Opinion

Jump? How High?

Let’s face it, for our sports ethos, we did great at the Olympics

Advertisement

Jump? How High?
info_icon

Now that the Olympics are done and dusted, and we’re done lamenting our performance, here’s a contrary opinion: India did well. Sure, six medals, none gold, is a letdown after the pre-event hype. Yes, the US and China led the contest with umpteen gold medals together. And yes, Jamaica won as many medals in two minutes, over three events, than India in two weeks. True too, that on a per capita GDP basis, few nations can match North Korea. Pick your criteria, and India produced a modest tally.

But the final Olympic results hide as much as they reveal. Let’s tackle a few myths. First, the Olympics are not the ultimate arbiter of national capacity. Who would argue that Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand are any ‘less’ because they won only a few medals, and no golds? Second, look at the nation-wise break-up of medals. Apart from the US and Russia, few others were a force across disciplines. Even the historic ‘Great haul of Britain’ is less impressive without the eight golds in cycling. Clearly, Olympic success can result from a selective, focused strategy. China has mastered this, dominating some 29 events, including fencing!

Advertisement

Third, developing countries investing intensively in sporting capacity produce disproportionately good results, especially in individual-based disciplines. Here China and Cuba emulate the erstwhile East Germany and the USSR. Arguably, state-supported capacity-building is less successful in commercially viable team sports. Which is why basketball is a US preserve, and Europe and Latin American leagues have the world’s best footballers.

Examine our own situation in this context. While there is no direct correlation between medal tallies and national capacity, obviously our performance could have been better. And yet, despite the hockey disappointment, it was, all in all, a fair performance. In fact, better than fair, considering Indian sportspersons face more career obstacles than a steeplechase runner. Medal-winners apart, India exceeded expectations in several sports. Krishna Poonia and Vikas Gowda did well to reach their respective discus finals, Tintu Luka (women’s 800 m semi-final), K.T. Irfan (10 km walk) and Devendro Singh (boxing, 49 kg) all produced gallant efforts.

Advertisement

It is an impressive fact that India achieved these results with negligible bench strength: we had a few qualifications per sport, and the perennial confusion in trials and selection.  In general, sporting success in India is almost miraculously lucky, given the state of our sports bodies, facilities, and the complete lack of societal support. From this perspective, our team performance was nothing short of heroic!

Sadly, India lacks a supporting environment for sport. Few youth are groomed to take up a career in sport, almost none begin intensive training at an early age. Public facilities are ridiculously scarce in our metros, forget elsewhere. Scientific training is practically absent. Official support, such as it is, is episodic at best, apathetic at worst. Corporate sponsorship is frugal when compared to the money lavished on cricket. Serious sporting resources are therefore well beyond most Indians’ reach. In fact, Indian sport operates from a narrow base. Elite schools conduct annual sports days, but less privileged children lack even these openings. Outside school, there are nearly no affordable facilities. Is it any wonder then that only a few Indians are physically active? But this need not be an impediment to Olympic medals, if such is our limited goal. Most Indians will be surprised to learn that despite outperforming us at the Olympics, China also struggles to provide sport facilities for all of its youth. Urban China also contends with juvenile obesity and other lifestyle challenges. Clearly, it is their conscious choice to set aside significant funding to select and rigorously train champions. If we are determined to push our young children too—and we obviously are, looking at the queues outside cram schools—we can also create sporting capacity without widening the popular base.

But is this truly what India needs? Sporting success is meaningless if it does not build on a larger base of national fitness. For India, a better option may be to invest in large-scale facilities accessible to all, widening the pool from which we select champions. This requires sizeable public/private investment in building infrastructure in schools, universities, as well as municipalities and districts. We need professionally managed multi-disciplinary sporting competitions to hone skills. This is costly and difficult, but success is based on effort, not merely pious intention. Unfortunately, I suspect we will be content instead to bemoan our fate. As the pageantry of the Olympics is replaced by the World T20 cup, our apathy towards other sports will return. So it is only fitting to salute our Olympians for briefly giving us hope, not in spite, but because of the hurdles we place in their path.

Advertisement

(The author is an IFS officer posted in Delhi. He writes this as a less-than successful fitness enthusiast.)

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement