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.

Twisting History

In an audacious display of historical revisionism, Pakistan has not only sought to deny Bhagat Singh his rightful place in history but has also taken the extraordinary step of branding him a ‘terrorist.’ This comes despite Singh’s widely acknowledged status as one of India’s greatest freedom fighters and a revolutionary martyr. Bhagat Singh was hanged by the British colonial government in Lahore Central Jail 1931 at the age of 23, but now, the authorities in Pakistan have chosen to brand him a criminal, a designation that is as inaccurate as it is offensive.


This attempt to undermine Singh’s legacy comes with the scrapping of a proposed plan to rename Shadman Chowk in Lahore after him and install his statue there. The proposal was halted in response to the views of a retired Commodore Tariq Majeed, a member of the committee set up by the Lahore district government to oversee the renaming. Majeed’s objections were both insulting and historically inaccurate, claiming that Bhagat Singh was not a revolutionary but a “criminal,” and that in today’s terms, he would be considered a “terrorist.” Singh, according to Majeed, had killed a British police officer and was therefore deserving of execution - an interpretation that gravely distorts the very nature of Singh’s sacrifice.


Majeed’s report went further, alleging that Singh was influenced by “religious leaders hostile to Muslims” and accusing the Bhagat Singh Foundation of promoting an ideology contrary to Islamic values. He also claimed that it was not acceptable in Pakistan to honour a figure who was an atheist, and that human statues, in line with Islamic prohibitions, should not be allowed. The fact that these views were taken seriously by the Lahore government shows not only a deep-seated bias but an active effort to erase Bhagat Singh’s place in history.


This revisionist narrative is an affront to the principles of justice and history. Bhagat Singh’s actions were rooted in a deep sense of nationalistic fervour and a commitment to ending colonial oppression, not religious or ideological extremism. His bomb attack on the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi was intended as a protest against British imperialism, not an act of indiscriminate violence. It was an expression of defiance against the tyranny of colonial rule, not the terror of an insurgent group.


What makes this revisionism even more glaring is the hypocrisy of Pakistan itself, a nation with a long and documented history of sponsoring terrorism. From providing safe havens to groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, to orchestrating violence in Kashmir and Afghanistan, Pakistan has long used terrorism as a tool of statecraft. To then turn around and condemn Bhagat Singh - who fought to free his people from colonial oppression - is not only absurd but deeply insulting.


External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and the Indian government must respond firmly. Singh’s stature as a revolutionary icon is unquestionable, and India must not allow this travesty to go unchallenged.

Comments

bottom of page