Asian Games 2026 | Kabaddi: India hu, tu, two good!. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of loaded or dismissive wording that favors one side and devalues the other.

1) “Iran is not a big team. If they come across us somewhere else, we can beat them one-sided.” 2) “Kabaddi is our Indian game and we should not encourage our coaches to go there.” These statements go beyond reporting performance and move into dismissing Iran’s status and asserting ownership over the sport in a way that implicitly delegitimizes Iran’s achievements.

3 suggestions

Replace “Iran is not a big team. If they come across us somewhere else, we can beat them one-sided” with something like: “We are confident in our team’s strength and believe we can perform strongly against Iran in future matches as well.”

Add balancing context acknowledging Iran’s achievements, e.g.: “Iran have emerged as a strong kabaddi nation in recent years, including winning gold in 2018.”

Replace “Kabaddi is our Indian game and we should not encourage our coaches to go there” with a more neutral reflection, such as: “Kabaddi has its origins in India, and there is debate within the Indian kabaddi community about how much coaching expertise should be shared internationally.”

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex situation to an overly simple or absolute claim.

“Iran is not a big team. If they come across us somewhere else, we can beat them one-sided.” This ignores the fact that Iran has previously beaten India (explicitly mentioned later: “Even our Shailaja Jain was their coach in 2018 when they beat India to win gold at the Incheon Asian Games”). Calling Iran “not a big team” oversimplifies their competitive status.

2 suggestions

Qualify the statement to reflect Iran’s actual record: “Although Iran have become a strong team and even beaten India in the past, we believe our current squad has the edge.”

Include brief performance context: “Iran have consistently reached the latter stages of major tournaments, showing they are among the top kabaddi nations.”

Appeal to emotion / national pride

Using emotional or nationalistic appeals to influence the reader’s view rather than relying on neutral facts.

“Kabaddi is our Indian game and we should not encourage our coaches to go there.” This frames the issue as protecting a national asset rather than discussing competitive dynamics or the global growth of the sport. It invites readers to side with a protectionist stance based on national pride.

2 suggestions

Reframe as a discussion of competitive strategy instead of a prohibition: “Some in India’s kabaddi community worry that extensive sharing of coaching expertise could reduce India’s competitive advantage.”

Add a counterpoint about the benefits of global development: “Others argue that spreading kabaddi internationally will raise the sport’s profile and ultimately benefit all teams, including India.”

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s perspective extensively while giving little or no voice to the other side.

The article quotes multiple Indian voices (men’s head coach BC Ramesh, women’s head coach Neeta Dadwe, former captain Pankaj Shirsat) and focuses on India’s experience, strategy, and emotions. Iran’s perspective is absent: no quotes from Iranian players or coaches, no description of their preparation or view of the matches, despite Iran being the opponent in both finals and being directly criticized (“Iran is not a big team”).

3 suggestions

Include at least one quote or statement from Iran’s coach or players about the finals, their strategy, or their reaction to the results.

Provide brief background on Iran’s kabaddi development and achievements to contextualize their performance (e.g., medals in previous Asian Games, World Cups).

When presenting critical or dismissive comments about Iran, add balancing information or a response from the Iranian side, or clearly mark them as one coach’s opinion rather than fact.

Selective use of sources

Relying only on sources from one side, which can skew the narrative.

All quoted sources are Indian: BC Ramesh, Pankaj Shirsat, and Neeta Dadwe. They comment on both India’s strength and Iran’s status and development (“Iran is not a big team”, “Iran’s kabaddi has flourished with Indian guidance”) without any Iranian or neutral expert voices to confirm, nuance, or challenge these claims.

3 suggestions

Add comments from an Iranian coach, player, or official about their own development and the role of Indian coaching, to avoid a one-sided narrative about Iran’s progress being primarily due to India.

Include a neutral kabaddi analyst or federation official to provide a broader view of how kabaddi has grown in Iran and globally.

Explicitly label evaluative statements as opinions, e.g., “In Dadwe’s view, Iran’s kabaddi has flourished with Indian guidance…”

Confirmation bias / narrative fallacy

Fitting facts into a preferred narrative (India’s dominance and ownership of kabaddi) and downplaying contradictory evidence.

The article emphasizes India’s repeated golds and “dominance in kabaddi again” while including statements like “Iran is not a big team” and “Kabaddi is our Indian game,” even though it also notes that Iran beat India to win gold in 2018. That contradictory fact is mentioned but then used mainly to support the idea that Indian coaches ‘made’ Iran strong, reinforcing a narrative of Indian centrality and control rather than acknowledging Iran’s independent development.

3 suggestions

More clearly acknowledge the significance of Iran’s 2018 victory as evidence that multiple nations are now strong in kabaddi: “Iran’s 2018 gold showed that the gap between India and other nations has narrowed.”

Balance the ‘Indian guidance’ narrative with recognition of Iran’s own efforts: “While Indian coaches have contributed, Iran has also invested in domestic training and infrastructure.”

Avoid implying that India alone is responsible for Iran’s success; present it as one factor among several.