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.

Hydraulic Pressure

India’s pause on the Indus Water Treaty marks a calculated shift from confrontation to coercive control.

Following the Pahalgam terror strike, India has suspended the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), citing ongoing security concerns. The treaty, which has endured decades of geopolitical challenges, now faces uncertainty as India uses its position as an upstream nation to regulate the region’s vital water flow.


IWT brokered by the World Bank in 1960, established a framework for water sharing between India and Pakistan. India was granted exclusive rights to the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) amounting to 33 million acre-feet (MAF) annually, while Pakistan received exclusive usage of the western rivers (Jhelum, Chenab, and Indus) with a total annual flow of 135 MAF.


The treaty bestows India with restricted rights over the western rivers, allowing usage for domestic needs, non-consumptive purposes like hydroelectric generation, and select agricultural activities in Jammu and Kashmir. Though India has developed dam projects along these waterways, their flow and storage remain tightly controlled under treaty regulations.


The annual combined flow of all six rivers is equivalent to 95 times of Mumbai’s total water storage. India is authorized to develop irrigation over 13.4 lakh acres in J&K but currently covers only 6.42 lakh acres. Similarly, while permitted to store 3.6 MAF from the western rivers, India's existing storage capacity remains significantly below this limit.

Immediately stopping such a massive water flow is unfeasible. While infrastructure on the western rivers remains limited, India’s well-developed facilities on the eastern rivers allow for temporary disruptions in Pakistan’s water supply. While the treaty permits India to store western river water only in July and August, suspension allows earlier storage, potentially limiting Pakistan’s supply during peak summer, impacting its sowing season. India could also disrupt water flow by suddenly releasing large volumes, causing unexpected flooding. Pakistan has already accused India of untimely Jhelum River discharge, allegedly triggering emergencies in Muzaffarabad. However, such actions remain constrained by existing infrastructure limitations.


India has adopted desilting as a short-term strategy to enhance water storage capacity. By removing accumulated sediment from river channels and reservoirs, this method increases storage potential and improves water flow management. Since it requires minimal infrastructure, desilting is a quick and effective solution.


Over the next few years, India plans to advance key hydroelectric projects on the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, including Pakul Dul and Ratle on the Chenab, the expansion of Kishanganga project on Kishangaga river (a Jhelum tributary), and fast-tracking Bursar on the Marusudar River (a Chenab tributary). While designed for hydroelectric generation, modifying these projects could increase water storage capacity to 1 MAF, potentially affecting Pakistan’s downstream flow,


India, while effectively using its eastern river share, still lets excess water flow into Pakistan. To curb this, it plans projects like the Shapurkundi Dam, the Ravi-Beas link and the Ujh multipurpose project which are expected to cut Pakistan’s water share by about 10 percent and boost Punjab’s irrigated area. Given Pakistan’s limited 14.4 MAF storage, even full Indian retention of its share could severely impact over 12 million acres of Pakistani farmland, strain power generation, worsen soil fertility, and accelerate groundwater depletion, especially amid increasingly erratic monsoons.


In their current stage and design, all these projects fully comply with the terms of IWT. Additionally, as they are not financed by the World Bank or any international agency, India remains free from external constraints in their execution.


Three key proposed projects on the western rivers remain unimplemented: the Marhu Tunnel, capable of diverting 2.5 MAF from Chenab to Ravi; the Jhelum-Beas Lift Scheme, which can transfer 1.2 MAF annually; and the Chenab-Ravi Link Canal, designed to redirect Chenab’s water to Ravi, significantly expanding irrigation in Punjab and Haryana. If executed, these projects could be completed by 2030-31, drastically impacting Pakistan's agricultural sector which has 30 percent share in its GDP exacerbating its already high inflation rate and food insecurity.


IWT doesn’t allow unilateral withdrawal or termination. However, India’s non-signatory status to the Vienna Convention and Pakistan’s signed but unratified stance creates gray area that India can exploit. While Pakistan may push the issue to the UNSC, India’s strengthened diplomatic ties at the world stage would reduce external pressures. Notably, India has suspended rather than revoked the treaty, allowing it to frame its stance as adhering to treaty principles while signalling potential restoration if Pakistan halts its support for insurgency.


India’s handling of the IWT reflects Sun Tzu’s maxim that wars are best won through strategy, not combat.

(The author is a Chartered Accountant with a leading company.)

Comments

bottom of page