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.

RSS wants to clear confusion, say scholars

Mumbai: The RSS wants the words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Secularism’ to be removed from the preamble of the Constitution, because they are creating confusion and contradiction, if right-wing scholars are to be believed.


“While the word ‘Socialism’ has lost its meaning, the word ‘Secularism’ is creating unnecessary contradiction in the various provisions of the constitution,” said Durganand Jha of the Centre for Policy Analysis at Patna, while hailing the statement made by RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale for a need to debate the issue of removal of the term ‘Secularism’ and ‘Socialism’ from the preamble of the Indian Constitution.


“The statement has rightly caught attention of the nation. It needs to be thoroughly debated and acted upon,” Jha opined.


In 2020, a petition challenging validity of the words in the Preamble, by Adv. Balram Singh, backed by former Law Minister Subramaniam Swamy and Adv. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, was struck down by the apex court. When asked about it, Ravindra Mahajan of Ekatma Vikas Samiti in Mumbai, pointed out that mere rejection of the petition doesn’t mean the issue is wrong. “It probably needs to be put before the Supreme Court in a proper manner,” he said.


Jha, however, pointed out that the use of word ‘secular’ in the preamble of the Constitution leads to contradiction with respect to many of its provisions. “Validity of the word will have to be challenged on this ground,” he said.


Inclusion of the term ‘Secularism’ is inconsistent with various provisions of the Constitution of India. Eg. Article 14, 15 and 16 of the constitution give ‘equal rights’, ‘right to equal opportunity’ and ‘prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion, caste, race, sex and place of birth’. While Article 26 bestows to all religionists ‘equal rights in managing their religious affairs’, Article 25 gives an exclusive right to the minorities to ‘propagating religion’ and Articles 28, 29 and 30 give circumstantial advantage to Christianity and Islam where religious conversions accepted. “These articles put Hindu in a disadvantageous situation as it is not a proselytising religion,” Jha said and added that inclusion of word ‘Secularism’ in the preamble of the Constitution of India made those Articles of Indian Constitution which give special rights to the minorities, inconsistent with the preamble of the Constitution. “And hence the word needs to be removed.”


Jha also pointed out that, the word ‘Socialism’ was inducted into the preamble of the Constitution, at around the same time when China, the epitome of ‘Socialism’, was actually embracing capitalism. He also said that the people of India have to decide whether they support the preamble approved by Ambedkar, Nehru, Sardar Patel or the preamble adulterated by Indira Gandhi.


Jha also said that, if something is undone which was done during an emergency when the country was on tenterhooks, and all opposition leaders were in prison, it will be a true homage to the struggle of those who fought and spent months in prison to keep the flame of democracy alive in the country.


"The Preamble of a constitution is not changeable. But this Preamble was changed by the 42nd Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1976. And in the process, if you deeply reflect, we are giving wings to existential challenges. It is nothing but belittling the civilisational wealth and knowledge of this country for thousands of years. It is a sacrilege of the spirit of Sanatan. These words have been added as nasoor (festering wound). These words will create upheaval."

Jagdeep Dhankhar, Vice President

Comments

bottom of page