Indian athletes have shown in recent years that they can compete with the best in the world. Pockets of sporting brilliance have come up across the country. There is also a greater understanding among policymakers that they need to provide push for infrastructure upgrade. Still, the greater successes outside cricket are on account of coaches who have raised the bar.
The challenge for India to become a sporting powerhouse lies in institutionalising such culture. Wrestling and boxing are most sought-after in Haryana. A good number of women boxers have also come on the international stage from the Northeast. Badminton is resting on the laurels of a few coaches, who had been icons in the past decades. The likes of Neeraj Chopra are also coming on the stage. A few Central programmes such as ‘Khelo India’ too have been impactful.
The country can come in the league of the US, China, Australia and Canada to offer the youth alternative sporting choices. Indeed, it should not be understood that the government alone can raise the bar—sports should become an option for gainful engagement and even employment, which will hasten the efforts
to reach the goal.
On the lines of ‘Skill India Mission’ wherein the youth get trained to the requirements of the industries, sports too needs institutional intervention. The private sector has been the principal mover in the Skill India mission, with the government supporting with financial incentives. Now, India is partnering with a host of nations such as Australia and Germany for speedy skilling of the youth. This model can be replicated in sports too. There can be a policy-level intervention to create a financial architecture, which provides an ecosystem for private entities to find pivotal roles in running the affairs of the sporting centres.
The state governments too are rising to the occasion and unveiling their sports policies. For instance, Uttar Pradesh has announced that it will set up 14 centres of excellence, five high-performance centres, and there will be a dedicated sports development fund.
It is noteworthy to mention that the supply lines of sports powerhouses such as China, the US, Australia and others are schools. Talents need to be discovered at an age that will provide them at least 10 years for grooming at an institutional level. While sports facilities are available in schools, they most often are inadequate and mere value addition to the academics-centred education system.
We need to create mandatory facilities that can absorb a minimum percentage of students and offer them options to pursue an alternative stream of sports education. The academic curriculum may be made rich with study of sports as a science along with a few essential subjects to create a separate stream from an early stage. This will unburden the sports-oriented students from burning the proverbial midnight oil on subjects that don’t interest them. It will also lead to parents encouraging their children to opt for such a stream if they see it as a credible career choice.
A proliferation of sports institutions across the country will instil the belief that pursuing competitive games could also offer gainful employment. States will have to come forward and share the onus with the Centre in this regard. They can identify and adjust the interventions according to their strengths. The Centre can play a lead role in handholding the states to opt for a few sporting fields and focus on them for gains in a short span of time.
Sumeet Bhasin
Director, Public Policy Research Centre
Twitter: @sumeetbhasin