A few grams of gold can elevate or depress a nation’s morale and stature. But first; why should any nation spend money on sports, especially one whose population substantially relies on subsidies?
Nations invest in sports for three strategic reasons. The first is global positioning. Sports are surrogates of warfare and derived from combat. Think of shooting, archery, javelin and discus throws, fencing, boxing and of course wrestling.
The Olympic Games have always been a surrogate battleground for global power jockeying. Recall Berlin, 1936, where African-American Jesse Owens demolished Hitler’s ‘Aryan supremacy’ delusion, beating every Caucasian athlete in four different events in the dictator’s own backyard.
In 1980, geopolitical tension between superpowers spilled over to sports when the US boycotted the Moscow Olympics, protesting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In retaliation, the Soviet Union boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles Games.
The blood, sweat and dreams of hundreds of athletes who had nothing to do with political ideologies were wasted by leaders playing their own games.
Olympics also project a nation’s overall might. The US held pole position from 1948 to 1972, until the Soviet Union caught up in the 1972 Munich Olympics and crushed its rival decisively in the Montreal games. The Soviet Union maintained its medal dominance till 1992, after which China began its global ascent.
And despite India’s pride in every medal won and admiration for every athlete, our meagre tally of about 40 medals won so far, while China bagged 90 in Paris alone, reflects the country’s position.
The second reason is national health. Well implemented, every rupee invested in sports delivers exponential benefits in terms of physical, mental and social health. Sports at grassroot levels can ensure a healthier ‘next generation,’ saving on opportunity costs and medical expenses while fending off untold misery.
It is proven that youth engaged in sports are not just healthier and more productive citizens, but also less likely to fall prey to temptations like substance abuse. So it is an investment in human capital.
But if medals alone become the yardstick of success, then the tail wags the dog. The euphoria of one odd victory hides hard truths about the efficacy of our sporting establishment, condition of athletes and the accountability of official entourages accompanying sportspersons.
No one challenges the relevance of politicians and bureaucrats who seem to wield official, semi-official or surrogate influence over every federation or association for each sport with little transparency or accountability for the use of taxpayers’ money.
With an alarming proportion of our population undernourished and many of our urban youth living in the world’s worst polluted cities, it is hard to see us leveraging sports as a ‘health investment plan’ for the next generation.
The third reason is inculcation of sportsman spirit and camaraderie. “The battle of Waterloo was won in the playing fields of Eton,” goes a British saying that refers to a famous boarding school. This is about sports as a builder of individual and team character.
This is why there is such emphasis on sports in military training. And here again lies the irony of our sports strategy. Of the 32 medals won by India between the Berlin and Tokyo Games, 24, or two-thirds, were in individual events.
Barring hockey, our ‘medal mindset’ has created individual gladiators rather than teams, thus undermining the team-work purpose of national investment in sports.
And as for wrestler Vinesh Phogat, here is a story she and millions of her fans might find solace in. Forty years ago, the Los Angeles Games witnessed one of the most controversial and memorable moments in Olympic history. American Mary Decker was the hot favourite to win the women’s 3,000-metres race being held for the first time.
With four laps to go, she seemed poised for victory when 18-year-old Zola Budd suddenly cut ahead of Decker, tripping her to a fall. Budd, whose participation was controversial because she took British citizenship to escape an apartheid ban on her origin-country South Africa, finished seventh.
Mary injured her hip and had to be carried away weeping from an unfinished race. This controversial event marred the entire Olympics, and specifically the victory of Maricica Puica, who won the gold medal. Although she had clocked in faster than Decker in the qualifying heats, her victory was widely perceived to be the result of Decker’s drop-out.
Amid all the blame-shifting and arguments over Phogat, the ironic symbolism being missed is that the Olympic gold medal is actually made of silver, with just about 1% gold (on account of gold-plating). The value of the medal never lay in the metal. It was and will always be in the warrior’s mettle.
Abhimanyu is immortalized as one of the greatest warriors ever, even though legend has him losing his last battle. His six slayers fell from reverence to eternal shame for their cowardice and wiles, even though they ‘won’ the fight.
We don’t need a medal to remind us who won and who lost. Phogat’s loss of that piece of metal is just another one of the misfortunes that life threw at her. Her grappling days aren’t over and we wish her well.
As for a nation that spends crores on jamborees and is reputed to hold the world’s largest private stash of gold, the inability to lift even six grams of it on a global stage tells us where we stand in our responsibility to the next generation. Neither faster, nor stronger or higher. And, sadly, not even together.
