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.

India’s Multi-Alignment Moment

As Washington demands choices, India refuses to abandon pragmatism in its foreign policy balancing act.

India’s foreign policy has evolved from Pandit Nehru’s idealistic non-alignment to a pragmatic multi-alignment approach, reflecting the complexities of today’s multipolar world. Engaging simultaneously with the U.S., Russia, and China, India seeks to preserve strategic autonomy while advancing its territorial integrity, economic growth, and regional leadership. Donald Trump’s decision to impose 50 percent tariffs on Indian exports has upset this delicate balance. China, despite being a key U.S. rival, faced only 30 percent tariffs, underscoring how trade policy is increasingly driven by geopolitics and challenging India’s autonomy in the face of Washington’s transactional stance.


Between 1947 and 1964, Nehru shaped India’s foreign policy around non-alignment, aiming to keep the country independent of Cold War blocs. Rooted in India’s colonial experience, this approach promoted peace, decolonization, and global cooperation, while allowing New Delhi to engage both superpowers and maintain strategic independence. Early Indo-Chinese diplomacy reflected optimism, captured by the slogan ‘Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai’ and the 1954 Panchsheel Agreement. Yet the 1962 border war shattered this hope. China’s swift military advance exposed India’s vulnerabilities, prompting a major reassessment of defence and foreign policy. Nehru’s idealism gave way to realism as India sought to protect its sovereignty.


Following the war, India’s socialist leanings aligned naturally with the Soviet Union, particularly as the U.S., focused on the Middle East, backed Pakistan for its strategic location. India found Moscow a more reliable partner to counterbalance U.S. influence. This partnership culminated in the 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, vital during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Soviet diplomatic support and naval presence deterred U.S. intervention in the Bay of Bengal, allowing India to decisively defeat Pakistani forces and facilitate the birth of Bangladesh. Despite strengthening air and naval capabilities, India avoided stationing Soviet forces on its soil, preserving its strategic autonomy.


Throughout the Cold War, U.S. support for Pakistan strained Indo-American relations. Nixon’s deployment of the Seventh Fleet during the 1971 war exemplified this tension. India, backed by the USSR, resisted American pressure, embedding mistrust that would linger for decades. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 forced another strategic pivot. India reduced reliance on Russia and bolstered ties with Washington, driven by its growing market, IT boom, and global diaspora. The 1998 nuclear tests invited U.S. sanctions, but diplomatic efforts by Prime Minister Vajpayee eased tensions. After 9/11, mutual strategic interests deepened the Indo-American partnership.


The 2008 Civil Nuclear Deal, brokered by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W. Bush, marked a turning point. It recognised India’s nuclear status and enabled cooperation despite its exclusion from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The deal reshaped U.S. perceptions of India, positioning it as a key Indo-Pacific partner. Yet India maintained its strategic partnership with Russia. The 2018 S-400 missile deal, signed despite U.S. sanctions threats, reaffirmed New Delhi’s autonomy. Russia now supplies nearly 40 percent of India’s oil imports, saving billions annually.


Over the past two decades, India and China have balanced growing trade with strategic rivalry. China is India’s top trading partner, yet border disputes have strained bilateral ties. The 2017 Doklam standoff and the 2020 Galwan clash illustrated how security concerns can override economic cooperation. In response, India restricted Chinese investments and blocked apps. Nevertheless, diplomatic contacts continued. Wang Yi’s August 2025 visit and Modi-Xi talks at the SCO summit reflected efforts to manage tensions under U.S. pressure. Resumed border negotiations and confidence-building measures indicated a shared interest in avoiding escalation, though far from strategic alignment.


Operation Sindoor in May this year marked a decisive shift in India’s defence posture. Precision strikes deep into Pakistan dismantled terror infrastructure and challenged its nuclear deterrent doctrine. India showcased advanced capabilities, notably using the Russian S-400 system, and rejected U.S. mediation attempts. The operation also highlighted India’s evolving ties with Russia and reduced dependence on the U.S.


Experts view the recent U.S. tariffs as a response to India’s assertive multi-alignment stance. Washington’s discomfort stems from India’s independent foreign policy, its defence ties with Russia, and continued oil imports from Moscow. The move reflected U.S. pressure tactics designed to force India into choosing between autonomy and economic incentives. India responded with measured restraint, intensifying its outreach to other countries and trade blocs to diversify partnerships.


U.S. hostilities opened space for tactical India-China engagement. Recent diplomatic exchanges, such as Wang Yi’s visit and the SCO summit, focused on managing tensions, not strategic convergence. That said, the idea of a Russia–India–China axis within BRICS remains aspirational at best. While all three oppose Western dominance and support multipolarity, conflicting interests hinder deeper cooperation. India uses BRICS as a platform for balanced engagement, wary of China’s attempts to turn it into an anti-Western bloc.


India is countering U.S. tariffs through domestic measures such as tax cuts to boost demand and export incentives to support traders. Trade diversification via BRICS, the EU and relaxed Chinese restrictions offer tactical flexibility. Strengthening ties with Europe, Japan and other democracies helps avoid overdependence on any single power.


India aspires to emerge as an independent and influential pole in a multipolar global order. As supply chains diversify, it is well-positioned to lead the China+1 strategy. Long-term initiatives such as Atma-Nirbhar Bharat and Make in India should be fast-tracked to boost indigenous capabilities.


India’s foreign policy is now facing its most complex test since independence. The key challenge lies in maintaining coherence across partnerships while defending core interests. China remains unpredictable, but India cannot afford to alienate the U.S. Recent tensions are tied largely to Trump’s personal vulnerabilities, and with his term ending in 2028, India must keep diplomatic channels open. Relations with Russia remain anchored in pragmatism and historical trust, while China presents the most delicate test.


India’s success in translating economic and military strength into strategic autonomy will define its global role. As S. Jaishankar aptly put it, India must engage with the world as it is while shaping the world it wants.


(The author is a Chartered Accountant with a leading company in Mumbai. Views personal)

Comments

bottom of page