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.

“We are also interested in probing the new contacts made by Headley in the country”

The extradition of Tahawwur Rana, a key conspirator in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, marks a significant step in India’s long fight for justice. The trial of Rana, who is accused of providing crucial logistical support to David Coleman Headley and the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), is expected to shed new light on the intricate web behind the attacks. In an exclusive two-part interview, Atulchandra Kulkarni, IPS (Retd.), Former Special DG, NIA, speaks with Kiran D. Tare, Editor, The Perfect Voice on Rana’s role, the broader conspiracy and the road ahead in the quest for justice. Excerpts…


How was the journey of Rana’s extradition?

Tahawwur Rana is a crucial figure. Following the 26/11 attacks, India established the National Investigation Agency (NIA), and one of the earliest cases it registered was against Rana and seven other Pakistanis. Rana arrived in the United States in October 2009, where a case was promptly lodged against him. He faced several charges and was convicted in 2011, meanwhile the NIA filed its chargesheet.


India’s first formal request for his extradition was submitted to the US authorities in 2012. Meanwhile, David Coleman Headley, a US national and co accused of Rana in the US Case, was sentenced to 35 years for his role in several offences including the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Headley was pardoned by the Mumbai Sessions court after he agreed to become a witness. In August 2015, an NIA team visited the United States, holding crucial meetings with senior officials, including representatives of the Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI - a key player in the case.


Also, a team comprising me working as the then Joint CP Crime and Special Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam also visited USA in August 2015 and January 2016 to tie up for the video evidence after obtaining and studying the US Court documents through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. During the visits, we met the defence attorneys for Headley. Subsequently, David Headley’s first five days of deposition took place in February, followed by another five days in March 2016. The court proceedings were attended by the Counsel for the NIA and a senior official of NIA. The process then gathered momentum, with the governments of India and the US, granting exceptional permission for direct meetings between the NIA and the FBI.

How did the case progress after these early breakthroughs?

In 2018, the first official meeting between the NIA and the United States Department of Justice took place. Meanwhile, earlier, an NIA delegation had visited the United States in 2010 or 2011 to interrogate Headley, though at that time Rana’s role was not fully apparent. By 2019, India had sent a revised extradition request.


In 2020, Rana applied for early release on grounds of good conduct. Initially sentenced to 14 years, his term had already been reduced to nine years. As he sought release, NIA sent a provisional arrest memo to stake our claim for his custody under international law. Though early release requests typically go through administrative channels, we closely tracked the developments. Between 2020 and 2024, Rana made several  attempts to secure release by inventing various grounds for appeal, despite being allowed only two appeals under normal procedure.


In June 2021, his extradition hearing was completed. Earlier that month, he had been arrested based on India’s provisional arrest request - a significant breakthrough. We had feared that his earlier bail, granted in June 2020, might lead to his release, but he was re-arrested within two days in our request. Once extradition proceedings commenced, Rana raised various objections, including claims of double jeopardy and concerns over likelihood of being treated unfairly in India as a Pakistani national. All objections were ultimately dismissed.


In May 2023, a US court ruled in favour of his extradition. Rana appealed, but the court again ruled against him in August 2023. Persisting, he filed another appeal before the Court of Appeals, prompting the Department of Justice to seek a formal reply. Though he filed further counters, they were disposed of by early 2024. This long, arduous journey eventually culminated in India securing a favourable verdict for Rana’s extradition.


Why was Rana important?

He is very important. He was arraigned in one case of NIA along with some Pakistani nationals, including some serving Army officials. So you can understand the importance of Rana and basically the hope that we have is that whatever had been revealed by Headley will be cross checked through his questioning, or we hope that he will provide some new information. Because, if you look at all the things in perspective, you will realize that Headly was employed by Rana. In addition, Rana had visited India just before 26/11 and it is said that he had put him through to some contacts in India. All these things will be revealed through the interrogation. He will also be able to throw light on the Pak connections which is our area of interest. Especially in the backdrop of the recent attack in Pahalgam, we need to be worried about the Pak connection, the organic connection between Pak sponsored terrorism in this country. One is the Pak angle, and second is cross checking of information revealed by Headley and thereby find out if they have any new plans. We are also interested in probing the new contacts made by Headley in the country.


If Rana does not reveal the facts due to the legal binding around the extradition, will NIA be able to explore the Pak connection?

Extradition is a very different process. Although it’s a legal process, it is in the political domain. All the decisions in extradition are political, although the proceedings go through the court. Our court studies the evidence thread, so does their court. It goes through the diplomatic channels. If a proposal is sent by the state, it will go through MHA, then MEA. The proposal would have to go through the External affairs minister’s signature to the foreign country. A major condition in extradition is that he will be tried only in those offenses that have been informed to them earlier. So no new offenses. There are many other conditions like he would not be given capital punishment, etc. However, questions can be asked, and I feel there is no possibility that he won’t answer. He will have to answer. Since he is already in jail for the last 13 years, he doesn’t have much to lose. Also it is felt that at some point of time remorse may have touched his heart. I am just speculating, now I am not a part of the set up any more.


Apart from logistical support and establishing contacts, did Rana and Headley share a deeper collaboration?

The relationship between Rana and Headley was far more than incidental. During the critical period leading up to the Mumbai attacks, the two maintained a strong and continuous flow of communication, often through emails written in coded language. Whenever Headley travelled to India, he would subsequently visit Pakistan, Canada, or the United States to meet with Rana.


The coordination between them was meticulous, with every development carefully conveyed. This tight-knit connection is further underscored by Rana's reaction following the attacks. He reportedly expressed jubilation and remarked that “all those who contributed must be given the Nishan-e-Pakistan honour” (Pakistan’s highest civilian award) highlighting both his deep involvement and sense of accomplishment.


What was the role of the office rented in Tardeo?

Contrary to some assumptions, the office in Tardeo, Mumbai was not rented by Rana. It was Headley who scouted for locations and ultimately rented the premises himself. His choice was strategic: he positioned himself close to the old American consulate, using the guise of a business setup to mask his real intentions.


Headley also interacted with local contacts during this period, including an elderly stenographer and a young Indian named Rahul Bhatt, whom he met during his frequent visits. The Tardeo office was a critical node in Headley’s preparations, but its establishment was very much his own operation, albeit loosely connected to Rana through indirect support.


(Tomorrow: Pakistan Army’s role in the attack)

Comments

bottom of page