How does one benchmark a nation’s performance in an event that was never really meant to be super-competitive anyway? Most athletes in Glasgow who gave it their all to stand on the medals podium would disagree with any value judgments about the seriousness of the Commonwealth Games and they would be right. But they would also be the first to admit that in the final analysis the Commonwealth Games have always been seen as a kind of second-order games in the global hierarchy of events of this kind: behind the Olympics and the Asian Games (in our part of the world, at least).
So no disrespect to our athletes but for the Commonwealth, the problem has always been that the Games that bears its name were from the moment of their inception envisaged as a kind of antidote to the hyper-nationalist and commercial global sporting spectacle of the Olympics. This is why they were once dubbed the “Friendly Games” and though the cultural imperative of the Games has drastically changed since the demise of the British empire, the Games have always been seen in elite global sporting circles not as a serious sporting competition, worthy of being a destination in itself, but as more as a kind of sparring arena meant to be a stepping stone to other more weightier things.
It’s a great and prestigious to win a medal at the Games, of course, but kids around the world don’t grow up dreaming to be Commonwealth Games champions, like they dream of the Olympics or of the World Championships.
So what does one make of India’s performance in Glasgow? To begin with, we are drastically down from 101 medals (38 gold, 27 silver and 36 bronze) in Delhi 2010 to 64 in Glasgow (15 gold, 30 silver and 19 bronze). This 36 per cent reduction in overall medal count could be explained away by the fact that Delhi 2010 and Glasgow 2014 are not strictly comparable.
First, attempts to make the Games more television-friendly ensured that three events which India did well at in 2010 were dropped or significantly altered in Glasgow. Shooting medal events (where India won as many as 13 gold medals in 2010) were substantially reduced this time from 44 to 19; archery and tennis which between them brought India a dozen medals last time were dropped and so was Greco-Roman wrestling which bagged as many as eight last time.
The home advantage was gone as well and the total number of Indian athletes down too: from to over 400 in Delhi to 225 in Glasgow. Practically speaking, the sheer design of the tournament ensured that a fifth place finish was par for the course.
Second, while a bulk of Indian medals came from traditional areas of strength — shooting, wrestling, weightlifting, boxing — the silver lining lay in the rise of new champions in previously barren areas: squash, athletics field events and even women’s wrestling. The badminton players too reinforced their status as an emerging new power centre but the gains in these arenas were offset by the relative decline of boxing.
Four years ago, the boxers won 5 gold medals (and 7 overall) announcing India’s arrival as an emerging new force in the global game. Four years later, they did well but couldn’t do full justice to their reputation by not managing a single first-place finish (though they did win 5 medals). They were done in not by talent, but by politics.
Hostage to domestic politics and internal power play they have been forced to stay away from the kind of international exposure that gave them confidence before 2010. The rules of the game have changed in last four years but in the absence of enough global exposure our boxers, for no fault of their own, have regressed a bit. They had it in them to go to use the springboard of 2010 to leap forward to the next level but India’s boxing revolution which promised so much has remained static.
Third, Indian sportspeople may have moved forward but Indian sports officialdom, remains exactly where it was: down in the dumps. The arrests of two officials for drunken behaviour and worse shows that nothing has changed.
The fact that one of these is a Secretary General of the IOA, no less, is nauseating. In many ways, Rajeev Mehta’s career as a sports official typifies the sports mandarin type in India. He headed the low profile kho-kho federation, owed his rise in the IOA to patronage from Haryana’s Abhay Chautala and is seen to be friendly with both factions of the IOA. Also a vice president of Hockey India and a former head of the Uttarakhand Football Association, Mehta is the quentissential Indian sporting official, with his hands in many sporting pies but very little to show for them.
The most charitable things that can be said for Indian sports officialdom is that at least there is continuity: of disgrace. The last time an Indian contingent travelled overseas for the Commonwealth Games, in Melbourne 2006, it too came back without an official, who was accused of sexual assault.
Fourth, Delhi 2010 was touted as a new launching pad for Indian sport. For the first time, over Rs 767 crore were spent on training alone and India did achieve a historic second place spot on the medals table. Four years later, there are clear improvements in some sports and the nascent public-private partnerships which had emerged to create a new sporting ecosystem continue to do their unsung work. Olympics Gold Quest remains strong, Mittal Champions Trust has fallen by the wayside but Anglian Media (many of whose athletes won medals) has taken its place. These efforts need to be up-scaled.
Overall though, we seem back to where we started from. In Melbourne 2006, Indian athletes won 50 medals, standing fourth on the medals tally. This time we have won more medals but stand fifth. Even if the Commonwealth Games are not the most elite of competitions, they do offer a barometer of a kind and judging by the evidence, Delhi’s promise of a new dawn, of helping to create a genuine and fundamental shift in sporting cultures has proved to be a false one.
How does one benchmark a nation’s performance in an event that was never really meant to be super-competitive anyway? Most athletes in Glasgow who gave it their all to stand on the medals podium would disagree with any value judgments about the seriousness of the Commonwealth Games and they would be right. But they would also be the first to admit that in the final analysis the Commonwealth Games have always been seen as a kind of second-order games in the global hierarchy of events of this kind: behind the Olympics and the Asian Games (in our part of the world, at least).
So no disrespect to our athletes but for the Commonwealth, the problem has always been that the Games that bears its name were from the moment of their inception envisaged as a kind of antidote to the hyper-nationalist and commercial global sporting spectacle of the Olympics. This is why they were once dubbed the “Friendly Games” and though the cultural imperative of the Games has drastically changed since the demise of the British empire, the Games have always been seen in elite global sporting circles not as a serious sporting competition, worthy of being a destination in itself, but as more as a kind of sparring arena meant to be a stepping stone to other more weightier things.
It’s a great and prestigious to win a medal at the Games, of course, but kids around the world don’t grow up dreaming to be Commonwealth Games champions, like they dream of the Olympics or of the World Championships.
So what does one make of India’s performance in Glasgow? To begin with, we are drastically down from 101 medals (38 gold, 27 silver and 36 bronze) in Delhi 2010 to 64 in Glasgow (15 gold, 30 silver and 19 bronze). This 36 per cent reduction in overall medal count could be explained away by the fact that Delhi 2010 and Glasgow 2014 are not strictly comparable.
First, attempts to make the Games more television-friendly ensured that three events which India did well at in 2010 were dropped or significantly altered in Glasgow. Shooting medal events (where India won as many as 13 gold medals in 2010) were substantially reduced this time from 44 to 19; archery and tennis which between them brought India a dozen medals last time were dropped and so was Greco-Roman wrestling which bagged as many as eight last time.
The home advantage was gone as well and the total number of Indian athletes down too: from to over 400 in Delhi to 225 in Glasgow. Practically speaking, the sheer design of the tournament ensured that a fifth place finish was par for the course.
Second, while a bulk of Indian medals came from traditional areas of strength — shooting, wrestling, weightlifting, boxing — the silver lining lay in the rise of new champions in previously barren areas: squash, athletics field events and even women’s wrestling. The badminton players too reinforced their status as an emerging new power centre but the gains in these arenas were offset by the relative decline of boxing.
Four years ago, the boxers won 5 gold medals (and 7 overall) announcing India’s arrival as an emerging new force in the global game. Four years later, they did well but couldn’t do full justice to their reputation by not managing a single first-place finish (though they did win 5 medals). They were done in not by talent, but by politics.
Hostage to domestic politics and internal power play they have been forced to stay away from the kind of international exposure that gave them confidence before 2010. The rules of the game have changed in last four years but in the absence of enough global exposure our boxers, for no fault of their own, have regressed a bit. They had it in them to go to use the springboard of 2010 to leap forward to the next level but India’s boxing revolution which promised so much has remained static.
Third, Indian sportspeople may have moved forward but Indian sports officialdom, remains exactly where it was: down in the dumps. The arrests of two officials for drunken behaviour and worse shows that nothing has changed.
The fact that one of these is a Secretary General of the IOA, no less, is nauseating. In many ways, Rajeev Mehta’s career as a sports official typifies the sports mandarin type in India. He headed the low profile kho-kho federation, owed his rise in the IOA to patronage from Haryana’s Abhay Chautala and is seen to be friendly with both factions of the IOA. Also a vice president of Hockey India and a former head of the Uttarakhand Football Association, Mehta is the quentissential Indian sporting official, with his hands in many sporting pies but very little to show for them.
The most charitable things that can be said for Indian sports officialdom is that at least there is continuity: of disgrace. The last time an Indian contingent travelled overseas for the Commonwealth Games, in Melbourne 2006, it too came back without an official, who was accused of sexual assault.
Fourth, Delhi 2010 was touted as a new launching pad for Indian sport. For the first time, over 767 crore were spent on training alone and India did achieve a historic second place spot on the medals table. Four years later, there are clear improvements in some sports and the nascent public-private partnerships which had emerged to create a new sporting ecosystem continue to do their unsung work. Olympics Gold Quest remains strong, Mittal Champions Trust has fallen by the wayside but Anglian Media (many of whose athletes won medals) has taken its place. These efforts need to be up-scaled.
Overall though, we seem back to where we started from. In Melbourne 2006, Indian athletes won 50 medals, standing fourth on the medals tally. This time we have won more medals but stand fifth. Even if the Commonwealth Games are not the most elite of competitions, they do offer a barometer of a kind and judging by the evidence, Delhi’s promise of a new dawn, of helping to create a genuine and fundamental shift in sporting cultures has proved to be a false one.
