There is a
familiar ring to the ‘numbers game’ that is being played out in New Delhi these
days in respect of India’s contingent for the Asian Games in Incheon, Korea.
This is a four-yearly phenomenon and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA)
invariably ends up the “winner” in this intriguing game with the Sports
Ministry.
Not disheartened
a bit by the modest returns from the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, where India’s
medal haul slumped somewhat _even allowing for the fact that there were several
events which provided medals to the country in Delhi in 2010 that were scrapped
this time_the IOA has proposed a jumbo-sized 942-member contingent for the
Incheon Games.
“More the
merrier” has remained the favourite theme for the IOA through decades and
despite widespread criticism in the past about the manner in which it goes
about the task of finalizing its contingent and the eventual results returned
in the games, the IOA has stuck to its policy of appeasing all National Sports
Federations (NSFs), keeping in mind the vote bank that comes in handy during
elections.
Then there is
the question of “political equations”. Those NSFs that can tug at the
‘political strings’ will gain compared to those that may not have such clout.
A classic
example in the Asian Games context could be cycling. A 13-member Indian cycling
team expectedly drew blank in the Commonwealth Games. They might have been sent
to gain exposure in the run-up to the Asian Games or else might have been
proposed by CFI since almost every other federation was fielding a team, mainly
on the argument that the organizers were going to foot the bill any way (How
much the Government of India spent eventually on the contingent has not been
disclosed yet).
Since cycling is
not a medal-winning sport for India, the media focus stayed away from Indian
cyclists in Glasgow. The Indian results are, however, revealing if not shocking as shown below,
right at the end of this piece.
Does cycling have a case?
A nine-member
team has been proposed by the CFI for the Asian Games, comprising the same
members who finished miserably in Glasgow.
It is true cycling
does not have adequate infrastructure facilities in India and the sport has
been neglected for long. But should that mean a team is entered for
multi-discipline games where the standards would be expectedly much higher than
what the Indians would have encountered?
Among the sport
that the Sports Authority of India (SAI) may not recommend for clearance to the
Sports Ministry could be ten pin bowling, fencing,
modern pentathlon, rugby and triathlon, PTI reported the other day
quoting SAI DG Jiji Thomson. The report also mentioned football and table
tennis as having been lined up for the chopping block.
But cycling?
That is where
political clout should matter.
The CFI is headed by
Mr. Parminder Singh Dhindsa, Minister of Finance and Planning, Punjab
Government, and son of Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, former Union Sports Minister, now
Rajya Sabha MP, and Akali Dal leader. Senior Dhindsa had headed the CFI in the
past.
What happens to
cycling in the Asian Games context could be just one of the questions here.
Fencing, ten pin
bowling, modern pentathlon, rugby and triathlon, to name just a few from the
long list that the IOA has submitted, could be having as little chance as
cycling of earning a medal in Incheon for India.
Fencing, Ten Pin Bowling join the queue
Fencing did not
earn anything better than a 33rd place among men and 14th place among women in
the last Asian championships held at Suwon, Korea in July this year. But the
IOA has recommended men and women’s
squads.
In ten pin bowling, every Indian except Shaik
Abdul Hameed (ranked 20th) is below 61 among men in Asia. There is no Indian
woman ranked in the top 100 in the continent. Yet we have a team for the Asian
Games.
India lost all
its matches in men’s and women’s in the last Asian Games in sepak takraw. Still
when the ‘four-year itch’ starts, we just can’t stop thinking of entering the
team again.
The story is the
same in several disciplines. But then, a free ride is always an enjoyable
proposition. The bigger the component of athletes, the bigger the complement of
coaches and officials, that has been the underlying philosophy of the IOA all
these years.
It is not that
everyone wants to go abroad. It is a matter of prestige. If you are an athlete
you should be in the Indian team for any big event that is happening. And if
you are an official, your standing will go up only if you manage a few trips.
If India crossed
the century mark at the 2010 Commonwealth Games at home, the total medals tally
at the Guangzhou Asian Games that followed happened to be only 65 including 14
gold medals.
This time the
question after a none-too-impressive collection of 64 medals including 15 gold
in the Glasgow Games, could be how many can the country win in Incheon.
Quite often you
hear athletes complaining that they had been “dreaming” of this participation
for four years and that all their “hard work” would be down the drain if they
do not go. Of course there would be disappointment, but that disappointment is
more for the country when the games begin and the Indians start losing or
bringing up the rear.
On the other
hand, you hear NSFs bringing in the argument that their athletes need “exposure”.
Exposure in Asian Games?
Exposure at
multi-discipline games for the sake of exposure would be foolish. Exposure at
Asian championships level or smaller international meets, even through
bilateral exchanges should be fine.
A recent
statement from the Malaysian Sports Minister is of some relevance here and
should be an example for Indian sports administrators as well as politicians.
Multi-discipline
games will have to be treated as events that attract a fair amount of media
attention and thereby affect a country’s prestige and standing. Just because a
country might have spent some money on training a team in preparation for an
event like this should not eventually mean that unless that team competes in
that event the money would have been wasted.
Take the Indian
example. The Government spends money every year on priority disciplines as well
as non-priority disciplines, whether there is Asian Games or Olympic Games. Of
course extra money is sanctioned for teams preparing for big events especially
in priority disciplines.
China had 647 athletes, 316 medals in Doha
China entered 647athletes in 37 sports in the Doha Asian Games in 2006 and topped the medals
tally with 316 medals, 165 of them gold. Awesome!
At the same
games, India had a 400-plus contingent competing in 31 sports and took 54
medals including 10 gold to end up eighth on the medals table.
This time the
IOA has proposed 662 athletes, in 33 of the 36 sports disciplines included in
the Asian Games programme, leaving baseball, cricket and karate. The BCCI
refused to field a team while the IOA ignored the claims of a National
federation in karate which had the affiliation of the world body recognized by
the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and submitted an entry late in the
day (after a trial conducted by it) which was rejected by the Olympic Council
of Asia. How baseball was left out is not known.
No great insight
into Indian sports is needed to assess India’s medal chances in the forthcoming
games. A large majority of the sports that the IOA has proposed are there to
show that they too have higher ambitions, they too have athletes capable of
competing at higher levels and they too can win the odd bronze medal. If the
sport cannot even be shown as good enough to compete at the Asian level, then
interest in it will wane, funding will come in a trickle and the sport might
just fade away.
Coming as it
always does shortly after the Commonwealth Games, the Asian Games do show up
Indian sport, the medal collection in weightlifting and wrestling come down,
that in shooting gets reduced to single digits and overall the sense of
well-being projected by the CWG gets shaken.
And this is
where the SAI and the Government should be careful about not adding also-rans,
those teams that end up with ‘played-three-lost-three’ records, those athletes
who stand no chance of figuring in the top six, forget about earning a medal.
At least not on Government expense.
In 2006, the IOA
had created quite some confusion for the organizers in Doha
in a
similar situation as is available today. Then also the Government had cut the
contingent size, dropping a few team events.
Finally, almost
everyone managed to go, the IOA pulling out teams in basketball, fencing and sepak takraw. Incidentally, sepak takraw has been proposed this time, too, despite the fact that the Indian men and women lost all their matches in the last Games in Guangzhou in this sport.
There is a
provision in the National Sports Code by which the Government can refuse to
allow a team to use the term ‘India’in an international competition.
Will the
Government fall back on the “no cost to Government” formula while clearing a
few teams and athletes who might not measure up to any standard? Or will it
stop some teams from participation, something that has never happened?
Eventually when
a “no cost” formula is worked out, the federations extract substantial funds
from employers, most of them Government organizations or Public Sector
Undertakings.
Indian
cyclists at CWG 2014
Track events
Men
4000m team pursuit-India 4,31.714 (finished 6th and
last in qualification)
1000m time trial- Amrit Singh 1,06.903 (13th), Amarjit
Nagi 1,08.117 (14th), Alan Baby 1,10.579 (16th and last) (The odd man
out was Jesse Kelly of Barbados who came in between the Indians, otherwise a ‘clean sweep’ for the last three
places!)
Men’s team sprint (qualifying)-7th . India (Alan Baby, Amrit
Singh, Amarjit Nagi) 49.233 (8th was Barbados, 9th was Bangaldesh)
Men’s sprint (qualifying)-Amarjit Nagi (22nd),Amrit
Singh (23rd), Alan Baby (25th), 28 cyclists in all.
40km points race-Heat 1. Shreedhar Savanur DNF,
Heat 2- Amit Kumar and Sombir finished with zero points to be 14th
and 15th overall among 17 cyclists
Keirin-Heat
1 Amarjit Nagi finished last,Heat 2 Alan Baby finished last,Heat 3 Amrit Singh
finished last but one. In repechage Amrit Singh and Alan finished last again, Nagi managed to
come ahead of one Barbados cyclist
20km scratch race- Heat 1-Amit Kumar DNF, Sombir DNF, heat 2
Savanur DNF
Women
3000m individual pursuit-Sunita Yanglem (17th/19)
4,07.614
500m time trial-10. Deborah 36.611, 11. Mahitha Mohan 38.869,
13.Kezia Varghese 39.387 (one Jamaican ‘spoilt’ the sequence for Indians coming
in at 12th).
Sprint (Qualifying)-10. Deborah 12.483, 11. Mahitha
Mohan 13.059, 12. Kezia Varghese 13.162
(13th and
last was a Jamaican)
25km points race-Sunita Yanglem DNF
10km scratch race-Sunita Yanglem DNF
Road races
Men
168.240km
Shreedhar
Savanur, Sombir, Amit Kumar, Arvind Panwar, Manjeet Singh, all five DNF
(only 12
riders finished in all, 127 riders did not finish)
Individual time trial 38.4km-37th/56 Sombir 59,10.76
Indian
women did not compete in road races.
No comments:
Post a Comment