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.

Tariffs and Tribulations

Trump’s trade wars promise pain today for a distant and uncertain gain.

Trump

Donald Trump’s latest broadside, sweeping tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, lands a punch in the gut to global markets and American consumers alike. The move, cloaked in the language of nationalism, fulminates against fentanyl, illegal immigration and economic injustice. The president, now fully unshackled in his second term, has declared a national emergency, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs of 25 percent on Canada and Mexico and 10 percent on China.


Trump’s protectionist crusade is not new. Higher tariffs on Canadian lumber and Chinese pharmaceuticals have invited swift retaliation. Mexico and Canada have announced countermeasures, while China plans to challenge the move at the WTO. The last tariff war (2018–19) drove up costs for U.S. firms and consumers, and history may repeat itself. Automakers like Volkswagen warn of supply chain disruptions, while energy producers brace for instability.


Trade wars are neither good nor easy to win. The 2018-2019 tariff battles resulted in higher costs for American businesses and consumers, with studies showing that the bulk of the financial burden fell on U.S. firms rather than foreign exporters.


For American households, the effects will be immediate. A new round of tariffs means higher costs on everything from household appliances to food. Trudeau’s retaliatory tariffs on $155 billion worth of U.S. goods including peanut butter, beer and wine will send ripple effects through the agricultural sector. Meanwhile, Mexican and Chinese countermeasures could squeeze American manufacturers, forcing them to pass costs onto consumers.


The prime justification for these tariffs is their purported link to the fentanyl crisis. The Trump administration insists that Mexico and Canada are complicit in the opioid epidemic, citing a “growing presence” of fentanyl production in both nations. Yet, experts in law enforcement and public health overwhelmingly disagree.


Critics disagree with the White House’s assertion that fentanyl has killed tens of millions of Americans. At the peak of the opioid crisis in 2022 and 2023, total overdose deaths, from all drugs combined, reached around 114,000 annually - a national tragedy, no doubt, but nowhere near the apocalyptic scale Trump describes.


Trump’s weaponization of emergency powers to enact these tariffs is already facing legal scrutiny. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act was never intended to be a trade cudgel. Beyond its domestic consequences, Trump’s tariff blitzkrieg is straining America’s global alliances at a precarious moment. The European Union has said it would respond firmly should Trump extend his tariff war across the Atlantic.


For India, the tariff war presents a complex scenario in form of both risks and opportunities in the evolving global trade landscape.


On the one hand, the disruptions in U.S.-China trade relations could allow India to position itself as an alternative manufacturing hub, particularly in sectors like pharmaceuticals, electronics, and textiles. Multinational companies looking to diversify supply chains away from China may consider India, especially given New Delhi’s efforts to incentivize domestic production under the Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme.


On the other hand, India could also suffer collateral damage. The global slowdown triggered by trade wars could dampen demand for Indian exports, particularly in sectors like IT services, auto components, and chemicals, where India depends on both China and the U.S. for raw materials and markets.


Trump has long accused India of being a “tariff king” and has previously targeted Indian exports. However, New Delhi has been taking steps to improve trade optics. Recent budgetary revisions have reduced peak customs duty rates from 150 percent to 70 percent, signalling an attempt to counter criticism from Washington.


While India has not been directly affected by the latest round of U.S. tariffs, its diplomatic strategy will be crucial. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has been strengthening ties with Washington, particularly on defence and technology cooperation. If Trump were to escalate tariff measures against other trading partners, India may seek bilateral exemptions or leverage its growing strategic partnership with the U.S. to negotiate trade-offs in sectors like semiconductors, clean energy and defence procurement.

Comments

bottom of page