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.

New Dawn or Old Rivalries?

Updated: Jan 20, 2025

Khaleda Zia’s acquittal in a corruption case paves the way for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party leader to contest elections, but the nation’s deep fractures remain.

Khaleda Zia

Over the decades, Bangladesh has swung between autocratic rule, flawed democracy and bitter feuds between its two dominant political figures - Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia. In August last year, mass protests toppled Sheikh Hasina, forcing her to flee to India, with Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus stepping in as interim leader. Now, her rival Khaleda Zia seems set for a political resurgence.


The 79-year-old leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) secured a crucial victory last week when the Supreme Court acquitted her and her son, Tarique Rahman, in a 2008 corruption case. The court’s decision overturned a 10-year prison sentence handed down in 2018 for allegedly misappropriating orphanage funds during her term as prime minister. This ruling follows a similar acquittal last November in another graft case, effectively removing the legal obstacles preventing her from contesting the next general election.


Since 1981, when Zia’s husband, President Ziaur Rahman, was assassinated, she has been a central figure in the country’s political landscape. Thrust into leadership, she assumed control of the BNP in 1984, just as Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of Bangladesh’s founding leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, returned from exile to lead the Awami League. Together, the two women forged alliances to topple the military dictatorship of Hussain Muhammad Ershad in 1990, only to descend into decades of mutual animosity.


This rivalry has defined Bangladeshi politics, alternating between Zia and Hasina’s leadership since the 1990s. Hasina’s 15-year tenure, which ended in August, was marred by allegations of authoritarianism, electoral manipulation, and crackdowns on dissent. Meanwhile, Zia’s terms in office were similarly controversial, characterized by corruption allegations and a confrontational style of governance.


Following Hasina’s ouster, the Yunus-led interim government has struggled to establish a timeline for new elections. Zia and the BNP, rejuvenated by the fall of their rival, are now eager to seize the political vacuum.

Zia’s release from house arrest in August and her subsequent trip to London for medical treatment signal her re-entry into active politics. Her son, Tarique Rahman, who fled to London in 2008, has been similarly exonerated of criminal charges, positioning him as the BNP’s future face. However, his controversial reputation—rooted in corruption allegations and human rights abuses—casts a shadow over the party’s prospects.


Zia’s comeback may offer hope to BNP loyalists, but it does little to address the nation’s deeper crises. Bangladesh’s democratic fabric has been eroded by decades of political vendettas. Both Zia and Hasina have exploited state institutions to sideline their opponents, undermining judicial independence and the electoral process. The Supreme Court’s recent rulings, while favourable to Zia, will do little to dispel perceptions of politicized justice.

Economic challenges compound these political woes. Bangladesh’s rapid economic growth in recent years masked structural vulnerabilities. Dependence on garment exports, remittance inflows, and foreign loans has left the economy susceptible to global shocks. Rising debt and faltering investor confidence threaten to undo hard-won gains in poverty alleviation and infrastructure development.


For the interim government, the priority must be restoring public trust in governance. However, the absence of a political consensus and lingering tensions between the BNP and Awami League complicate this mission.

Zia’s acquittal and renewed political ambitions offer a dramatic twist in Bangladesh’s tumultuous narrative. But it remains unclear whether Zia, weakened by age and health, can lead her party through the treacherous terrain of national elections.


As for Hasina, her future is uncertain. Her ability to stage a political comeback, as she did in 2008, will depend on whether her Awami League can regroup under her leadership or find a credible successor.

Right now, the willingness of Bangladesh’s fractured political class to put national interests above personal rivalries seems a tall order in a country where history too often repeats itself.

Comments

bottom of page