Now that the celebrations for the two women athletes who won the silver and bronze medals for India in the Rio Olympics are over, it is perhaps time that we make a dispassionate analysis of our overall performance in the last Olympics. True to our national character we have already forgotten the humiliation of the second-most populous country on earth sending its largest-ever contingent of athletes and returning with only a couple of medals, bragging about cricket, and discussing international club football in foreign countries. We tend to forget that we were in the fourth slot in football in the Melbourne Olympics in 1956, had performed creditably at the Rome Olympics, 1960, and were the Asian champions in Djakarta in 1962. To win the gold at Djakarta we had to defeat South Korea which is now an international soccer power regularly playing the main draw of the World Cup while we labour to be in the SAARC football final. In hockey, we last heard the national anthem at the Moscow Olympics in 1980, an event that was boycotted by the major Western nations.

Our only individual gold in the Olympics has been in shooting through Abhinav Bindra in Beijing  (2008).  Abhinav is largely a product of his family which helped him at a very young age with a home-shooting arena and the expensive kit that a shooter requires. There is of course no denying the immense talent that this unassuming champion possesses; but such talents need careful nurturing and this is denied to millions of Indian children who have the potential. The scenario calls for a struggle against penury, chronic malnutrition, taunts from teachers and friends and, as often as not, the family discouraging the child's involvement in sports. He is told to aim at something higher.

The lack of facilities has taken its toll; to hone talent and reach world standard becomes a very daunting task. Except individual brilliance in games such as shooting, badminton, chess, billiards and tennis, our record in international fixtures is pretty poor. Cricket ,which is played mainly by eight countries, is our only saving grace. The other is kabaddi which only a few countries play. All the individual sport, in which we have done reasonably well, are urban games and mainly restricted to the middle or upper classes.  In all cases where our sportspersons have performed well, the efforts of the family are evident. Like Abhinav Bindra, they are products of untiring individual efforts backed by family support and sometimes dedicated coaches. Take the case of Ramanathan Krishnan who till now is the only Indian to have reached the semifinals in the singles event twice in any grand slam tennis tournament. Krishnan’s father, himself a well-known tennis player, sacrificed his government job in Delhi to return to a Tamil Nadu village. He dedicated his life to make his son, then in his early teens, a world-class tennis player, Krishnan has inspired promising tennis players in India, starting from his son Ramesh. Many of the current players have done the country proud by winning Grand Slam events, albeit in doubles. Most of them have been assisted by foundations and company sponsorships.

Take the case of Dipa Karmakar from a remote corner of Tripura. She is the only gymnast to have represented the country in the Olympics in three decades and narrowly missed the bronze at Rio.  She does not belong to a wealthy family, but was immensely encouraged by her father, himself a reputed volleyball coach. After her performance in the North-East regional athletic meet, the Tripura Government had engaged a dedicated coach to provide scientific training to her and had also constructed a small gymnasium near her home.

Individual performance does not alter the basic picture ~ the country's sport infrastructure is awful except in the glamour game of cricket, that too in selected urban areas. Whatever we have achieved so far in the international sports arena is thus due to the heroic efforts of individuals backed by family support and, sometimes, selfless efforts by their coaches.

The colonial administration seldom created a sports infrastructure;  the native Maharajas were expected to contribute generously for the royal sports of cricket, polo or golf and to a lesser extent for the development of football and hockey. But the British were able to arouse a competitive spirit in schools, colleges, clubs, districts, provinces and even at the national level. This created an awareness and love of sports among the people and produced some reputed sports personalities. After independence, governments at the Centre and in the states were preoccupied with development issues, relegating sports in the process. Of course, international events like the first Asian Games in Delhi in 1951 were encouraged. But no national sports policy had evolved. The control of national and various state sports bodies was gradually passed on to politicians and scheming administrators who were more interested in their personal agenda rather than improvement of sports.

The efforts of the government or the courts to bring about transparency in the functioning of these national or state bodies or federations have often been interpreted as interference in their autonomy. Such interference has even been reported to the controlling entities abroad which promptly denounced such actions. Certain national entities were even suspended. The same international entitities are impervious to the blatant government control of national sports authorities, as in Russia, China or North Korea. Hence if the government really meant business when the Prime Minister announced, post-Rio, the formation of an expert body to recommend development of sports in an effort to attain world standards in various games, it should forget about international reactions and concentrate on spreading the games among the youth of the country with the motto to catch 'em young.

Cricket is the only exception in this otherwise dismal scenario. The notable successes since the 1980s, glamour and the lure of lucre have created a niche for this game among the youth and, perhaps more important, in the minds of their parents. But it is still an urban-centric sport. There is a regular system of school tournaments as well with under-16 and under-19 events being organised both at the state and national levels. Records are maintained. The state and national controlling bodies, generally flush with funds, do not find it difficult to arrange for professional coaching and overseas tours for the talented.  It is thus possible to spot talent at an early age and groom the players properly.

Unfortunately other sports do not get the same exposure not so much due to organisational failure as public apathy and corresponding lack of sponsorship and patronage. As a nation, we collectively applaud success and bask in the reflected glory; but we do not appreciate the sweat and struggle, peer group challenge and competition that is involved in the making of a champion. Failures are impatiently dumped and branded instead of analysing the causes and helping to rectify the deficiencies. Right from the Rajkumari Amrit Kaur’s coaching scheme in 1953, the approach of the Government has been to provide coaches and infrastructure for a handful of selected athletes who have made the mark in national events. This top-heavy approach might yield results once in a while, but is doomed to fail when the minimum basic infrastructure is not available at the grassroot or school levels across the country. Even the Sports Authority of India (SAI), set up to utilise the infrastructure created for the Delhi Asian Games in 1982 and chaired by the Prime Minister suffers from the same bureaucratic mindset. It had assumed that providing modern training facilities in some urban centres and providing suitable coaches, sometimes inducted from abroad, will produce overnight champions. There are provisions to spot talent, but its purpose and thrust is lost in endless red tape, lack of commitment, apathy and security of government service. The success of any policy on sports can be measured not by the number of champions it has produced but by the stretch of its reach, touching the lives of all citizens across the country and across age barriers. The aim should be to improve the health and lives of all individuals not a talented few. The emeergence of champions and the sprouting of talent will follow as a natural course.

(To be Concluded)