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.

Fall of a Sacred Cow

Updated: Feb 10, 2025

For decades, USAID has been less about aid and more about influence with a legacy of covert interventions, strategic funding and hidden agendas that deserve an unceremonious end.

USAID

Let’s begin with a question most media outlets are afraid to ask? Why are Donald Trump and Musk Are Right to Dismantle USAID? For one, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been draped in the sanctimonious garb of humanitarianism.


It is an organization that speaks in the language of development, democracy, and goodwill while often acting as a vehicle for strategic meddling. If Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s latest push to dismantle USAID is anything, it is not merely an assault on a bureaucratic sacred cow but the unmasking of an instrument that has, time and again, blurred the line between charity and covert geopolitical gamesmanship.


USAID was founded in 1961 during the Kennedy era, when Washington’s Cold War paranoia caused it to shape the world in its image. As the humanitarian face of American influence, it provided economic aid, infrastructure development and disaster relief. That was its surface image. Beneath that veneer, it became a vessel for nefarious operations, a financial conduit for intelligence activities and an indispensable tool in America’s ideological battles abroad.


Nowhere was this duplicity more evident than in its longstanding entanglements with the Central Intelligence Agency. Throughout the 20th century, USAID was used as a front for CIA-backed initiatives that destabilized governments deemed unfriendly to American interests. In the 1960s and 70s, its funds helped bankroll covert operations in Chile, where Salvador Allende’s socialist government was systematically undermined. It played a similar role in Guatemala, where its development programs conveniently overlapped with counterinsurgency efforts aimed at suppressing leftist movements.


Even as the Cold War ended, USAID did not shed its clandestine skin. The organization remained deeply involved in funding civil society groups that aligned with American interests while sidelining those that did not. In Cuba, for instance, USAID launched the now-infamous ZunZuneo program - a clandestine attempt to create a Cuban Twitter-like network to foment dissent against the Castro regime. More recently, it has funnelled millions into pro-democracy movements in Venezuela, conveniently coinciding with Washington’s efforts to weaken Nicolás Maduro’s grip on power.


For those who might dismiss these examples as relics of a bygone era, consider the agency’s activities in India. Ostensibly aimed at promoting economic development and public health, USAID’s funding in India has raised eyebrows for its opacity and strategic motivations. The agency has poured millions into non-governmental organizations (NGOs) under the pretext of improving civil liberties and human rights. But scratch the surface, and a different picture emerges: a well-oiled machine that selectively funds groups critical of the Indian government while ignoring those that challenge American interests in the region. From supporting environmental groups that oppose coal projects crucial to India’s energy security to funding investigative journalism initiatives that disproportionately target certain political factions, USAID’s role in India has been less about altruism and more about influence.


Critics will argue that shutting down USAID will leave a vacuum in global development efforts. They will claim that it will cede influence to China, which has aggressively expanded its Belt and Road Initiative to fund infrastructure projects across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. But this assumes that USAID has been a force for good, rather than a Trojan horse for American interventionism. In reality, much of the world has grown increasingly wary of the organization’s motives.


What Trump and Musk have done is force a long-overdue conversation about the nature of American foreign aid. For too long, USAID has functioned under the assumption that development and soft-power projection are interchangeable. That illusion is now crumbling. And perhaps, in its place, the world might see something genuinely revolutionary - aid that is not a mask for manipulation, but a true extension of goodwill. It is about time.

Comments

bottom of page