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.

Tariff Trouble

US President Donald Trump has slapped steep ‘reciprocal tariffs’ on major trading partners, with India among the hardest hit. From April 9, Indian exports to America will face levies of 27 percent - a staggering jump from the current average of 2.7 percent. The move is part of a broader strategy to narrow America’s $1.2 trillion trade deficit by mirroring other countries’ tariff regimes, albeit at half their rate.


India has long attracted criticism in Washington for its tariff regime. Agricultural tariffs, among the highest globally, average over 100 percent and reach 300 percent in some cases. But the friction runs deeper than numbers. India frequently revises its tariffs through annual budgets and ad hoc notifications, with little consultation or transparency. Foreign investors face regulatory uncertainty, telecom equipment and solar technology face targeted duties, and key sectors such as retail, banking and insurance are marked by heavy state intervention and uneven rules.


The new tariffs mark a clear escalation in trade tensions. Indian steel, aluminium and auto components will be subject to 25 percent duties. Though pharmaceuticals and semiconductors are currently exempt due to their importance in American supply chains, the tariff wall has risen sharply across most categories. Washington has warned that further hikes could follow if countries retaliate, suggesting that escalation remains a live threat.


India’s response so far has been measured. New Delhi appears unlikely to impose retaliatory tariffs of its own. Instead, it is likely to pursue quiet negotiations, hoping to secure exemptions or delays. That may be wise. India’s export profile is less vulnerable to such shocks than those of more trade-dependent Asian peers. Moreover, its recent push for self-reliance through schemes such as ‘Make in India’ has somewhat reduced its dependence on overseas demand.


Yet the pain will be real. The United States remains India’s largest export destination, and any erosion of market share there will hurt. Sectors such as energy and automobiles are particularly exposed. Some gains may accrue in textiles, where traditional rivals like Vietnam and Bangladesh are also facing US tariffs. But any gains are likely to be modest and patchy. Much depends on how other countries respond and how global supply chains adapt. There is also a broader strategic cost. America’s tariff decision has turned a spotlight on India’s economic policymaking. Washington’s lengthy catalogue of grievances - from opaque digital policies and erratic FDI rules to agricultural subsidies and internet shutdowns - reads like a reform checklist. India must decide whether it wants to protect the inefficiencies of the status quo or seize the moment to modernise its regulatory apparatus and embrace more transparent governance.


Ultimately, India’s challenge is not just about tariffs but about leverage. Without structural reform, its hand in future negotiations will remain weak. As the global trading system fragments into transactional deals and strategic alliances, the cost of standing still will grow. If protectionism was once a shield, it is fast becoming a shackle.

Comments

bottom of page