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.

Stopping Venezuela, Strangling India

U.S. President Donald Trump takes aim at Venezuelan crude oil, with India caught in the crossfire.

Donald Trump has fired another salvo in his trade wars, this time at Venezuela. The U.S. President has announced a sweeping 25 percent tariff on any country that dares to import Venezuelan oil, effectively weaponizing global energy markets against Nicolás Maduro’s regime. The announcement, made on Trump’s Truth Social platform, cited Venezuela’s alleged export of criminals (including members of the notorious Tren de Aragua gang) as the reason for this economic punishment. The move, however, has little to do with crime and everything to do with geopolitics.


India, which has become Venezuela’s largest buyer of crude, now finds itself in an awkward position. If Trump’s tariffs are enforced, Indian oil giants like Reliance Industries and Indian Oil Corporation will have to rethink their procurement strategies. Given that India imported a staggering 22 million barrels from Venezuela in 2023, amounting to 1.5 percent of its total crude purchases, the implications could be costly.


Trump’s move is less about punishing Venezuela than coercing U.S. allies into compliance - a familiar tactic from his first term, notably against Iran. But Venezuela lacks Tehran’s geopolitical clout or sanctions-proof trade networks. Instead, it wields oil as both a lifeline and a weapon, a strategy dating back to Hugo Chávez’s defiance of American dominance.


Before U.S. sanctions throttled its economy, Venezuela was the third-largest supplier of crude to the United States, exporting over 1.5 million barrels per day in the early 2000s. Chávez used oil to cement alliances, offering preferential deals to Cuba and other left-leaning governments. His successor, Nicolás Maduro, continued this trend, albeit under grimmer economic conditions. The U.S. crackdown on Venezuelan oil in 2019 forced Caracas to turn to alternative buyers, chief among them, India and China.


For India, Trump’s move complicates an already delicate balancing act. Indian refiners have increasingly relied on Venezuelan crude, especially after American sanctions on Russian oil narrowed their options. The appeal of Venezuelan oil lies in its deep discounts, often undercutting Middle Eastern crude by $15 to $20 per barrel. This makes it particularly attractive for price-sensitive Indian refiners.


If imposed, Trump’s tariffs would force Indian refiners to pay a premium on Venezuelan crude, effectively neutralizing the price advantage. The tariffs could deter Indian firms from dealing with Venezuela altogether, pushing them back towards more expensive Middle Eastern suppliers.


India’s economy is surging, with oil demand projected to rise steadily over the next decade. The country is on track to overtake China as the world’s largest driver of oil consumption growth by 2030. While India scrambles for alternatives, China stands to benefit. Beijing, already Venezuela’s second-largest oil buyer, will likely seize the opportunity to increase its influence.


Trump’s tariffs, far from isolating Venezuela, could end up deepening its dependence on China. The last time Washington imposed sweeping oil sanctions on Venezuela, China stepped in to fill the vacuum. If history repeats itself, Beijing will gain even greater leverage over Venezuela’s energy sector, further diminishing U.S. influence in Latin America.


Venezuela’s oil wealth - 303 billion barrels, the world’s largest - has been both a blessing and a curse. Discovered by foreign firms in the early 20th century, crude made Venezuela the top exporter by the 1920s by supplying oil to a war-ravaged Europe and an industrializing United States. In the 1970s, the industry was nationalized under Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), a state-run oil giant, PDVSA, thus boosting OPEC influence. However, the 1980s oil crash left Venezuela in debt, forcing an IMF bailout and deepening its economic turmoil.


For India, the path forward is unclear. New Delhi has historically been pragmatic in its energy dealings, resisting American pressure when it suits its interests. It defied U.S. calls to halt Russian oil imports after the Ukraine war, securing lucrative discounts in the process. But Venezuela, unlike Russia, lacks the geopolitical weight to make defiance worthwhile.

Comments

bottom of page