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.

Is America Following Stalin’s Post-WWII Salami Tactics?

Moldova’s path to European Union (EU) membership could dramatically alter the dynamics of the conflict in Ukraine. The strengthening Western influence in Eastern Europe and increasing pressure on Russia’s geopolitical ambitions draws a comparison between the Western support for Eastern Europe today and the Soviet Sphere of influence that existed under Stalin’s regime Post World War II. At the heart of the debate lies the question: How far is America’s role in Eastern Europe today like Stalin’s efforts of establishing a Soviet- Sphere of influence in the 1940’s?


After World War II, Stalin through his salami (bit by bit) tactics occupied Eastern Europe in the hope to create a Soviet Sphere of influence. He forcefully installed Communist regimes in Eastern Europe to create a buffer zone of the Soviet-controlled states. The occupation of Eastern European nations, such as Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, was framed under the guise of safeguarding them from Nazi resurgence, but it had the ultimate goal of transforming them into satellite states of the Soviet Union. Stalin’s political manoeuvring and military pressure led to the installation of totalitarian regimes loyal to Moscow, solidifying Soviet control across much of Eastern Europe by the late 1940s.


However, in contrast to Stalin’s tactics, Moldova, a country that Shares 1,200 kilometres with Ukraine is actively seeking EU membership with a hope to create democratic reforms and economic stability.


Moldova holds strategic importance within this region. As a part of the former Soviet republic and one of Europe’s poorest nations, Moldova has faced its own challenges under Russian influence, particularly in the breakaway region of Transnistria. Moldova’s membership into the EU would thus likely lead to an increased Western presence within the region, enhancing both its security and its alignment with Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression. Since its independence in 1991, Moldova has struggled with Russian influence, particularly in the breakaway region of Transnistria, where pro-Russian forces maintain control.


If Moldova becomes a part of the EU, it will potentially serve as a logistical and strategic support point for Ukraine. It would gain access to significant economic and military support which would possibly allow Moldova to facilitate supply lines and humanitarian aid into Ukraine. This could increase Ukraine’s resilience, particularly in the Odessa region, which has close access to the Black Sea.


Additionally, the EU and NATO support within Moldova could help fortify its borders against the potential Russian incursions or Russia’s destabilisation efforts, limiting Russia’s ability to use Moldova as a foothold to launch operations. Moldova’s entry into the EU would not automatically extend NATO’s Article 5 protection but could open doors for enhanced security partnerships and sharing intelligence that could significantly control Russian actions in both Moldova and Ukraine. The EU is working to create a region of self-sustaining, democratic states that can work collaboratively to address common challenges. This model relies on voluntary partnerships and shared governance rather than enforced ideology or military occupation.


Many feel that America’s role reflects a response to security challenges rather than an expansionist agenda. “What the West is doing is fundamentally about supporting sovereignty and self-determination,” said a senior analyst at the Atlantic Council. “The U.S. and EU are investing in resilience and not occupation.”


Russia has expressed its concerns that Moldova’s EU alignment undermines its regional influence. Moscow views the Western support to Moldova as a part of a broader effort to contain Russia’s power near its borders. Kremlin officials see this move as an encroachment into a sphere where Russia has historically held control. While Russia often employs tactics like cyber operations, misinformation and political pressure in Eastern Europe, Western support for Moldova emphasises transparency and democratic governance.


For Moldova, EU membership offers a chance to escape the economic and political challenges that have hampered its development since Soviet times. For the EU, integrating Moldova represents a commitment to fostering a stable, democratic region. For the U.S., a Europe fortified by economic and political resilience in Eastern Europe stands as a counterweight to Russia’s regional influence.


As Moldova advances toward its membership to the EU, the differences between Stalin-era expansion and today’s Western support highlight a fundamental change in approach. This membership could help consolidate the EU’s eastern border, establishing a fortified boundary against potential Russian aggression. As Moldova’s membership gains traction, it could become a pivotal player in shaping a new European order, one in which the EU’s influence stretches to the edges of the post-Soviet space, recreating the balance of power and underscoring the importance of a united Europe in the face of aggression.


As Moldova’s membership gains traction, it could become a pivotal player in shaping a new European order, one in which the EU’s influence stretches to the edges of the post-Soviet space, recalibrating the balance of power and underscoring the importance of a united Europe in the face of aggression.


(The author is an educationalist. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page