Fifty Golds in Olympics: Can this be a Reality for India? | HPSC Preparation: All subjects - HPSC (Haryana) PDF Download

Introduction

India, despite a population of over 130 million, comes back empty-handed from most Olympic outings. Why does this huge population produce so few medallists? This is probably the most frequently asked question. Much is said about the better-performing countries, how those countries were able to exploit certain advantages, and how India either lacks these advantages or fails to capitalise on them. Questions are also raised on lack of talent!
However, one needs to remember that Indian sportspersons are no slouches, they have excelled in many fields. Indian cricket is constantly among the top. The field hockey team of India is still among the world’s finest. The country has performed the best in a number of events at the Commonwealth Games, where 50-plus former British colonies compete. However, olympic medals cannot be the only way of judging a country’s overall sporting talent? India has produced the best sprinters, swimmers, golfers, and archers. Is it justified to label Indian sportspersons as under-performers, then? So, where lies the problem? Why is India’s Olympic tally so low?

Probable Reasons

There are many factors at play behind the lack of Olympic medals. The most common perhaps is that sports are not a priority in India, be it parents, employable youth, or the government. Unless this mindset against sports changes, emulating China’s Olympic success will be a far cry. Sports, as well as sportspersons in China, work on a different plane altogether. The results are ubiquitous. It has brought them glory and excellence. The same ethos and dedication are required in India to break the vicious cycle of low performance.
India’s GDP per capita, though rising, lies in the bottom quartile of all countries. So, the purchasing power of the majority is low, while sports training equipments and coaches are mighty expensive. Poor infrastructure and governance impacts everything from public health to education to opportunities for advancement. That’s the reason why all the rich industrialised nations of the G8 perform well in the Olympics. They have world-class infrastructure and every other technique of ‘talent magnetism’ to attract, train and utilise winning talent.
India may have an enormous population but its “effectively participating population” is nearly negligible. Among the many factors that exclude a large population of potential participants are poverty, poor health, physical isolation, poor outreach, poor transportation to and from the athletics centres in the big cities, or often simply lack of awareness that opportunities and facilities exist! The estrangement of certain Indian communities may also play a role, as the idea of competing for national prestige doesn’t appeal to them. The government and sports authority conveniently shrug off infrastructural inadequacy and blame dearth of talent for poor show in world competitions, particularly Olympics.
There is a significant correlation between Olympic medals and nations run by strong central governments. Strong dispensations are interested in fostering national prestige. China, Cuba, and North Korea are among the leading examples. In 2008, China bagged the highest number of gold medals outshining even the US. Earlier, the Soviet Union invested heavily in funding and fostering competitive athletes. The Indian government, at this point, doesn’t appear keen to foster sporting talents in the same way. India is perhaps too decentralized for a China-style campaign to galvanize national athletic talent.
Income and governance play a role, but these alone can’t explain India’s underperformance. Ethiopia, a developing African country, one-third of India’s population has managed to do quite well at the Olympics, despite the odds. India may similarly focus on select Olympic events it can excel in. India’s participation in Olympics dates back to 1900, in the exalted victory of Norman Pritchard. The Calcuttan athlete won 2 silver medals in Paris for 200m dash and 200m hurdles. It took well over a century for another Olympic glory to land India’s way when Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore bagged silver in double trap shooting in 2004, followed by Abhinav Bhindra’s stunning gold in 10 m air rifle event in 2008. For individuals who have excelled in wrestling, boxing, weightlifting, tennis, badminton, in other world championships, the achievable Olympic medal, if any, has been the bronze. Only Sushil Kumar in wrestling and P.V. Sindhu in Badminton could secure the silver once. The flying Sikh Milkha Singh and Payyoli express PT Usha famously missed the Olympic medal. Dipa Karmakar was sensational in the 2016 Rio Olympics, becoming only the 5th artistic gymnast in the world to perform the Produnova vault, yet fell short of a medal. The 400m wonder Hima Das, who won 6 golds in World Championships 2018 is down with injuries even before exploring the Olympics. All this at least proves there is no dearth of individual talent in the country, but the killer approach to produce mass medallists is starkly missing. Any initiative taken in this direction soon gets lost in the web of systemic corruption. The biggest casualty has been Indian Hockey. The Olympic supremacy, which began with Dhyan Chand’s hat-trick in 1928, Amsterdam, and got six gold in a row (1928-1956), ended with the eighth gold in 1980; and even the bronze has been elusive since.

Possible Solutions

Given the abundance of talent, winning fifty gold medals in Olympics is very much achievable for India. What’s needed is the creation of separate Task Forces of proven integrity on a pan India level for immediate execution of work in identified areas—screening/ tapping potential talent in different sports on a regular basis; plugging organisational loopholes in transport, training, and dietary facilities; immediate elimination of structural impediments and documentary hurdles; and targeted focus on every sportsperson and every competition. India does have a screening and coaching process at the state and national level, but poor infrastructure, corruption, poverty, restriction of girls, different priorities of the middle and upper class, and the popularity of cricket make Olympics a lost cause.
Talent abounds in the poor, backward countryside. Mary Kom, a five time amateur world boxing champion, was born to poor farm labourers in a Manipur village. Champion archer and former world number one, Deepika Kumari practiced archery using homemade bamboo bows and arrows and reached precision by aiming stones at mangoes in trees. Awareness programmes and holiday sports camps in rural areas will definitely draw more talent. The government should offer various privileges to students showing promise in sports. Physical education should be made compulsory at the primary level and be the first talent screening platform.

Conclusion

The aforesaid suggestions should be implemented as a primary step. Gradually, the same can be extended into an advanced level by expanding sporting schools under SAI to cover rural and remote areas. Furthermore, it is essential to bring about transparency in the selection of participants, and their training should be at the international level of excellence. Also, a generous proportion of the budget should be allocated for developing the sports infrastructure.