India’s performance at the Paris 2024 Olympics was like the Curate’s egg: Delectable to the palate in parts, but for the most, disappointingly tasteless. The medal tally at Tokyo 2020 was seven, India’s best at the Games. This included the path-breaking gold medal in track and field through javelin prodigy Neeraj Chopra, which was seen as symbolic of India breaking the shackles of long-standing mediocrity in sports at the highest level. There were medals in badminton, hockey and wrestling, too, to fire the imagination of a public starved of Olympic glory.
When the contingent for Paris was finalised, the sports ministry, the Indian Olympic Association, officials of several sports federations, coaches and even athletes were gung-ho about doubling the Tokyo haul, or at least getting into double figures. And not without reason. But, sadly, that turned out to be a mirage.
Some stellar performances kept the flame of hope alive. I am highlighting four that have had a significant impact, not just on the medal tally, but hopefully on Indian sport going ahead.
Shooter Manu Bhaker, derided and written off after a dismal show in Tokyo, showed great poise, skill and ambition in winning two bronze medals. It was an impressive comeback by the 22-year-old. With more experience, she should bring greater laurels in the years to come.
The bronze medal in men’s hockey, the second in successive Olympics, was fantastic, signalling the return of India to the uppermost echelons of the sport. The team’s robust, never-say-die performances were truly inspirational. The way from here points only upwards.
Neeraj Chopra could not defend his Tokyo gold against an inspired Arshad Nadeem, but a gold and silver in successive Olympics is a humungous achievement, and establishes him as India’s greatest sportsperson ever.
Wrestler Vinesh Phogat scripted perhaps the most riveting saga in Indian sports history by reaching the final of the 50kg women’s category, en route to beating internationally undefeated world champion Yui Susaki, before facing a tragic disqualification. Given her travails over the past year, this was heroic stuff from Phogat, whose name is now etched in golden letters irrespective of medal or not!
(Note: Phogat’s appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports for the silver medal was still to be resolved at the time of writing. Given the facts of the case, it would be divine injustice if she does not get the medal. But even if she does, India’s medal tally will not exceed that at Tokyo.)
Shooter Swapnil Kusale and young wrestler Aman Sehrawat winning a bronze each gave the medals tally some much-needed heft, but this could not entirely redeem a situation made grim largely by the failures in badminton, archery, boxing and weightlifting, from which five to six medals were expected.
There is some pathos in that India had four fourth-place finishes. Marginally better performances could have pushed the medals tally into double figures. But sport is brutally uncaring about ifs and buts, so India’s performance in Paris remains below expectations viewed from any angle.
All things considered, only six medals from a 117-strong contingent is a poor return.
But let’s examine India’s medal-winning trajectory since the turn of the century to understand why this has become a serious issue.
In 2000 at Sydney, we had a solitary bronze; in 2004 at Athens, a solitary silver; 2008 in Beijing saw an unexpected spike with three medals, including the first individual gold (shooter Abhinav Bindra). London in 2012 saw a further three-medal bump (though there was no gold this time), but in Rio 2016, the tally slumped to just two before touching the peak of seven in Tokyo.
This journey of 24 years has consistently seen dips and rises. Tokyo inspired greater government funding, more private sponsorship for a wide range of disciplines, and unprecedented media and public interest. After that, six medals in Paris is akin to spot-jogging. While not a debacle, the modest number raises red flags about where India is headed as a sporting nation.
There is no exact formula to link medals with strength of contingent, but the medal tally at Paris throws up interesting comparisons.
For example, the US, topping the tally with 126 medals, had sent a contingent of 592 athletes. China, second with 91 medals, had 388 athletes. Looking beyond these traditional powerhouses, sixth-placed Netherlands bagged 34 medals, including 15 gold, and Uzbekistan at No. 13 had 13 medals, including, remarkably, eight golds!
India was a laggard, finishing at No. 71. In the medal standings, gold carries greater significance than silver and bronze and can often give a misleading message about a country’s sporting prowess. For instance, Pakistan, through the solitary gold with Nadeem’s record-breaking javelin throw, finished nine places higher than India despite having five fewer medals.
While the medal table can be quirky in this aspect, it shows up more definitive co-relations in some others. Like a strong GDP. For instance, the top 10 in the medal rankings at Paris: The US, China, Japan, Australia, France, Netherlands, Great Britain, South Korea, Italy and Germany. Money is important for creating the right infra, investing in programmes for developing talent, creating expertise in nutrition, sports medicine, etc., without which competing at the highest level would be impossible.
But a robust GDP is not the only determinant. Oil-rich countries of the Middle East, for example, haven’t been able to find Olympic glory in spite of their wealth. On the other hand, countries like Barbados, Uzbekistan and Kenya have forged terrific sporting legacy without great financial muscle.
Along with an economy than can afford to spend heavily on sports, success at the Olympics can also accrue as ‘demographic dividend’. For example, countries reaping the benefit of their considerable populations. China being the paramount example, but also Japan, Brazil and some African nations.
Guess which country benefits from neither a formidable GDP nor population?
India is the fifth strongest economy in the world and the most populated. But unlike China, which has worked to benefit from both parameters to become a giant, India remains a pygmy in the matter of Olympic glory.
This is essentially because we still struggle in the most crucial aspect of becoming a sporting nation: creating an ethos that looks at sporting excellence as an emblem of national identity. Every country sees excellence in sport as desirable. But how to make it achievable and sustainable is the crux. Proper deployment of good fiscal health to create a sporting culture that goes top down and bottom up to extract the optimum benefit of our demography (and crucially, diversity, which provides multifarious skills) is the challenge that confronts India.
The government is a critical factor in this. But I think its involvement in sports should be largely of providing a robust policy, and funds needed to actualise this, rather than proactively running sports.
Different countries have different models of government participation, largely depending on the prevailing political system. China is totally state-driven, whereas the US does not have a sports ministry, leaving the federations to fend for themselves. Both are hugely successful. Countries like Australia and England, to name two, have hybrid models that have worked superbly, too.
India also follows a hybrid model, but for decades was let down by poor vision and even poorer governance. This is particularly pronounced at the level of federations. Some things have improved. For instance, the government’s Khelo India (mass participation) and Target Olympic Podium Scheme (bridging the need-gap for elite athletes to excel at the highest level) are enlightened schemes, but unlikely to provide optimum value unless the federations are aligned in spirit, ambition and practice.
While it is unfair to make a sweeping judgement, the functioning of most sports federations in India remains dismal. Some (wrestling for example) are into nefarious power play, some moribund, most not forward-looking, but content to live on government largesse through a mai-baap nexus.
The job of the federations is to promote a sport. The federation must burrow into society, communities, cities to grow the sport, build segues for young talent to receive the best facilities at different age groups, which enable the best among them to reach the top. Most importantly, at all times, the federations must audit the performances of all its constituents, and be prepared to be ruthlessly audited for meeting or not meeting deliverables. This is rarely done.
To increase the number of athletes, you need to expand the base of the pyramid. That is simple logic. But the masonry and architecture, from bottom to top, have to be strong and purposeful. Only then can the edifice hold and provide elite, medal-winning athletes at the top.
