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.

Tribal Calculus

The Maharashtra government’s decision to carve out a dedicated State Tribal Commission (STC), separate from the existing combined Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes body, may seem long overdue. After all, the Centre has maintained distinct commissions for these two historically disadvantaged communities for years. The question is not whether this move was justified - it almost certainly is. The more pressing question is: why now?


The official explanation is bureaucratic symmetry. Since New Delhi has had separate commissions for SCs and STs, Mumbai ought to mirror the model. Yet this belated alignment comes not in a vacuum but against the backdrop of renewed and intense anti-Maoist operations across the volatile tri-junction of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh and Telangana - a region where tribal discontent has often proven fertile ground for insurgency.


Over the past fortnight, security forces have killed at least 30 Maoists in this region, including top commanders and cadres, in a string of violent encounters. Surrenders, too, are on the rise. Besides intense operations in Chhatisgarh, Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli district, long a flashpoint, saw another bloodbath when four Maoists were recently gunned down and a fresh stockpile of arms and Naxal literature recovered. The point is to assume that the creation of the STC against this backdrop is entirely unrelated would seem naïve.


This is not to suggest the commission is a counter-insurgency tool in disguise. Rather, it is an attempt, however belated, to project the optics of inclusion, institution-building, and constitutional fidelity in a region where the state’s presence has too often been synonymous with the gun barrel. Tribal discontent in central India is rarely about ideology and primarily about land, displacement and the absence of genuine representation. In this context, the establishment of a commission devoted to Scheduled Tribes could serve both as a pressure valve and a political signal.


The move also reflects the growing political clout of tribal legislators in Maharashtra, given there are 25 in the state assembly and four in the Lok Sabha. These numbers are no longer electorally negligible. In recent years, tribal legislators have grown more vocal. This commission is, in part, the Mahayuti’s response to that appeal and also an effort to pre-empt further alienation of a voting bloc that helps swing seats in an increasingly competitive political landscape. That said, what tribal communities need is not another layer of bureaucracy but consistent implementation of the Forest Rights Act, targeted health and education services and a halt to exploitative displacement. The state’s track record on these counts remains patchy at best.


Furthermore, will this commission have investigative powers? Will its recommendations be binding? Or will it be another advisory body mired in red tape and underfunded in practice, like many of its predecessors?


Still, the Devendra Fadnavis-led Mahayuti government appears keen to show the permanence of governance in the state’s tribal pockets. Whether tribal communities see this as a genuine gesture or yet another arm’s-length sop will depend not on cabinet resolutions but on results.

Comments

bottom of page