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.

The Evolving QUAD: Cooperation Over Confrontation in the Indo-Pacific

Formed by four democracies after the 2004 tsunami, the QUAD has evolved from relief efforts to tackling shared challenges—from dialogue to delivery.

In an era of shifting power and competing global visions, few groupings capture the Indo-Pacific’s geopolitical pulse like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD). Comprising India, Japan, Australia and the US, it serves as a vital forum for democracies committed to a free, open and rules-based region.


Born of a humanitarian crisis and revived amid growing strategic uncertainty, the QUAD now stands at a crossroads. Its move from informal talks to coordinated action shows maturity, but its future depends on turning shared ideals into lasting results.


The QUAD’s story began with the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, when the four nations coordinated relief efforts, paving the way for closer cooperation. In 2007, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe proposed an “Arc of Democracy”, leading to the first official QUAD dialogue. However, differing priorities and Chinese opposition soon stalled the initiative.


A decade later, China’s expanding influence and the Belt and Road Initiative revived interest in coordination. Reborn in 2017 as a forum for shared challenges rather than a military alliance, the QUAD has since widened its focus to infrastructure, supply chains, cyber resilience and vaccine distribution—evolving from dialogue to delivery.


Current landscape

Over time, the QUAD has built a steady rhythm of summits, ministerial meetings and working groups, reflecting growing maturity. The four nations have launched joint initiatives like the 2021 Vaccine Partnership to expand regional access during COVID-19. They also run working groups on climate and critical technologies, and maritime programmes to protect freedom of navigation.


These efforts show progress beyond rhetoric, though limits remain. Unlike NATO, the QUAD has no charter, treaty, or secretariat.Its informality allows flexibility but also reveals differing priorities. The US views it as part of its Indo-Pacific strategy, India values autonomy, Japan faces constitutional limits, and Australia balances security with economic ties to China.


The QUAD has recently expanded its agenda through naval drills like Malabar and new frameworks on disaster response and supply chain resilience. There is also discussion of a “Quad Plus” format involving partners such as South Korea and Vietnam. Yet leaders insist it is not an “Asian NATO” but a flexible coalition built on shared values and regional stability.


China factor

At the core of the QUAD’s evolution lies the question of China. China’s rapid military growth, economic assertiveness and aggressive posture in the South and East China Seas have raised regional concerns. Though the QUAD avoids framing itself as containment, its existence reflects a delicate balancing act. China sees it as an exclusive bloc, while members insist it is an inclusive, cooperative forum.


This tension defines the QUAD’s strategic tightrope—deterring aggression without provoking confrontation and building influence without causing division. Its ability to maintain this balance will determine both its relevance and the future of Indo-Pacific security.


The QUAD’s future lies at the crossroads of ambition and adaptability, with several paths ahead.


One likely direction is greater institutional coherence. A small secretariat could align priorities, ensure follow-through and strengthen communication. Deeper cooperation in defence technology, space security and critical minerals could also build trust.


Beyond security, the QUAD may broaden its focus to non-traditional challenges such as health, digital governance, climate resilience and sustainable infrastructure—offering visible benefits across the Indo-Pacific. By providing alternatives to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, it can position itself as a source of regional public goods rather than an exclusive bloc.


Another possibility is a “Quad Plus” framework, involving partners like South Korea, the Philippines, or Indonesia in specific projects. This flexible setup could deepen collaboration without the rigidity of expansion.


Each path, however, carries risks. Leadership changes could shift priorities, excessive military focus might alienate Southeast Asia, and domestic pressures could slow momentum. The task, then, is to build on success without losing flexibility—the QUAD’s key strength lies in its informality and agility. Preserving these while extending its influence will require careful balance.


Promise, pragmatism

The QUAD today is both a symbol and an experiment—four major democracies working to shape the Indo-Pacific through cooperation, not confrontation. Its strength lies in shared vision rather than formal structures, but its future depends on tangible outcomes: secure supply chains, digital links, sustainable infrastructure and resilient institutions.


Its success will be measured not by its stance on China but by its role in ensuring regional stability and prosperity. If it can balance strategy with development, the QUAD could redefine the Indo-Pacific order—not as an alliance of containment, but as a partnership of empowerment.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page