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.

Europe’s Nuclear Awakening

With America in retreat, Germany and France seek to fortify Europe’s nuclear deterrence.

Germany

Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, is not known for radical departures in foreign policy. Yet his recent remarks about expanding France’s nuclear umbrella to the rest of Europe reflect the most consequential shift in European security since the end of the Cold War. The continent finds itself at a precarious juncture. With U.S. President Donald Trump openly questioning NATO’s future, Europe must now decide whether it can rely on Washington’s nuclear shield or if it must forge its own.


In an interview with Deutschlandfunk radio, Merz stressed on the need to become stronger together in nuclear deterrence in Europe. His comments came just days after French President Emmanuel Macron pledged to open a debate on extending France’s nuclear deterrent to other European nations. For decades, Europe’s nuclear security has rested on America’s commitment to its NATO allies. Now, Trump’s second presidency has unsettled that foundation.


During the Cold War, the American nuclear umbrella, backed by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, provided Europe with strategic stability. France and Britain, Western Europe’s only nuclear powers, maintained their arsenals as a national prerogative rather than a collective security mechanism. The idea of a shared European nuclear deterrent never gained traction, largely due to German reluctance. Berlin’s historical aversion to military assertiveness and its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ensured that Germany would not seek nuclear weapons of its own.


But with Trump’s foreign policy pivot, Europe faces an uncomfortable reality - an American president who has threatened to abandon NATO allies unwilling to meet their financial obligations.


Merz’s position remains cautious. He insists that any discussions on European nuclear deterrence must “complement the American nuclear umbrella, which we of course want to maintain.” Yet his acknowledgment that Germany cannot rely indefinitely on U.S. protection signals a historic shift in thinking within the German establishment. The far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has long argued for Germany to acquire its own nuclear weapons, a prospect still unthinkable for mainstream politicians. However, even centrists now recognize that Europe can no longer afford strategic complacency.


Macron has long positioned himself as a champion of European sovereignty. In 2020, he had proposed a strategic dialogue on Europe’s nuclear future, arguing that France’s arsenal could serve broader European security interests. His calls were largely met with polite dismissal in Berlin. Today, the mood has changed. Merz’s openness to discussions suggests that a consensus is forming in Germany’s political mainstream: Europe must assume greater responsibility for its own defence.


Yet any effort to build a European nuclear deterrent will require delicate diplomacy. France’s nuclear doctrine is fiercely independent, designed to serve French interests first. Extending its nuclear umbrella would mean entangling Paris in the defence of countries beyond its borders, something French leaders have traditionally resisted. Moreover, Britain, now outside the European Union, maintains its own independent nuclear arsenal and has not signalled enthusiasm for nuclear-sharing arrangements with the continent.


A Franco-German-British framework would be the logical nucleus of a European deterrent, but London’s reluctance and Paris’s caution complicate matters. However, the more Washington wavers, the stronger the case for Europe to develop an alternative deterrence mechanism.

A serious European nuclear initiative would come at an enormous financial and political cost. France’s arsenal is modest compared to America’s: it possesses around 300 nuclear warheads. Expanding its reach would require massive investment in missile systems, warhead production and delivery mechanisms. Germany, still constrained by post-war pacifism, would have to make an unprecedented leap in its defence spending and strategic doctrine.


Berlin has already taken tentative steps. Merz’s CDU/CSU bloc is in coalition negotiations with the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), and both parties have signalled support for a major increase in defence spending. This marks a dramatic shift from Germany’s traditional reluctance to invest in hard power. However, building a credible nuclear deterrent will require long-term commitments and a fundamental reassessment of European security priorities. Either way, the days of European strategic passivity are coming to an end.

Comments


bottom of page