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 ICC Roars, but Can It Bite?

Updated: Nov 29, 2024

Benjamin Netanyahu

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu


Last week, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defence minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas leader, Ibrahim Al-Masri. At first glance, the charges - alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict - might appear as a bold attempt to enforce justice. But scratch beneath the surface, and the ICC’s action highlights its glaring limitations, internal contradictions and the enduring scepticism surrounding its authority.


For a court designed as the world’s last resort for prosecuting the gravest atrocities, the ICC remains remarkably ineffectual. It has no police force, relying on its 124 member states to arrest suspects - a tall order when those accused are heads of state or key players in geopolitically sensitive conflicts. Netanyahu, whose government has consistently rejected the court’s jurisdiction, labelled the ICC a “biased and discriminatory political body.” The Hamas leadership dismissed the charges as well.


The ICC’s predicament is emblematic of a broader historical pattern: international institutions that promise justice and order but lack the teeth to enforce it. The League of Nations, the ICC’s conceptual ancestor, was established to prevent conflicts like the First World War from recurring. Yet its impotence became evident when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and Germany annexed Austria in 1938. Lacking enforcement mechanisms and the support of key powers like the United States, the League’s lofty ideals crumbled under the weight of realpolitik, paving the way for the Second World War. The ICC, while more modern in structure, risks a similar fate of marginalization in a world where power often trumps principle.


Its current challenges are reminiscent of other fraught attempts at international justice. The ad hoc tribunals established for the Balkan Wars of the 1990s offer a cautionary tale. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) eventually secured convictions for war crimes, including those against Serbian leaders like Slobodan Milošević. But the process was painfully slow, fraught with political interference, and dependent on Western military and diplomatic backing. Even then, many accused evaded justice for years, and the tribunal’s legacy remains contested in the Balkans.


More troubling is the ICC’s prosecutor, Karim Khan, whose own credibility is under scrutiny. Khan, who sought the arrest warrants, faces allegations of sexual misconduct that external investigators are currently examining. His ethical cloud undermines the ICC’s moral high ground, raising questions about whether the court can hold others accountable while its chief prosecutor battles serious allegations.


The United States, Israel’s staunch ally, swiftly condemned the ICC’s decision. President Joe Biden deemed the move “outrageous,” while a White House spokesperson criticized “troubling process errors” in the court’s handling of the case. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, said to be close to President-elect Donald Trump, dismissed the ICC as a “dangerous joke,” calling for sanctions against what he termed “irresponsible” actions by the tribunal.


The ICC’s global standing further complicates matters. Major powers, including the United States, Russia, China, and India are not signatories to the Rome Statute, effectively shielding themselves and their allies from ICC jurisdiction. This leaves the court reliant on smaller states for legitimacy, often focusing its prosecutorial energies on Africa and less geopolitically contentious regions. The decision to issue warrants against both Israeli and Hamas leaders might appear even-handed, but it cannot obscure the fact that geopolitical reality often trumps justice.


Israel’s rejection of the ICC’s jurisdiction stems from a technicality. While the ICC claims territorial jurisdiction over Palestine, Israel does not recognize Palestine as a state, creating a legal grey area. Yet Pre-Trial Chamber I dismissed Israel’s challenge, asserting its authority to investigate alleged crimes committed on Palestinian territory. This legal back-and-forth has done little to resolve the fundamental issue: without Israel’s cooperation or that of its allies, the ICC’s warrants are toothless.


Recall that in 2009 and 2010, the ICC issued arrest warrants against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Despite these warrants, al-Bashir travelled freely to several ICC member states, including South Africa and Chad, without facing arrest. It finally took a domestic uprising in Sudan to oust him in 2019, highlighting the ICC’s inability to enforce its mandates. In 2005, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, and several of his commanders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, nearly two decades later, Kony remains at large, evading capture despite international awareness of his atrocities – an instance which glaringly underscores the ICC’s enforcement limitations.


Symbolically, the ICC’s warrants draw attention to the devastating human toll of the Gaza conflict. Yet symbolism without enforcement risks irrelevance.


The ICC’s creation in 2002 was heralded as a milestone for global justice. Yet two decades later, it remains a beleaguered institution, hamstrung by political realities and internal failings. The decision to issue warrants against both Israeli and Hamas leaders might appear even-handed, but it cannot obscure the fact that geopolitical reality often trumps justice.

Comments

bottom of page