The assessment of Olympic gold medalist Abhinav Bindra, that India has not reached the stage where it can host the Olympics and India should only think about it when it’s confident of winning 40 gold medals in the quadrennial event is right on the money. Bindra is correct in saying that Indian systems simply aren’t ready to absorb an event like the Olympics. In fact, the mega sporting extravaganza is hugely expensive even for developed nations then how India could afford the expense. Recall how the last Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – a country far above us in per capita GDP rankings – were also marred by protests due to cost overruns.
In such a situation, hosting the Olympics in India would mean diverting precious resources which can use for public services such as healthcare, education, and food supply. And if India’s hosting of the Commonwealth Games in 2010 is anything to go by, governance infirmities could again lead to corruption and pilferage. The argument that hosting the Olympics will give a boost to public infrastructure also doesn’t cut ice. In many cases, the assets created fail to mitigate the needs of the host city and end up as white elephants. It makes far more sense to directly invest in public infrastructure rather than take the circuitous route of hosting an international sporting event.
Besides these, our country doesn’t have the sporting depth to benefit from hosting the games. Bindra is right in pointing out that we as a country are confused about the role that sports should play. There is no sustained effort at nurturing talent, which is why despite the tremendous potential the country fails to bring an inadequate number of medals at the Olympics. In these circumstances, hosting the games won’t lead to any tangible sporting benefit either with short-term gains evaporating quickly. A better approach is to focus on basics and improve grassroots sporting infrastructure and fist India must improve the life of basic people after that we could host Olympics.
Post Your Comments