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.

Trump’s Tariff Tango

President Donald Trump’s trade instincts have long confounded both allies and adversaries. A handshake one day, a punitive levy the next: the pattern has become his signature. India has felt this volatility acutely. First, Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on certain Indian imports, citing New Delhi’s continued purchase of discounted Russian crude. In the process, he dismissed India as a “daddy economy” - a curious barb implying dependence rather than strength. Yet the country he appeared to belittle has only grown more formidable.


India’s economy, long portrayed as a sluggish giant, is now showing startling resilience. GDP growth in the last quarter topped 7.8 percent, outstripping most of its peers. Foreign-exchange reserves are at record highs, and gold stockpiles continue to swell. Agriculture and micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises are expanding steadily, while industrial output has surged by more than 17 percent in recent months. International institutions, from JP Morgan to the International Monetary Fund, now describe India as poised to overtake Germany and Japan within the decade.


For a nation once dismissed as slow-moving, the transformation is unmistakable.


The recent SCO summit in Tianjin, China, offered a symbolic confirmation of India’s newfound influence. Sitting alongside China and Russia, India projected itself not merely as a participant in regional dialogue but as a potential pole of power in a multipolar world. The summit reinforced the notion that America can no longer isolate India without strategic consequences. Trump’s language, once dismissive, has begun to soften in response. Bluster has given way to cautious respect - a rare recalibration for a president renowned for his rhetorical volatility.


Several factors underpin this shift. India’s dominance in information technology, its rapidly growing semiconductor ambitions under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and its increasing integration into global supply chains make it indispensable. American firms, seeking alternatives to China, are eyeing India not just as a market but as a manufacturing hub. Agriculture, services and even defence procurement are becoming areas of growing interdependence. Startups, producing dozens of unicorns annually, highlight an innovation engine that few emerging economies can rival.


India’s role in shaping regional security in the Indo-Pacific and its participation in multilateral organizations positions it as a natural counterweight to China. For decades, U.S. policymakers have paid lip service to India as a stabilizing force in Asia. Today, that premise is being vindicated by data and diplomacy alike. The prospect of a multipolar world, with India, Russia and China forming an influential trio, challenges Washington to reconsider its assumptions about global influence.


Trump’s unpredictability remains a wildcard. His transactional approach means that tariffs and visa restrictions can continually resurface as leverage in negotiations. A single tweet or public address could undo months of careful diplomacy. Nonetheless, the structural trend is unmistakable: India’s economic heft and geopolitical influence are forcing a recalibration in Washington. Analysts note that Trump’s softened rhetoric may foreshadow a rollback of some punitive measures, particularly as American businesses lobby for greater access to the Indian market.


The political impact extends beyond trade as a new generation of urban Indian voters is asserting its preference for domestic over foreign brands, turning consumer choices into a form of geopolitical expression.


Another dimension is technology. India is emerging as a critical player in semiconductor manufacturing and digital services. Trump’s administration, keen to counter China’s technological dominance, has incentives to cultivate collaboration rather than confrontation. Energy is also a flashpoint: India’s growing reliance on renewable energy and its increasing role in global climate negotiations create arenas where cooperation, rather than tariffs, may be mutually beneficial.


The U.S.-India relationship is evolving into a complex matrix of economics, politics and symbolism. While Trump’s tariff threats capture headlines, the underlying dynamics reveal a broader story that India has grown too large, too innovative, and too strategically important to be ignored. The onus is on Washington to balance domestic political imperatives with the necessity of cultivating a partnership that serves both economies and stabilizes an increasingly fractious world.


India intends to assert its economic sovereignty while engaging with Washington pragmatically. The SCO summit and other forums underscore India’s confidence that its role in the world is now a decisive factor in shaping policy, not merely a backdrop to American strategy. The softening of Trump’s rhetoric, modest though it may be, only reinforces India’s standing as a global power.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page