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.

Dr. WHO? America’s Exit, China’s Stage

Updated: Jan 23, 2025

As Trump prepares to withdraw the United States from the WHO, China seizes an opportunity to bolster its global influence.

Trump

When President Donald Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), it was déjà vu. This marked the second time in five years he attempted to sever ties with the Geneva-based health body, accusing it of mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic, failing to reform and being unduly influenced by China. The move was red meat for his domestic audience but a diplomatic gift to Beijing, which swiftly rallied to the WHO’s defence.


China’s Foreign Ministry wasted no time declaring its “firm support” for the WHO. With America vacating its long-standing role as the WHO’s top financier, China sees an opportunity to burnish its credentials as a global health leader while rewriting the rules of the game.


Trump’s disdain for the WHO is hardly new. He has accused the organization of kowtowing to Beijing, citing its early praise of China’s handling of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan—a pandemic Trump frequently alleged stemmed from a Chinese laboratory. In 2020, Trump had announced plans to withdraw from the WHO, citing its alleged failures and a lack of accountability. His successor, Joe Biden, had reversed that decision.


But Trump’s latest move to pull the plug on the WHO once again plunges the organization into uncertainty. The U.S. contributed nearly $1 billion annually (close to 20 percent of the agency’s budget). This financial lifeline supported critical programs, from polio eradication to emergency responses in war-torn regions. Without it, the WHO faces a gaping fiscal hole that its remaining donors, including Germany, the UK and philanthropic organizations like the Gates Foundation, will struggle to fill.


Enter China. Although its contributions to the WHO are a fraction of America’s—just over $200 million—it now has a chance to reshape the organization to better align with its geopolitical interests. Beijing’s rhetoric of “building a global community of health for all” is a strategic veneer, masking its intent to steer the global health agenda while deflecting scrutiny of its own actions.


For years, China has invested in expanding its influence in international organizations, often by leveraging its economic clout and strategic alliances in the Global South. Its support for the WHO comes with strings attached. Beijing has resisted calls for transparency over the origins of COVID-19, countering international pressure with a well-oiled propaganda machine. By presenting itself as a stalwart defender of multilateralism, China seeks to fill the vacuum left by America’s retreat while shifting attention away from its own shortcomings.


Critics argue that this step undermines U.S. soft power at a time when global health crises demand international cooperation. By abandoning its role as the WHO’s largest donor, America risks eroding its credibility as a leader in global health. This retreat also weakens Washington’s leverage to push for much-needed reforms within the organization, including greater transparency and accountability.


While Beijing may relish America’s absence, it faces its own challenges. The WHO’s credibility has been tarnished, and its reliance on donor funding leaves it vulnerable to the whims of its largest contributors. Should China step in to fill the financial void, it risks overextending itself and inviting further criticism of its growing influence in global governance.


Beijing’s track record on global health is far from spotless. From the early obfuscation of the COVID-19 outbreak to its heavy-handed diplomacy during the pandemic, China’s actions have often sparked mistrust. Its ability to lead the WHO without alienating other member states remains uncertain.


As the WHO grapples with a funding shortfall and a credibility crisis, its future hangs in the balance. For better or worse, the world may soon find out whether the WHO under China’s shadow can truly live up to its mission or whether it becomes another pawn in the great game of global power politics.

Comments

bottom of page