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.

Fabricated Histories

Updated: Jan 13, 2025

The recent confession by journalist and activist Dilip Mandal that Fatima Sheikh, long celebrated as India’s first Muslim school teacher, was ostensibly a figment of his fertile imagination exposes the reckless disregard of certain ‘liberal’ intellectuals when it comes to constructing narratives and revising history. Mandal revealed how he fabricated her story, acknowledging that “Fatima Sheikh” was a myth crafted to serve political and ideological purposes. This startling disclosure highlights not just a manufactured persona but a disturbing tendency in India’s intellectual discourse: the deliberate manipulation of historical narratives to suit ideological agendas, often at the expense of truth.


Mandal’s confession is damning. He candidly explained how he created Sheikh’s identity, spinning tales and even fabricating sketches to sustain the illusion. For years, Sheikh has been presented as a colleague of social reformers Jyotiba and Savitribai Phule, championing the cause of girls’ education in British India. Yet, Mandal notes that her name was conspicuously absent from the writings of the Phules, Dr. Ambedkar and even British records of the time. Despite this, Sheikh was glorified as a feminist icon, with media outlets publishing laudatory articles and Google even commemorating her supposed 191st birthday with a doodle in 2022.


This calculated effort to fabricate a Muslim icon aligns with a broader trend among left-liberal intelligentsia to amplify narratives that resonate with their ideological leanings. Over decades, left-leaning historians, Marxists and ‘secularists’ have systematically rewritten India’s past, seeking to whitewash the brutalities of Islamic invasions while vilifying Hindu traditions. Institutions like Aligarh Muslim University have been at the forefront of such ‘correcting perspectives,’ often cloaking orthodox Muslim narratives in Communist rhetoric. The glorification of invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni and Aurangzeb as cultural patrons, while downplaying their atrocities, exemplifies this approach. The creation of Fatima Sheikh’s story is a modern parallel to these historical distortions.


Moreover, the insertion of fictitious characters like Sheikh into India’s historical narrative risks undermining genuine Muslim contributions to social reform. The enduring appeal of these fabricated narratives lies in their emotional resonance, particularly among liberal elites in India and abroad. Ironically, even after Mandal’s admission, some Hindus in the diaspora, particularly those in the tech and marketing fields in the United States, continue to cling to the myth of Fatima Sheikh. This refusal to acknowledge her ‘nonexistence’ reflects the seductive power of narratives that align with one’s worldview, irrespective of their veracity.


Mandal’s admission underscores the urgent need for intellectual honesty in interpreting history and constructing social narratives. Fabricated icons and distorted histories do not serve the cause of justice. The pursuit of truth must take precedence over the construction of convenient narratives, for only then can India truly embrace its pluralistic heritage.

Comments

bottom of page