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 Donald Trump set to become the New ‘Vishwaguru’?

From halting the violence in Gaza to confronting Putin over Ukraine, Trump’s high-stakes diplomacy has reasserted U.S. influence at a time of global uncertainty.

Donald Trump has always believed the world needs a teacher and that the teacher is him. Few politicians so nakedly revel in self-congratulation, yet few can deny that the former property magnate has once again placed himself at the centre of global diplomacy. The guns in Gaza have fallen silent. Hostages have returned home. Humanitarian convoys have begun rolling into an enclave reduced to rubble. For the first time in two years, since Hamas’ murderous assault on Israeli civilians and the Jewish state’s grim retaliation in Gaza, Israelis and Palestinians are not at war.

 

If the latest truce in Gaza endures despite all the scepticism, and if Washington reasserts itself under Trump’s swaggering stewardship, a provocative question that arises then is whether Trump, and not Modi, is on his way to becoming the world’s new ‘Vishwaguru’ - a title the Indian Prime Minister uses for India’s moral leadership.

 

For much of the past decade, PM Modi has cast India as a moral compass in a disordered world. Yet Trump, through sheer noise and nerve, now claims a similar mantle for America not as the world’s conscience, but as its instructor. Of course, Trump’s gospel is not dharma but dominance and his pedagogy is not persuasion but pressure.

 

The ceasefire in Gaza bears Trump’s unmistakable stamp. Having returned to the White House promising to end wars and win peace, he has delivered a truce (albeit an uncertain one) that eluded a generation of American presidents. His admirers call it proof that only a dealmaker who is unfettered by ideology, protocol or multilateral ‘niceties’ could have achieved what others merely preached. His detractors see a reckless showman staging yet another act in his long global performance. Both may be right. That said, Trump is the man of the hour following the ceasefire in Gaza.


The final straw, if reports are to be believed, came when Israeli fighter jets struck the Qatari capital in an audacious bid to eliminate Hamas’s exiled political leaders last month.

 

The attack targeted not merely Hamas but an American ally hosting 10,000 U.S. troops and hundreds of billions of dollars in investments. It was, in effect, a direct affront to Washington’s interests. Trump’s response was swift and uncharacteristically focused. Within a week, his administration unveiled a 20-point plan that brought Israel and Hamas to the table.

 

The agreement secured the release of 20 Israeli hostages and nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, opened humanitarian corridors, and imposed a temporary cessation of hostilities. Unlike his earlier Abraham Accords, there was no theatrical talk of a Gaza Riviera or “new Middle East.” This time, Trump seemed content to play peacemaker rather than showman. Even Bill Clinton, no fan of his successor, grudgingly conceded that “the president and regional partners deserve great credit” for bringing both sides back from the brink.

 

Uncertain Truce

The fine print, however, exposes the frailty of Trump’s triumph. The plan envisions an “international stabilization force” to oversee Gaza’s recovery, yet no country has volunteered troops. Two hundred American officers will monitor the ceasefire from afar; Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates have all hedged their commitments. The enclave remains under the uneasy control of local militias, aid agencies and Israeli drones.

 

The governance blueprint is equally hazy. Trump’s proposal calls for a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee,” overseen by a ‘Board of Peace’ chaired by Trump himself and joined by former British prime minister Tony Blair has already provoked Hamas’s rejection. No one quite knows how this committee will be chosen or what powers it will wield if Hamas continues to operate in the shadows.

 

Most glaringly, the plan carries no enforcement mechanism. Israel violated previous ceasefires without consequence; Hamas, fractured and leaderless, cannot guarantee discipline among its fighters. Trump may have bought a pause, not peace. But all this remains to be seen.

 

Transactional Vision

Trump’s diplomacy has always been guided less by doctrine than a kind of gut-level transactionalism that treats geopolitics as deal-making on a grand scale. His approach to Vladimir Putin offers a case in point. Once famously deferential to the Russian leader, Trump has lately turned scathing, describing the war in Ukraine as “a four-year disaster that should have ended in one week.” In his telling, Putin has “lost a million and a half soldiers,” and the war “is bigger than anything since World War II in terms of death.”

 

The bluntness is vintage Trump, but so is the calculation. By chastising Moscow and hinting that Washington might supply Kyiv with Tomahawk missiles, Trump signals a desire to reclaim leverage over both adversary and ally. Trump has invited Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to the White House to “explore long-range weapons.” It is telling that a few months ago, Trump was clamping down relentlessly on Zelenskyy, even calling the latter a ‘dictator’ for trying to protract the war in Ukraine.

 

To his credit, Trump is applying pressure on Putin now. Trump’s foreign policy is animated by a salesman’s conviction that everything — war, peace, trade, or ideology — is negotiable. This ethos was on display during his recent meeting with Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, where he announced a $20 billion U.S. aid package. It was part reward for Milei’s pro-market zeal, part attempt to counter China’s deepening reach in Latin America, and part self-advertisement: the art of the deal, rebranded as global strategy.

 

Of course, we Indians have learnt the hard way in Trump’s self-anointment as global guru. Besides his cosying up to Pakistan, Trump’s ‘America First’ economics have translated into punitive tariffs and a staggering hike on H1B visa fees.

 

Trump’s foreign policy operates on a paradox. He rails against America’s global burdens yet cannot resist performing America’s centrality. He disdains institutions like the United Nations but covets the spotlight they provide. In Gaza, Ukraine, and beyond, his message is consistent: multilateralism is obsolete, strongmen make peace, and diplomacy must bear his signature.


His admirers find reassurance in this brash clarity. They see a leader unafraid to threaten or cajole, one who secures outcomes while others prevaricate. His detractors see a narcissist mistaking improvisation for insight. But Trump’s methods have had a peculiar efficacy.

 

If Trump’s new global posture evokes the ‘Vishwaguru’ archetype, it is a deeply Americanised version devoid of the moral or philosophical underpinning that India associates with the term.

 

Modi’s vision of India as teacher to the world draws on civilizational heritage and spiritual universalism. Trump’s, by contrast, is pragmatic, self-referential and laced with commercial logic.

 

This attitude resonates in an age when traditional powers are unsure of themselves. Europe is distracted, China is preoccupied, Russia is diminished. The vacuum leaves space for a kind of maverick diplomacy that thrives on spectacle. Trump, who once promised to make America great again, now aims to make it indispensable again through shock and sheer audacity.

 

Whatever the fate of the ceasefire, Trump has done what many said was impossible: stopped the fighting, brought hostages home, and restored a sense of American command in a fractured world.


The question is not whether Trump believes he is the world’s teacher (he plainly does) but whether the world is willing to be taught. For a president who feeds on validation, that is victory enough.

Comments

bottom of page