Confederacy Of Missed Chances

But weeks before India’s genius and efficiency were to be revealed to an applauding world, disaster struck. A collapsing footbridge, a crumbling false ceiling, reeking sewage in the CWG village, stray dogs leaving marks in athletes’ suites, leaking faucets, flushes that would not work, toilet-seats you couldn’t use, a stray snake, the fear of terrorists and dengue-spreading mosquitoes striking in tandem...an unrelenting, thickening miasma fouled the fondest of hopes. It was as if India had geared up to rebuff, rather than seduce, the world through bumbling and inefficiency, indifference to quality and pervasive corruption by laughably gauche officials—not exactly traits associated with a nation out to stake its claim for a place in the sun.

This was precisely why the headlines worldwide were punishing—not just at home and in CWG nations, but also in countries not linked to the crumby notion of Commonwealth. The LA Times screamed: “Ready, set—wait, India not ready for Commonwealth Games yet”. The New York Times said, “Hopes fade for success of Commonwealth Games in India”. The CWG should have gone unreported in a country such as the US, which is prone to ignore stories not involving its citizens. Indeed, a  random sampling of headlines testify to the incalculable damage the CWG had inflicted on Brand India—its spiffy image lies sullied; its success story seems an angler’s yarn; the talk of a changing India appears to be a cruel lie. These impressions were confirmed by Moody’s Analytics in Sydney 10 days before the CWG opening ceremony. Its economist, Matt Robinson, said the adverse publicity the games had generated could adversely impact investment inflows. (He subsequently toned down the criticism).

Alarmed at the consequences, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh intervened, inspiring and ordering a last-minute charge to provide the CWG the promised shine. Overnight, the finishing touches lent the stadiums a certain architectural allure, the tracks appeared fit for the swift-footed, and the village was considered hospitable at last. Could this late surge also repair the damage done to Brand India? Could a smooth conduct of the Games refurbish the country’s image, so tarnished by an implacable domestic and international media?

Officials at the ministry of external affairs are despondent. Their hard work in building India’s image over the years seems to have been rendered redundant. A senior diplomat told Outlook, “India’s image has been badly dented. When even a country like Lesotho points an accusing finger, you know you have hit rock bottom.” Admits Piyush Pandey, executive chairman of  O&M, South Asia, “The CWG should have been used as a show window but we have lost an opportunity to look better.... I don’t think business will walk away as businessmen are unemotional people.”

Business may not quit India, but most agree that India’s CWG debacle stands out in painfully starker relief when seen against the Beijing Olympics, a show which impressed and astonished the world. Fudan University’s Dingli Shen, however, thinks it is unfair to compare the two countries. He points to the reason for the success of Beijing: “China used its national strength under the party’s leadership, while India may have not paid high attention to this. Its management system has room to improve.” Mindful about the sensitivity of India, Dingli says China commends India for hosting the CWG.

Unlike Dingli, there are many who are not willing to pull their punches. Says Vivek Dehejia of Carleton University, Ottawa, “It should be a lesson for us and we must temper our aspirations with a reality check. We are vying for a seat in the UN Security Council, yet we are not able to deliver something as minor as the CWG, when China was so stunningly successful in delivering the far large and more complex Olympics.” But the Beijing Olympics was successful, contends John Lee, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, because an authoritarian power like China could show a “ruthless efficiency” that a democratic India can’t. While lauding India for its soft power—democracy, independent judiciary, property rights etc—Lee is critical of India’s shoddy CWG preparations. “Soft power is meaningless without national capacity and competence and this is where India’s reputation has taken a hit,” Lee reasons.

A section in the Indian establishment admits to the lapses, but also accuses some western countries of exploiting the situation to portray India negatively. They single out Australia, claiming its coverage of the CWG was a retaliation against the Indian media’s focus on the attacks on Indian students Down Under. Australians are surprised at this charge. They argue that Australian PM Julia Gillard didn’t succumb to the opposition’s demand to cancel their country’s participation in the CWG. Heather Goodall, who teaches at the University of Technology, Sydney, says, “It is mystifying given how careful Gillard was in not attacking the construction and amenities issues that the British, Canadians and others were complaining about.”

But even vociferous critics like Canada or Britain gradually became muted in expressing concerns over the CWG in Delhi. Partly, this was because India took belated steps to improve the facilities. But the more crucial factor was the realisation that India remains an attractive investment destination. Former Canadian high commissioner to India Peter Sutherland says as much, “The views of sceptics have been reinforced by all this negative publicity, while those who were bullish about India may have felt a little disappointed at the missed opportunity. But I think the damage done to India’s image will disappear after the games.”

Others say their past experience shows India is no exception to a global trend—cities that hosted major sports events always encountered negative publicity until the inauguration ceremony. For instance, the managers of the Atlanta and Sydney Olympics were also accused of incompetence and corruption, and their alleged sins were forgotten as they conducted the games smoothly. Says Lucie Edwards of the University of Waterloo, Ontario, “After our experience with the Winter Olympics in Vancouver and the nasty initial coverage in the international media, I think Canadians are prepared to wait and see the outcome of the CWG before passing judgement.”

This view has an echo among those who had argued against hosting the CWG at such a gargantuan cost in a country where at least 37 per cent of its population live below the poverty line. Rohit Negi, who teaches urban planning and development in Ambedkar University, Dwarka, says, “Infrastructure is a funny word because it hides more than it reveals. No one wants to question infrastructure development but few seldom ask, infrastructure for whom?” He wonders whether Delhi should focus on building flyovers and roads or provide basis civic amenities—sewerage, assured water or power supply—to its citizens. In fact, social scientist Yogendra Yadav dubs the decision to host the CWG as a “mega scam” where limited national resources were diverted to satisfy the whims of “a tiny but voluble class of people” who managed to turn the CWG into an issue of national pride. “It is a shameful act. Do we really believe that we can fool the world and make them believe there is no poverty in Delhi or the rest of India?”

Perhaps the CWG mess only reflects the reality of India—it is poor, corrupt, inefficient. The existence of woeful poverty hasn’t and will not deter foreign investments from flowing into India. It could taper off because of the other two reasons. This is why India needs to conduct the games with supreme efficiency, to convince the world that it is indeed a power on the rise, that it is a place undergoing subliminal change.

By Pranay Sharma Additional inputs by Lola Nayar