India’s athletes entered the Asian Para Games carrying years of training, classification assessments, funding uncertainty and the ordinary terror of competition. Much of the country’s sports media responded by placing them below cricket speculation. The schedule for October 19 alone included Indian participation across badminton, athletics, archery, shooting, swimming, judo and table tennis, as this event guide recorded. That is not a shortage of stories. It is a shortage of editorial imagination.
I am tired of hearing that audiences only want cricket. Audiences want what institutions repeatedly teach them to recognise. Cricket arrives with alerts, explainers, player profiles, studio debates and clips optimised for every screen. Para-sport often arrives as a medal tally after the event. One is presented as unfolding drama; the other as a worthy result. Then executives compare engagement and announce that consumer preference has spoken.
Visibility begins before the medal
Athletes become compelling when we know their style, rivals, recent form and competitive stakes. Disability need not be the entire story, and inspiration need not be the only genre. Tell me how an archer adjusts under wind, why a badminton matchup is tactically awkward, or which classification shapes a race. Let athletes be ambitious, funny, irritable and technically fascinating. The relentless demand that every para-athlete symbolise courage can become another way of refusing to cover sport.
The official scale of India’s participation is visible in records surrounding the 2026 Asian Para Games campaign, but a list of entrants and medals is merely scaffolding. Broadcasters and federations should supply biographies, pronunciation guides, accessible schedules and rights-cleared highlights before competition begins. Newsrooms should assign reporters by sport rather than sending one generalist to harvest quotes after medals.
I know the commercial objection. Travel costs money, rights are fragmented and cricket subsidises much else. But digital coverage does not require a television army. A knowledgeable reporter, reliable video access and a thoughtful publishing plan can build an audience. Federations can make this easier by providing mixed-zone access, timely results and usable media assets. Too often, basic information arrives late or in formats designed for office files rather than public interest.
Do not confuse inspiration with equality
Indian coverage has a ritual after a para-sport medal. A photograph circulates, politicians congratulate the athlete and headlines invoke overcoming adversity. For a day, everyone agrees the achievement is extraordinary. Then discussion returns to whether a cricketer should bat at three or four. The celebration is sincere but structurally shallow. Equality would mean following athletes when they lose, change coaches, struggle for classification clarity or prepare for the next circuit.
The inspiration template also risks turning disability into scenery for an able-bodied audience’s emotional improvement. Athletes do not exist to make the rest of us feel grateful. They are elite competitors. Their impairments shape technique and classification, but their sporting identities include tactics, temperament, rivalry and craft. Coverage that cannot move beyond biography fails them even while praising them.
There is also a policy story. Accessible facilities, prosthetic support, travel assistance, coaching expertise and competition exposure determine performance. When we encounter athletes only at medal ceremonies, we miss the administrative chain that enabled or obstructed them. Sports journalism should ask who received equipment on time, which camps were adequate, how selection worked and whether promised rewards arrived. Applause without scrutiny serves federations more than athletes.
Cricket is not the enemy; laziness is
I do not want less cricket because I want more para-sport. Cricket’s popularity is real, culturally rich and commercially valuable. The false choice is created by schedules and homepages that behave as though one sport must occupy every available pixel. A country of India’s size can sustain multiple sporting conversations. The obstacle is institutional habit.
Cricket coverage itself offers the model. Explain rules without condescension. Introduce athletes repeatedly. Show rivalries. Make schedules easy to find. Use graphics to clarify classifications. Invite former competitors who can analyse technique rather than merely applaud courage. Publish clips quickly enough that social conversation can form around a shared moment. Familiarity is produced by repetition.
Schools and local clubs matter too. A major para-sport event should prompt broadcasters to create short explainers that teachers and coaches can use. Public venues could screen finals. State associations could arrange conversations between elite athletes and young disabled players. These are not charitable gestures. They are audience development and talent development at once.
Coverage must itself be accessible
There is an irony in celebrating para-sport through inaccessible media. Videos without captions, graphics unreadable by screen readers, poor audio description and websites overloaded with intrusive design exclude parts of the audience whose athletes are being praised. Accessibility cannot be a ceremonial footer. It should shape production from the start.
Broadcasters should caption interviews accurately, provide audio description where feasible and ensure schedules work with assistive technology. Venues need accessible ticketing, transport information, seating and toilets. A federation that posts a triumphant message while its own registration portal is unusable has misunderstood inclusion. The measure is not sentiment but function.
The counterargument says sustained interest cannot be commanded. Of course not. Some sports will attract larger audiences than others, and not every event warrants identical resources. My argument is for a fair chance at discovery. When coverage is scarce, late and technically thin, low engagement proves nothing. Let editors invest consistently across a season, then assess what readers follow.
There is another reason this matters. Sporting attention influences sponsorship, and sponsorship influences whether athletes can train without financial precarity. Media cannot promise money, but it can stop making athletes invisible until victory. Profiles, regular results and analytical coverage create a public record that sponsors and administrators notice. Recognition should not depend on a medal arriving at exactly the right news hour.
I will watch the Asian Para Games for the same reason I watch any serious competition: uncertainty, skill and nerve. I refuse the patronising notion that doing so is a civic duty. The sport is worthy because it is sport. India’s athletes deserve criticism when they underperform, admiration when they excel and curiosity throughout. That is what normal coverage looks like.
The next time an editor says readers are not interested, I would ask what the newsroom did to invite interest. Was the event on the homepage? Did anyone explain the contenders? Were highlights available? Did a reporter ask a technical question? If the answer is no, the audience has not rejected para-sport. The newsroom has rejected the audience. Our athletes are already on the field. Attention is the part the rest of us must train.
