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.

My Stalingrad, My Reckoning

In 2018, gripped by a restless literary hunger for something that could match the philosophical depth and vast human canvas of Leo Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace,’ I reached for Vasily Grossman’s monumental ‘Life and Fate.’


What I found was something bleaker, more shattering and more honest. Grossman’s magnum opus is not just the greatest novel of the Second World War but mirror held up to the soul, mine included.


That year, I had been struggling quietly with a myriad of personal and emotional crises. My body was failing in small ways. So was love. I turned to literature in search of something deep in its moral and emotional reach. Grossman gave me that and more. He offered no comfort, but he taught me acceptance.


Finished in 1960, ‘Life and Fate’ was (unsurprisingly) banned by Soviet censors. Mikhail Suslov, the Kremlin’s high priest of ideology, had the KGB raid Grossman’s apartment and seize everything pertaining to the book - carbon copies, draft manuscripts, typewriter ribbons. Suslov is reported to have told Grossman that his book could not be published for the next two hundred years! That a novel could so terrify the oppressive Soviet state reveals just how clearly Grossman’s truths cut through the fog of toxic ideological propaganda.


Historian Antony Beevor put it succinctly when he observed that Grossman was the first to draw an explicit moral equivalence between Nazism and Stalinism, the similarities between the gas chambers of Auschwitz and the interrogations of the Lubyanka. In both systems, the individual is ground down under the heel of totalitarianism.


Grossman also had that rarest of combinations: physical and moral courage. A nearsighted, middle-aged Ukrainian Jewish intellectual, Grossman embedded himself with Red Army troops at the front lines, from Stalingrad to Berlin. He never took notes during conversations with soldiers, fearing it would alienate them. Instead, he would sit quietly, listen deeply and write everything down by night. His work for Red Star, the Soviet army newspaper, stood out for its honesty. Soldiers trusted him. He was, they said, the only one telling the truth.


That truth is what pulses through ‘Life and Fate.’ Its sprawling canvas is set amid the backdrop of the brutal Nazi invasion of Soviet Russia. Around it unfurls a panorama of Soviet life under siege: from the Shaposhnikov family scattered across frontlines and rear to physicists in state laboratories walking a tightrope of ideology and survival to soldiers on the steppe and prisoners in gulags and Nazi death camps alike. The novel’s moral centre is Viktor Shtrum, a physicist and surrogate for Grossman himself, who bears witness to the suffocating compromises required to survive under Stalin. In an unbelievably grim moment of history, Grossman finds redemption in the smallest acts of decency - a woman sharing her bread in a death camp, a soldier refusing to denounce a comrade.


The book does not preach. It observes. And it does so with a Tolstoyan eye for the tragic contradictions of history. The title is no accident as ‘Life and Fate’ was intended as a 20th-century homage to ‘War and Peace.’ But where Tolstoy saw providence, Grossman saw absurdity and the deep loneliness of freedom.


For me, that was the revelation. The only victory Grossman offers is the capacity to endure. That acceptance, oddly, helped me come to terms with my own condition, to deal with the uncertainty of tomorrow and the fragility of relationships. As Grossman writes, “Human history is not the battle of good struggling to overcome evil. It is a battle fought by a great evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness.”


That kernel, somehow, survives. So do we.


(The writer is a Technology VP in an investment bank.)

Comments


bottom of page