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.

Shifting Alliances

Saudi Arabia’s defence pact with Pakistan signals a new phase in Gulf-South Asian security.

Islamabad and Riyadh recently formalised a defence agreement whose origins stretch back more than half a century. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir presided over a ceremony that yielded an unusually stark declaration: any aggression against either country would be treated as aggression against both. In a region defined by overlapping rivalries, the pact is a recalibration of strategic commitments.

 

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have long shared military intimacy. Pakistani troops were sent to the kingdom in the late 1960s amid regional instability stemming from Egypt’s intervention in Yemen, a precursor to decades of cooperative arrangements. That partnership deepened after the 1979 Grand Mosque seizure in Mecca, when Pakistani special forces provided critical tactical support. By 1982, a formal Bilateral Security Cooperation Agreement institutionalised the relationship, allowing Pakistani deployments on Saudi soil, arms transfers, and advisory roles, while embedding Islamabad in Riyadh’s defence planning.

 

This latest pact is the first explicit mutual-defence agreement with a nuclear-armed partner, elevating the stakes of a historically discreet alliance. Its timing is significant: Israel’s strike in Qatar, Iran’s growing regional assertiveness, and U.S. uncertainty in the Gulf have created a security vacuum.

 

For Saudi Arabia, the deal is a hedge against Iranian influence, Houthi attacks in Yemen, and the destabilising effects of Israeli–Arab hostilities, while signalling a willingness to assert regional autonomy independent of Washington. For Pakistan, it offers fiscal relief through Saudi investment while bolstering Islamabad’s claim to pan-Islamic security leadership and strengthening its hand in nuclear deterrence dynamics. Analysts suggest the pact may enable Pakistan to purchase American weapons financed indirectly by Riyadh, sidestepping political hurdles in Washington.

 

The pact cannot be disentangled from the Indo-Pak rivalry, which remains the primary determinant of Pakistan’s strategic calculations. Earlier this year, Operation Sindoor saw Indian forces strike deep inside Pakistan-administered territory, inflicting severe damage on Pakistani military infrastructure.

 

Yet, the pact complicates Riyadh’s relationship with New Delhi. India has cultivated deep economic, strategic, and energy ties with Saudi Arabia, with bilateral trade hitting nearly USD 43 billion in fiscal 2023–24. Successive high-level visits, from King Abdullah in 2006 to PM Narendra Modi in 2016, have cemented a strategic partnership. Riyadh has historically sought to mediate Indo-Pakistani tensions, condemning terrorism without criticizing Indian policy. A formal defence alignment with Pakistan risks tilting the kingdom’s neutrality, creating latent friction with India.

 

Saudi Arabia’s defence posture now touches upon the nuclear equation in South Asia, where Pakistan’s capabilities counterbalance India’s conventional superiority. In a wider context, the pact demonstrates how Middle Eastern and South Asian security architectures are intertwined, with conflicts in one region reverberating in the other.

 

For Islamabad, the deal consolidates decades of military diplomacy. Since the Cold War, Pakistan has positioned itself as a security provider for the Muslim world, with Riyadh as a consistent patron. Economically, Saudi backing can relieve pressure on Pakistan’s shrinking foreign-exchange reserves, while politically, it allows Islamabad to project influence without appearing entirely dependent on Washington. Historically, such alignments have been double-edged: Pakistan’s Cold War entanglements yielded short-term gains but deepened confrontation with India and drew Islamabad into Afghanistan’s quagmire. Saudi Arabia has oscillated between caution and assertiveness, from the 1991 Gulf War to interventions in Yemen, highlighting the risks inherent in formalised defence commitments.

 

India’s response has been measured but wary. Yet the subtext is clear: a nuclear-armed Pakistan bound to a major Gulf power alters regional deterrence and complicates New Delhi’s strategic calculations. It could shift the balance of influence in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Peninsula.

 

The Saudi-Pakistani pact is a signal of the persistent relevance of historical ties, the fragility of regional balances, and the tangled web of interests linking South Asia, the Gulf, and the wider Middle East, where rivalries between Iran, Israel, and the United States intersect with South Asian fault lines. For Islamabad, it is a victory in prestige and finance. For Riyadh, a hedge against uncertainty.

Comments


bottom of page