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.

Fragile Truce

Updated: Jan 16, 2025

A history of ceasefires in Gaza suggests that while they may pause the violence, they seldom deliver lasting peace.

Gaza

Once again, the antagonists are on the verge of brokering a deal after months of slaughter as a ‘draft ceasefire’ is about to be clinched. All eyes are now on Gaza, where a potential ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel appears tantalizingly close after 16 months of relentless violence that has ravaged the territory, displaced over 90 percent of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents and plunged its economy into ruin. Yet while a 42-day cessation of hostilities, the release of prisoners, and the promise of post-war reconstruction offer a glimmer of hope, history cautions against premature optimism.


This latest truce attempt mirrors a long lineage of ceasefires that temporarily quelled violence without addressing its underlying causes. The 1993 Oslo Accords, hailed as a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian relations, established the framework for Palestinian self-governance and phased Israeli withdrawal. However, the failure to resolve critical issues—borders, settlements, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem—meant the agreement was born with a ticking clock. Within a decade, the hope it inspired disintegrated into the bloody Second Intifada.


More recent agreements have followed a similarly flawed trajectory. The 2014 Cairo Agreement ended one of the deadliest conflicts between Israel and Hamas, with over 2,000 Palestinians and dozens of Israelis dead. The pact pledged easing of the Gaza blockade and allowed for reconstruction aid. Yet within months, it became clear that promises made at the negotiating table could not withstand the political pressures on either side. Sporadic violence continued, culminating in further escalation by 2021.


The ‘May Ceasefire’ of 2021 was another example. Brokered after 11 days of fighting, it offered an immediate end to airstrikes and rocket attacks but did not tackle the broader context of blockade, governance, or security. Within months, skirmishes resumed, culminating in the protracted conflict that today’s negotiations aim to end.


The obstacles to durable peace lie not in drafting ceasefires but in addressing the asymmetry of power, diverging political mandates, and deep-seated mistrust that characterizes Israeli-Palestinian relations. Key players have seldom agreed on even the terms of negotiations. Hamas has historically rejected Israel’s right to exist, while successive Israeli governments have refused to negotiate directly with an organization they deem a terrorist entity.


Adding to these complexities is the fractured Palestinian political landscape. Gaza remains under Hamas rule, while the West Bank is governed by the Palestinian Authority, led by the increasingly unpopular Fatah party. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s suggestion of a “unified Gaza and West Bank under reformed Palestinian leadership” presupposes a level of cooperation between these factions that history suggests is unlikely.


Geopolitics further complicates matters. Current negotiations owe much to Qatar and Egypt, both of which wield unique leverage over Hamas. But their mediation efforts cannot erase broader regional rivalries. Moreover, the transition of American leadership—outgoing President Joe Biden’s team handing over to President-elect Donald Trump—creates uncertainty.


This proposed ceasefire, if realized, must navigate immediate logistical hurdles like the exchange of hostages and prisoners, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from parts of Gaza and measures to allow humanitarian aid to flow into the besieged enclave. Past agreements have faltered under similar pressures, with delays in implementation eroding trust.


History shows that sustainable peace requires more than a halt to fighting. In the aftermath of the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel retained control over territories seized from neighbouring Arab states, and intermittent peace talks over the decades failed to dismantle these realities. While accords such as Camp David (1978) and Wadi Araba (1994) achieved peace between Israel and Egypt or Jordan, their success relied on clearly delineated borders and mutual recognition. The absence of such clarity in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has repeatedly doomed negotiations.


While negotiators in Qatar edge closer to a deal, unless the underlying issues—territorial disputes, political legitimacy, and humanitarian equity—are meaningfully addressed, this agreement risks becoming yet another entry in a long catalogue of false starts.

Comments

bottom of page