Tanvir Khan
And we thought India was getting ready for the Commonwealth Games in 2010. Indian officials visiting Beijing have been left awed by the way China has hosted the 2008 Games and have owned up that India is nowhere close to what its neighbour has achieved as the Olympic host. Only constructing Metros and a few flyovers will not gear up the nation’s capital to host an international event. Learning from China’s precision might.
Well moving on, we saw China emerge as the highest gold getter at Beijing followed by the United States and India some forty, forty-five places behind the hosts and leader. Nonetheless, this was India’s best Olympics ever winning three medals overall. Abhinav Bindra, a young, wealthy lad with a shooting range at home in Chandigarh, set the tone by striking gold in the 10 meter air rifle event. Then there was wrestler Sushil Kumar from Delhi and boxer Vijender Kumar from BBC (Bhiwani Boxing Club) who won bronze for their motherland.
There were the likes of Anju Bobby George and Anjali Bhagwat and Rajwardhan Singh Rathore among others who were expected to bring home some pride but they failed miserably. Their flop show in Beijing, however, was overshadowed by the three boxers of the Indian contingent who made it to the quarter-finals but two of them bowed out after a brave fight. Vijender moved a step ahead and lost to Cuban Correa in the semis giving India the first medal (Bronze) in Boxing in Olympic Games.
Who was the winner at the Beijing Olympics 2008? Michael Phelps? Usain Bolt? According to me it was the host nation, who churned out Gold at their will. The Chinese were disappointed after Czech Republic had won the first Gold at the Games. They made up for it by winning more than 50 Golds and 100 overall medals overtaking US in the ‘golden tally’. They came under the critics’ hammer for various reasons. Some applauded their efforts, but few looked behind the scenes. How come China literally manufactured gold and India had 3 overall? Why was it that they excelled in almost all the events and not one in particular?
The story behind the success of the now-established sporting superpower is the infrastructure that the country’s government provides. To elaborate, China has over 8.5 lakh sports fields and more than 6 lakh stadiums to give its budding athletes a place to polish their skills. Not only this, there are approximately 40,000 annual meets held for the sportsmen to prove their abilities. Over 3,50,000 students are trained in 44,000 special sports schools to churn out over 46,000 professional athletes under the supervision of 25,000 coaches, which comes down to just about two athletes under one coach. The sole objective is to excel in at least one sport and yes they are paid by the government for doing this.
It’s not over yet. For the Games in Beijing, 3,222 elite international athletes were selected based on their performance in global meets. It is all with the support of the government there. The sports infrastructure is backed by the financial clout from the administration. According to reports, the funds allocated to the Beijing contingent was somewhere around USD 4.8 billion. Read that again! It is USD 4.8 billion, not million. This is what makes all the difference between them and us.
The government there provides funds to participating athletes so that they face no trouble in preparing for the events. Here, in India, the government distributes prize money. They announce crores of cash rewards only after a sportsperson brings laurels to the country - the same government that ignored the sport and the infrastructure earlier.
What difference does it make other than increasing the bank balance of the successful athlete? What about the budding Vijender Kumar? How about another Abhinav Bindra who cannot afford a shooting range in his hut? If only the government turns its head from awarding cash from its reserves and improve the sports infrastructure in the country to match international standards!
