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 War Pakistan Cannot Win

Calls for Baloch independence grow louder amid Pakistan’s faltering military crackdown and intensifying international scrutiny.

Baloch

Few conflicts in South Asia have been as protracted and overlooked as the struggle for Balochistan’s independence. The mineral-rich but war-ravaged province has been embroiled in an insurgency against Pakistani rule for over seven decades. Now, the latest remarks by Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the chief of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F), have delivered a stinging blow to Islamabad’s long-standing narrative of control. His candid admission that Balochistan is at a tipping point, where a declaration of independence might win immediate international recognition, has injected new urgency into an already volatile situation. Pakistan’s military establishment, long accustomed to crushing dissent in the region, now faces a reality it cannot ignore.


The Baloch insurgency is not merely surviving but gaining legitimacy in global forums. The Free Balochistan Movement (FBM), a prominent voice in the Baloch independence struggle, has seized on this momentum. The group has called for the establishment of a United Nations Mission in Balochistan (UNMIB) to oversee a transition to self-rule, drawing comparisons to past international interventions in East Timor, Kosovo, South Sudan and Eritrea.


If history is any guide, such interventions have typically followed episodes of extreme repression, international condemnation, and the erosion of a state’s credibility. Pakistan’s long record of military operations and indiscriminate bombings in Balochistan fit the profile of a state that has lost moral authority over a rebellious province.


Balochistan’s troubles date back to 1948 when Pakistan annexed the region shortly after gaining independence from Britain. The Baloch, with their distinct ethnic identity, language, and cultural heritage, have never fully accepted this incorporation. The past seven decades have seen waves of armed resistance, each met with brutal military reprisals. Pakistan’s security forces have waged relentless campaigns against Baloch nationalists, forcing tens of thousands to flee their homes. Human rights organizations have documented cases of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture, yet Islamabad’s tactics have done little to quell the rebellion.


China’s involvement has only exacerbated tensions. Beijing’s grand ambitions for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) rely heavily on Balochistan’s strategic coastal city of Gwadar, which Pakistan has militarized to secure Chinese investments. The Baloch see this as yet another phase of external exploitation. Attacks on Chinese engineers and infrastructure projects have become routine, signaling the insurgents’ determination to resist foreign encroachment.


The military’s heavy-handed approach has also drained Pakistan’s financial resources. Despite its struggling economy, the country continues to allocate billions of rupees to sustain military operations in Balochistan. Yet, the insurgency has not only endured but evolved, shifting from scattered guerrilla attacks to more coordinated urban resistance. If Fazlur Rehman’s remarks are any indication, even the political class in Pakistan is beginning to acknowledge the untenability of perpetual conflict.


The FBM’s calls for UN intervention may not yield immediate results, but they have precedent. In 1999, NATO intervened in Kosovo, leading to Serbia’s retreat and eventual recognition of Kosovo’s independence. East Timor gained statehood after a United Nations Transitional Administration shepherded it to independence in 2002. South Sudan seceded from Sudan in 2011, following years of civil war and international mediation. Eritrea’s break from Ethiopia in 1993 came after UN involvement in the peace process.


Pakistan’s nervousness about Balochistan’s trajectory is evident. The military, long the dominant force in the country’s affairs, continues to justify its repression under the guise of national security. However, if the international community starts to view Balochistan through the same lens as Kosovo, East Timor, or South Sudan, Islamabad’s narrative will crumble. For decades, Pakistan has sought to frame the Baloch insurgency as a fringe terrorist movement, but the growing chorus of voices undermines that claim.


The road to Balochistan’s independence remains fraught with obstacles, but the argument for an independent Balochistan is no longer confined to rebel circles. Unless Islamabad corrects course by addressing Baloch grievances through meaningful political dialogue rather than military crackdowns, it now risks losing the province altogether.

Comments

bottom of page