as diplomacy. In Trump’s calculus, a quick deal would be a victory, regardless of what it means for Ukraine’s long-term security.


If Ukraine is forced into a ceasefire on Russia’s terms, the consequences will extend far beyond its borders. A frozen conflict would entrench Russian territorial gains, giving Putin a permanent foothold in the country. More alarmingly, it would send a message to other would-be aggressors: that military conquest, if sustained long enough, can be legitimized through diplomacy.


The recent Russian strike on Odesa, condemned by UNESCO for damaging historic buildings, is a grim reminder of the cultural and human toll of this war. But beyond the immediate devastation, the long-term fight for Ukraine’s independence is being waged in a realm where bombs do not fall—across negotiating tables where its future is being decided in absentia.


Zelenskyy is right to insist on a seat at those discussions. For the West, the choice is either to stand firmly behind Ukraine, ensuring it has both the military strength and diplomatic leverage to negotiate on its own terms, or risk orchestrating a settlement that merely sets the stage for the next war. For now, Ukraine fights on. The world debates. And in Poltava, in Kharkiv, in Sumy, the sirens keep wailing.

Comments

bottom of page