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.

When Nations Stay Away: Sri Lanka's SCO Absence

One notable absence was Sri Lanka’s President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, despite the country holding ‘dialogue partner’ status since 2010.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is a key Asian forum, bringing together China, Russia, India, Pakistan and four Central Asian republics to discuss security, economic cooperation and regional stability .The Tianjin summit took place from 31 August to 1 September 2025 and drew over 20 world leaders. Attendees included Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi—his first visit to China in seven years—and Russian President Vladimir Putin.”One notable absence was Sri Lanka’s President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, despite the country holding ‘dialogue partner’ status since 2010. Officials cited his ‘crowded schedule’, but the absence reflects deeper geopolitical currents as Sri Lanka navigates international waters amid external pressures and competing alignments.


Sri Lanka’s diplomatic challenges go beyond the SCO. Its ties with BRICS—a bloc of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, representing about 40% of the global population—follow a similar pattern. BRICS meets annually to coordinate trade and development finance and reduce reliance on Western-dominated institutions.


Sri Lanka applied for BRICS membership in October 2024 and secured backing from several foreign ministers. However, at the Kazan summit in Russia, it sent only its Foreign Secretary instead of a high-level delegation. While other nations gained ‘partner’ status, this proved costly, and Sri Lanka’s application was rejected. It did gain access to the BRICS New Development Bank, which could aid its economic recovery.


Global Patterns

Sri Lanka is not alone; such behaviour reflects a broader trend of nations making tough alignment choices, often resulting in strategic absences from major forums.


Diplomatic boycotts occur even within established blocs. ASEAN has excluded Myanmar from its summits since the 2021 military coup, with six consecutive absences damaging its regional standing and economic prospects. Absenteeism has also risen across Southeast Asia, as Indonesian and Thai leaders skip summits for domestic commitments, reflecting shifting priorities even among founding members.


In 2024, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Finland boycotted meetings in Hungary over Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s unauthorised wartime visits to Russia and China. The European Commission also partially boycotted Hungary’s EU presidency, sending civil servants rather than commissioners.


Several factors explain Sri Lanka’s recent diplomatic absences. Reports suggest it declined China’s SCO invitation due to ‘pressures from an undisclosed foreign mission’, highlighting the tough choices smaller nations face amid competing powers. Its economic crisis also demands careful balancing: India has provided $4 billion in aid, while China holds major infrastructure stakes, including Hambantota Port. Notably, President Dissanayake’s National People’s Power government, despite its pro-Chinese roots, chose India for his first overseas visit, signalling a recalibration of regional ties.


Regional recalibration

Sri Lanka’s summit diplomacy reflects global realignments, as smaller nations face pressure to pick sides in great power competition, creating both risks and opportunities for regional powers like India.


The key lesson for Indian policymakers is to move beyond exclusive ties and demonstrate India’s value as a reliable, patient partner supporting neighbours’ legitimate economic and international goals.


India’s ‘Neighbourhood First Policy’—launched in 2008 and strengthened after 2014—aims to deepen ties with neighbours through economic cooperation, infrastructure and cultural exchange. Yet it faces challenges across the subcontinent, with Chinese Belt and Road investments creating competitive pressures and yielding only mixed results.


While India provided crucial aid during Sri Lanka’s economic crisis, it struggles to match China’s long-term infrastructure commitments. Similar trends appear elsewhere—the Maldives shifts between India and China, while Nepal increasingly turns to China for development. Sri Lanka highlights both the challenges and opportunities of India’s regional approach; despite substantial aid, the relationship demands constant recalibration against Chinese influence.


Sri Lanka’s absence from major multilateral forums creates opportunities for India to strengthen bilateral ties. India could fast-track the proposed Economic and Technological Cooperation Agreement, expand digital collaboration through platforms like Aadhaar, and support Sri Lanka’s IMF bailout while boosting infrastructure investments.”


Rather than competing with China in infrastructure, India can support Sri Lanka’s BRICS membership, aid integration into Indian Ocean initiatives, and promote South-South cooperation. President Dissanayake’s assurance that ‘Sri Lankan territory would not be used in ways inimical to India’s security’ is a notable diplomatic gain India can build on.


Sri Lanka’s recent summit absences create openings for India to rebuild regional influence subtly. Success requires addressing economic, security and political concerns without the competitive edge that has sometimes marked India’s diplomacy. Sri Lanka offers a test case for an evolved strategy—support over pressure, patience over demands, and mutual benefit over zero-sum competition—that will likely shape India’s regional approach for years.


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

Comments

bottom of page