Why We Are A Two-Medal Nation

We have work to do. A frenzy every four years won’t cut it.

- Abhinav Bindra

IT’S the same old story every four years. The frenzy begins at the Opening Ceremony. People from across our nation start baying for medals as if it’s our birthright. There are celebrations, there are felicitations. There is criticism of the athletes who fail to win. There is an uproar against our self-serving officials. There are sarcastic references to how a nation of one billion hardly wins any medals. Then, by the time the Closing Ceremony comes along, this frenzy peters out. It is sent into hibernation to be reawakened before the next Olympics.

We, in India, are suffering from a strange syndrome. We think we ought to be among the top sporting nations in the world, but in reality, we are confused about what kind of sporting nation we are, and what kind of sporting nation we want to become. So let’s address the basic questions: Do we want to be known as one of the leaders of the sporting world that wins 20, 30, 40 medals every Olympics? Or are we happy being a two-, three-, or five-medal nation? The confusion is a very understandable one. There are so many problems in India, and so many priorities to focus on—poverty, healthcare, water, power, unemployment, social inequality—that sport ends up taking a back seat. If we are happy with keeping sport on the backburner, on not treating it as a priority item in our larger national agenda, fair enough, and so be it. If we decide, as a nation, that we cannot invest in sport and we cannot afford to join the race for medals, let us re-engineer our hopes and set realistic targets. Let us be fine with winning a few medals, if at all, at the Olympics, and be content. But if we want to break out, if we consider sporting excellence as a reflection of the nation’s health and its place in the world, then drastic action is needed.