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 Indus Waters Treaty: A Rare Constant in a Tumultuous Relationship

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

The Indus Waters Treaty: A Rare Constant in a Tumultuous Relationship

In a region fraught with historical enmities and enduring tensions, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) stands out as a rare beacon of cooperation between India and Pakistan. Signed on September 19, 1960, the treaty has weathered more than six decades of wars, conflicts, and cross-border skirmishes, maintaining a crucial role in fostering a fragile peace between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. As the agreement marks its 64th anniversary, its significance in shaping Indo-Pakistan relations remains as vital as ever.

The roots of the treaty lie in the chaotic aftermath of the partition of British India in 1947, which not only split territories but also divided the vast and interconnected Indus River basin. Comprising six rivers—the Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—the basin was critical to the agriculture-dependent economies of both nations. The partition turned what had once been a shared resource into a potential flashpoint for conflict, as disputes over water rights quickly escalated amid broader tensions between the newly formed countries.

In addition to grappling with territorial disputes like those over Kashmir and Hyderabad, and the challenges of managing a massive exchange of refugees, both India and Pakistan faced the daunting task of redefining the management of shared resources in the context of their newfound sovereignty. For India, which rejected the two-nation theory that underpinned Pakistan’s creation, the management of these shared resources was a complex issue of national interest, while for Pakistan, securing water from the upper riparian state became a matter of survival.

The negotiations over the Indus River system unfolded against the larger backdrop of Cold War politics. While India pursued a policy of Non-Alignment - eschewing formal alliances with either the American or Soviet blocs - it was nevertheless deeply aware of the geopolitical realities of the era. Non-Alignment for India meant actively opposing colonialism, imperialism, and racism, while striving to carve out an independent path that did not succumb to the pressures of superpower rivalry.

After nearly a decade of negotiations facilitated by the World Bank, the Indus Waters Treaty was finally signed by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Pakistani President Ayub Khan, and W.A.B. Iliff, the World Bank’s Vice President. The treaty divided the waters of the Indus basin: the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) were allocated to India, while the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) were designated for Pakistan. To mitigate potential future conflicts, India agreed to provide financial compensation for the development of irrigation systems in Pakistan, demonstrating a rare moment of goodwill in an otherwise adversarial relationship. Agriculture being the backbone for both these economies, the Indus River basin was vital for both the economies of the newly-born nations.

The IWT is widely regarded as one of the most successful water-sharing agreements in history. Its resilience lies in its clear guidelines and the establishment of the Permanent Indus Commission, which oversees the treaty’s implementation and provides a platform for dialogue and dispute resolution. This institutional framework has allowed India and Pakistan to manage their shared water resources without letting disputes escalate into larger conflicts, a remarkable achievement given the broader volatility of their bilateral relations.

For Pakistan, the western rivers are a lifeline, supporting its largely agrarian economy and ensuring food security. The treaty guarantees Pakistan a steady supply of water, which is crucial for its economic stability. For India, control over the eastern rivers has been instrumental in the agricultural development of Punjab, contributing significantly to the country’s Green Revolution. The economic benefits derived from the treaty have, in turn, reinforced its importance for both nations, making it a rare constant in their otherwise fraught relationship.

Despite its success, the IWT faces growing challenges. Climate change, rapid population growth, and increasing demand for water are putting immense pressure on the Indus River system. Both India and Pakistan are grappling with water scarcity, and the treaty’s provisions are increasingly being tested by these evolving dynamics. Political rhetoric around the treaty has also intensified in recent years, with some in India calling for a re-evaluation of the agreement in response to cross-border terrorism from Pakistan. In Pakistan, concerns about India’s construction of dams on the western rivers have fueled fears of reduced water flow, leading to calls for international mediation.

The future of the IWT may therefore depend on the ability of both countries to manage these challenges collaboratively with its legacy of resilience and cooperation, offering a path forward in a complex and often volatile relationship.

(The writer is an educationalist based in Mumbai. Views personal.)

Comments


bottom of page