Let’s begin with some history. In the 1900 Olympic Games at Paris, Norman Pritchard was placed second in the 200m sprint and 200m hurdles. This was fantastic achievement by a man ostensibly on a holiday in France and whose aim was to act in films, which he eventually did. But it’s his legacy as a runner that has greater appeal—and created a controversy that still endures. England claimed Pritchard’s two medals to be theirs since he was of English descent. But a counter-claim by India, since Pritchard was born in Calcutta and participated in athletics meets in the Bengal presidency for several years, raised a vexing dispute. Olympic historians assign the two medals to England, while the International Olympic Committee gives these to India. Contrived as this may be, it remains a matter of consternation that after winning two silvers through just one athlete in the first time it was represented at the Olympics, India should have lapsed into a state of medal drought in the 112 years since Paris.
Apart from great prowess in hockey, which got six gold medals on the trot and eight overall, India’s performance has been abysmal. For the record, two medals were won at the Helsinki Games in 1952 (wrestler K.D. Jadhav, besides hockey) and three at Beijing. Clearly, where winning Olympic medals is concerned, the country has been spot-jogging for over a century. The medal count gets truly disturbing when you compute the figures—a population of 1.2 billion and just 21 medals spread over 112 years—and juxtapose this with some other countries that have risen from the depths to great heights. China, of course, is the most striking and, in many ways, the most relevant example. It is interesting that the first time it competed at the Olympics—at Helsinki in 1952—they drew a blank, while India won two medals. For almost three decades since then, the Chinese opted out of international sports, but when they emerged out of the bamboo curtain in the early 1980s, they were a nation transformed as far as sports was concerned. At the 1984 Los Angeles Games, China stunned the world with 15 golds and 32 medals overall. There was a big dip in 1988, when only five golds were won. Since then, the tally has risen consistently till China became the top Olympic nation in Beijing, with a whopping 51 gold and 100 medals overall!
Flight path Saina Nehwal, still a hope
There are several theories on why China has got where it has—not all of them socio-politically palatable to a democratic ethos. But a closer study of the Olympic medals tables over the past half-century shows that excellence at sport is not necessarily a function of any particular socio-eco-political system. In the current Games, for instance, as this is being written, the top 10 medal-winning nations are China, the US, the two Koreas, France, Italy, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, Germany and Japan: capitalistic and socialistic societies, developed and developing economies et al. And remember, this is India in 2012, featuring among the brics nations, and arguably one of the two emerging superpowers of this century; not the India of the 1950s and ’60s with measly resources and low ambition.
So what happened?
India went into these Olympic Games full of hope and aspiration. Buoyed by success at the Delhi Commonwealth Games in 2010, by Abhinav Bindra’s gold medal in Beijing 2008, the Indian hockey team’s qualification after eight years, everybody thought that this was India’s chance not just to shine, but win up to 10 medals. Indian shooters and boxers have been medal-winners at international events. Saina Nehwal is number 4 in the world, archer Deepika Kumari is world no. 1, and Leander Paes, Mahesh Bhupathi, Rohan Bopanna and Sania Mirza are all ranked in the top 10 as far as doubles are concerned, the pre-Olympics selection fracas notwithstanding. The Indian hockey team had showed greater intent and purpose under coach Michael Nobbs. Why would India not be a serious threat in these disciplines?
Sadly, when it came down to it, Abhinav Bindra ran out of steam prematurely, the archers lost their nerve and aim on the big stage, the hockey team looked out of its depth against Holland and even New Zealand. It’s only the badminton players who lived up to their potential. By any account, India looked like they would struggle to match the Beijing tally. The moral of the story was simple: mere hope or hype can’t produce champions. Medals can be won, but by planning and method: by expanding the pyramid base of people exposed to sport, by spotting and nurturing young talent, by greater focus on training, diet, sports medicine, mental conditioning. Not misplaced confidence followed by puerile lamenting.
China topped the table at Beijing (and should do so too at London). They see the Olympics as a vehicle for expressing national identity and made a concerted effort to excel at sport. Call it the vanity of nations if you will, but Olympic medals do reveal a country’s power. This is not necessarily to do with only with the population, political system or, more tellingly, with economic well-being. For instance, figures for the Athens Games in 2004 show that 57 Islamic countries, including some with great per capita income, could win only 47 medals. This hardly compares with the achievements of, say, Cuba or Kenya, using the same benchmarks.
There are pros and cons to different eco-political systems. But what China and a few other countries like Cuba, Kenya, the Koreas and Kazakhstan have done is instructive. They worked out a plan to take a few sports at a time before expanding their horizons, building infrastructure, identifying talent and then honing it. Cuba, therefore, focused for decades on boxing and middle distance running, the Kenyans (and other African nations like Ethiopia) on middle and long distances, Jamaica on sprints (and expanding now to swimming), Kazakhstan on boxing, judo, wrestling, the Koreas on archery, shooting etc.
These countries invested time, money and expertise on exploiting their natural skills and endowments (speed, size, flexibility, dexterity, concentration) to build a strong supply line of athletes that can win medals. The Chinese, of course, have upstaged all through the sheer volume of athletes who’ve been spotted and trained for swimming, gymnastics, shooting, badminton, table tennis et al. But pertinently, they haven’t ventured too aggressively in athletics. Perhaps that is the next stage of their sports development.
The clear message is that dominating the world in any sport does not happen in a day. The approach to sport in India—in the government, federations and one dare say even with athletes—is lackadaisical. It is believed that six months of hard training before an international sporting event is enough to win; in fact, six years may not be enough for an Olympic medal. It takes years of careful calibration of skills and methods, of game techniques, of the science of sport, of incorporating the advances in technology and a constant scrutiny of the competition to win at the highest level. Of course, it also needs infrastructure and strong local systems. For instance, the American swimmers are so good at the relay events because they take part in relays regularly. The Chinese use the hub and spoke model effectively, panning out their scouts to the very interiors to tap young talent, which are then fed to special academies to produce elite athletes.
Sports like shooting, badminton, wrestling and boxing (where people of equal physical stature compete) and archery (despite the London fiasco) are some areas where Indians have shown the capacity to excel; swimming, track and field are clearly where a great distance has to be covered. India’s sporting ethos—or the lack of it—has been derided, but in recent times, interest in sport has grown exponentially. Perhaps the country is ready to start working seriously towards developing a sporting culture. Part of that culture has to include a greater understanding of the idea that sport does not start and end with jingoism, but includes mandatorily sending kids to play, appreciating the efforts of sportspersons, giving them privileged status in community and society. In India, one also has to make sport mandatorily inclusive for women, who comprise 50 per cent of the population. Girls should be encouraged to participate in sports.
The desire to win Olympic medals for country and personal glory is an intoxicating combination. It is also the work of extraordinary men and women who can only be products of a system that sees sport as integral to a country’s well-being. It’s not about rhetoric and bombast but about preparation. And pride.
A Disservice Ayaz Memon’s dismissive, cynical piece on the state of Indian sports other than cricket was defeatist writing (A Slim Harvest, Aug 13). Luckily, our athletes at the Olympics gave a sterling performance, giving us our best-ever showing.
Nitin Sanker, Hyderabad
Crossing the final frontier—an Olympic medal—ought to boost Saina’s confidence for the coming years, especially the next games in Rio.
Janaki Mahadevan, Mumbai
Over the past many years, we have seen the gradual demise of the subcontinental style of hockey, as Indian and Pakistani players are unable to keep up with the athleticism, strategy and superior rate of passing between players. Look at how Australia demolished a stylish, talented Pakistan 7-0. As a couch hockey player, I’d suggest a faster rhythmic style of play and passing, brought about by fluid triads of players moving forward in attacks. Of course, the skilled, and selfish, dribbling we India-Pakistan players enjoy has to be forsaken.
Hemant A. Sant, Vadodara
I’ve been following hockey for the past six decades, and this is our worst showing; we could not win even against the low-ranked Belgium. Our team had no coordination and did not play like a team. The defence was frail against smooth, resourceful and relentless attacks; having an erratic forward line also didn’t help. If only we had agile players who would tap the ball near the goalpost, we could have scored a few times in each of our matches. I feel sorry for coach Nobbs who gave it his all.
N. Viswanathan, Chennai
Memon raises some valid points, but neglects to mention some important ones. Firstly, blatant corruption in sports administration, percolating to the bottom. When the head of the ioa is arrested by the cbi, need we say more? For years, the same people head sports bodies—usually political honchos—and won’t relinquish their power. The office-bearers are usually his camp-followers. Thus, no improvement in administration happens. Also, the target set by such bodies is just qualification. Mere qualification results in a larger squad, justifying a larger support staff, resulting in a grand free trip for officials.
Venkatesh Iyer, Chennai
Vinod Mehta’s comments in his diary (Aug 13) on some of the Olympics sports not being great to watch is certainly his own problem. In fact, a lot of events are hugely interesting—like shooting, or even boxing. On the contrary, most of us are bored by the daily fixation on what Laloo told Sonia—something the media is obsessed with.
You are being too generous Memon saab. "A Slim Harvest" sounds like a praise.
Sookha pada hua hai saab, sookha.
It is a drought, and no monsoon is on its way.
Might sound promotional, but humne bhi apane man ki nikal di.
India, Olympics and the drought
You are very right. Getting medals at the Olympics is a long drawn out affair. Perhaps the beginnings have been made with badminton, archery, boxing and wrestling? We should not have unrealistic expectations and support our sports persons even when they do not succeed instead of deriding them. Indians want medals but are not willing to be patient and swallow defeats , too.
well Mr Menon when I read the article - i thought it was such a defeatist article , within 4 days of the olympics you had written off the entire indian team with a SLIM PICKINGS headline - This was just the kind of defeatist writing which is sympotomatic of indian sports writing .....Well luckily the Infdian atheletes were not defeatist and gave a true performance with 6 medals, double the last olympics and indians best performance ever in the olymics to put it in perspective this is more medals than India has got in 8 olympics between 1972 to 2000 ... this is Indias greatest sporting achievment and I hope the outlook is going to acknowledge and probably aplogise for this article
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT