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.

Gods, Crowds and Courts

The Uttar Pradesh government’s takeover of Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir raises the urgent question whether Hindus can manage their temples without the intervention of courts and the state?

Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Last month, the Uttar Pradesh government formally assumed control of Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir through a new ordinance. It was the culmination of a long legal saga and a response to a tragedy.


The Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas Adhiniyam, 2025, came just ten days after the Supreme Court issued a landmark verdict allowing the state to acquire land for developing the temple’s surroundings but only if the land remained in the name of the temple’s deity, not the government. The ordinance creates a trust board to manage the temple, composed of bureaucrats, scholars and two representatives from the traditional Goswami families who have overseen the temple’s rituals for generations.


The legal and constitutional stakes are significant. Under Articles 25 and 26 of India’s Constitution, religious groups have the right to manage their own affairs. But Article 25(2) allows the state to regulate these rights in the interest of public order, morality or health. That is precisely the clause the Supreme Court invoked when it ruled that the state could step in to fix what had become a dangerously mismanaged religious institution. In this case, the trigger was a deadly stampede in 2022 during Janmashtami celebrations that killed devotees and injured many more. The temple had become an overcrowded hazard with no emergency exits, poor crowd control and inadequate infrastructure to handle the more than 5 lakh pilgrims who descend during festivals.


The tragedy had prompted a Public Interest Litigation in the Allahabad High Court, highlighting the failure of existing management systems and calling for urgent safety measures. The state responded with a plan to acquire 5 acres of land around the temple to develop restrooms, parking lots, security infrastructure and wider access roads to the tune of over Rs. 700 crore. Initially, the government proposed to use Rs. 300 crore from the temple’s own corpus to fund land acquisition, but the High Court refused, wary of inflaming ongoing disputes between the Goswami lineages over control of the temple’s finances. The Supreme Court eventually allowed it, as long as the land remained under the temple’s name.


The Supreme Court’s intervention was shaped not just by the crisis at Bankey Bihari but by a broader malaise of temple mismanagement, notably in the case of Mathura. Nearly 200 temples are currently caught in litigation, many overseen by court-appointed lawyers who have converted spiritual stewardship into permanent sinecures. The SC derided this phenomenon as ‘Receiver Raj’ and demanded an audit of all such arrangements.


Opponents of state intervention argue that the move infringes on Hindu autonomy. But the facts speak for themselves. The temple had been under the control of a Civil Judge since 2016, with little improvement. Rituals remained sacrosanct, but basic safety, sanitation and crowd control were ignored. A spiritual centre attracting lakhs was run like a rural shrine. The Goswamis, hereditary priests entrusted with sacred duties, lacked both the capacity and the infrastructure to manage a modern religious complex. Their spiritual authority did not translate into civic competence.


When temple governance fails to prevent stampedes or provide clean facilities, the state has a constitutional obligation to act. As the SC judgment noted, what applies to stadiums and hospitals must apply to temples too, especially those that serve millions.


The takeover also reframes a larger dilemma as to who should steward dharma in public life? While Hindus argue for the right to manage their temples, that right comes with legal, ethical and spiritual obligations. When those are shirked, the vacuum invites state control.


One possible way forward is to establish an independent Civil Temple Management Board which would be a professional, accountable body distinct from both traditional custodians and the government. Such a model would also reduce the risk of state overreach while ensuring that temples are run with the seriousness and safety expected of any large public institution.


The saga of Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir is about rethinking how India, while respecting faith, must modernise the management of its religious heritage.

Comments

bottom of page