Olympian ideals

Bidding for the 2036 games is ambitious

Euphoria over the successful conclusion of the G20 leaders’ summit in New Delhi and Team India’s best ever medal haul at the Asian Games appear to have had an expansive impact on the government’s ambitions. On Saturday, Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi threw India’s hat in the ring for hosting the 2036 Summer Olympics, ahead of the 141st session of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in Mumbai. The PM presented India’s bid as the “dream and aspiration of 140 crore Indians”. Though the statement reflects a sincere wish to see the benefits from this exercise accrue to all Indians, a history of Olympic hosting suggests there may be better options than spending crores on building and upgrading stadiums, athletes’ villages, and related infrastructure. Australia’s decision to withdraw from hosting a smaller event, the 2026 Commonwealth Games (CWG), citing unaffordable cost overruns, should act as a cautionary tale. India’s sub-par experience with hosting the 2010 CWG should also offer pause, ending as it did in the ignominy of massive corruption charges, a 14-month expulsion of the Indian Olympic Association from the IOC, and no noticeable economic surge.

There are multiple pitfalls to hosting a massive global event such as the 16-day Summer Olympics. Providing global standards of urban facilities is one of them. Host cities of the past in countries with far higher per capita incomes than India — London, Tokyo, Paris, Seoul, or even Beijing — enjoy a natural advantage. The PM did not specify the city he would choose as Olympic host, but no major Indian city can be regarded as fit for purpose. Bringing them up to speed in 13 years is an open question because they are still inhospitable places for most of their denizens. Preparing and transforming the chosen city is expected to have a massive knock-on effect in infrastructure investment, employment, and income as tourist dollars flow in. But the gains from these have usually been suboptimal because of routine massive cost overruns. The 2004 Athens Olympics, for example, are said to have played a role in the 2008 debt crisis, which nearly brought Europe to its knees. The 2016 Rio de Janeiro caused a crisis in public finance, resulting in delayed payments for public employees such as nurses, teachers, and so on. It took Montreal more than three decades to recover the costs of the 1976 Games.

The Olympics, like other global events such as the football World Cup, are typically viewed as a means of showcasing a country and projecting power. It is hard to see why India needs an event to act as a spark for investing in urban or, for that matter, any infrastructure upgrades, which should be a continuous process. It did not need the Olympics for the average visitor to be wowed by China; it became a leading tourist destination long before the 2008 edition. India has, among other things, the National Infrastructure Pipeline, Gati Shakti, bullet trains, and Vande Bharat projects. If all these fulfil their stated objectives, India would be far higher, faster, and stronger on the global scale of perception than an Olympic bid can deliver.