In search of excellence

Focus on sports that match Indians' disposition

As the Commonwealth Games draws to a close and the Indian contingent returns after a middling performance, the usual recriminations can be expected on how it has underperformed relative to the size of India's population. That probably explains the disproportionate celebrations that break out whenever India's sportspeople do achieve something, however modest. For example, an Olympic bronze medal is deemed worthy of book and film deals, not to forget lucrative endorsement contracts. None of this can substitute for a coherent national strategy on sports.

The national inferiority complex at the lack of India's sporting prowess is growing stronger with globalisation and economic expansion. As it takes its place among the BRICS power bloc, India's outlier status in terms of sporting achievement becomes starker. After all, other BRICS nations have excelled at some global sport at one time or the other - excluding the restricted world of cricket, which is no more a global sport than baseball or American football. There is Brazil's record in football and Formula 1, Russia's in field athletics and winter sports, and China's in gymnastics, table tennis and badminton. The concern has been serious enough for the Bharatiya Janata Party to mention in its election manifesto the "need to invest for promotion of sport in an organised manner". Several governments have broadly expressed this sentiment but did little beyond making some token outlays and allowing politicians to run riot in sports bodies for the primary purpose of acquiring tickets to major global sports tournaments for themselves, families and hangers-on.

Investing in sport in an "organised manner" demands an assessment of what sports the country should focus on. The answer can be drawn from the realities of Indian physiology and the pattern of our medals tally at major sporting events. First, India's carbohydrate- and fat-heavy and protein-deficient cuisine may possibly be the tastiest in the world, but it is not conducive to the kind of awesome cardiovascular fitness that is demanded of field sports like track and field events, football, tennis, basketball - or even hockey. India dominated world hockey when it was a slower game, played on grass, where skill counted for more than speed and strength. The country never hit those heights after the introduction of Astroturf. Though cricket doesn't strictly qualify for this analysis, the fact that India has never produced a genuine fast bowler is another indicator. India's ability to be beaten by teams from the Emirates and Kazakhstan in football tells its own story.

Yet, if India's medals tally at the last Olympics, and at the current Commonwealth Games, is analysed, the answer to where government should focus attention is patent. Of the six medals won at the London Olympics, two were in shooting, one in boxing and one medal - a bronze - was in badminton. India won its first individual Olympic gold in shooting in the Beijing Olympics. This has broadly been the pattern in the Commonwealth Games as well, where India's medals success has mostly been in wrestling, shooting and weightlifting. The other sport at which India excels globally is chess. Thanks to the example set by former world champion Vishwanathan Anand, India now has 58 international masters and has long been considered a serious challenger on the global circuit. The common factor to all these sports is that they require a kind of fitness that is better suited to India's physical and mental disposition. If the current government is serious about fulfilling its election manifesto, it should focus its efforts on these few events instead of chasing the chimera of all-round domination.