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.

Trade Match

Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Keir Starmer have shaken hands on a long-anticipated trade deal between India and Britain. It was not the moment many had predicted — a Labour leader celebrating a free trade agreement (FTA) that had eluded his Conservative predecessors for nearly three years.


The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), as it is formally known, promises to boost bilateral trade by $34 billion annually. India’s textiles, marine products, and engineering goods will gain near-total tariff-free access to British markets. Provisions for services, digital trade and skilled mobility, though modest, signal a willingness to deepen ties beyond goods.


That it fell to Starmer to ink the deal is as much a twist of political timing as it is a commentary on Britain’s evolving posture abroad. Negotiations that had begun under Boris Johnson had slogged on through the premierships of Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. The latter, himself of Indian heritage, was widely expected to deliver the deal and did in fact bring the process close to conclusion. But internal pressures over immigration and looming elections froze political momentum. Labour’s clean electoral sweep, coupled with Starmer’s desire to project global seriousness, offered just enough clearance to push the pact over the line.


Both sides emerge with wins. The UK secured headline access for its whisky industry as India is the world’s largest whisky market by volume, and established a precedent-setting chapter on financial services. New Delhi agreed that British firms would not face more restrictions than Indian companies, a first for India in any trade pact. London, in turn, made some concessions on professional mobility, opening a visa route previously closed to Indian temporary workers.


For India, the gains are broader and potentially deeper. Around 99 percent of Indian exports will face zero tariffs under the deal. Agri-exports will benefit from simplified certification rules and streamlined technical barriers. Textiles and garments, long disadvantaged against rivals like Bangladesh and Cambodia who already enjoy duty-free access, will now compete on level terms in the UK’s $27 billion market. The engineering sector could double exports to the UK by 2030. Pharmaceuticals, electronics, marine products and software services stand to gain significantly.


Notably, the deal tiptoes around domestic sensitivities. India has shielded its dairy, poultry, and edible oil sectors from British imports, while the UK has kept sugar, milled rice and some animal products under existing tariffs. Labour has been careful to emphasise that the pact will not lead to wider immigration or permanent settlement pathways. Whether these guardrails hold remains to be seen.


CETA is unlikely to revolutionise trade flows overnight. India’s total goods exports to the UK still trail behind those to the UAE and the US. But symbolically, the agreement matters. It marks Britain’s most substantive FTA with a non-Western power post-Brexit. It anchors India more firmly into the UK’s Indo-Pacific trade vision. And it positions both countries — former coloniser and colony — not as supplicant and patron, but as strategic equals seeking mutual advantage.

Comments

bottom of page