Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London, Rio....Delhi?

During this summer’s London 2012 Olympics we happened to be on our annual summer holiday in Turkey. We missed most of the Games but managed to make it back in time to see a third place match for the women’s basketball. Public transportation worked well, we had a great meal inside the O2 venue, and the entertainment was more popular with the child among us than the main event. Luckily we managed to avoid being picked up by the Kiss Cam (a participating spectator sport that is not de rigueur at the IPL cricket).

There were some issues with the staging of the Games, most notably the failure of G4S to provide enough security guards, but the armed services stepped into the breach and the public welcomed them with open arms. The volunteers were a great success entertaining the crowds waiting patiently in queues. The London Games organisers learnt not only from previous games but also other sports events globally including the IPL. Overall the Games were widely reported to be the “Best Games Ever” although it is unclear how one can make such a sweeping generalisation.

Yes, the Games were a great success: Britain nearly met its overall medal targets, and the country was certainly overcome by “Games Fever”. But one forgets the pessimistic notes that were struck well before the Games: public transport would collapse (people were warned to take their summer holidays or work from home), there would be public outcry about the special Olympic traffic lanes, hotel capacity would be insufficient, and the public would fail to turn out. There were comparisons with the farcical opening of the new Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport. In fact none of these issues really materialised.

So, why did the Games go well? Britain is a highly developed economy capable of organising such a spectacle (although we haven’t done so often), it has a well-developed transport infrastructure (albeit stretched), it has a well-established sporting pedigree in most Olympic events and the public participated in the Olympic spirit.

During our vacation in Turkey we frequently made comparisons between Turkey and India and mused that soon Istanbul would host the Games ahead of Delhi. This was only my second trip to Turkey and I found its level of development surprisingly high. At a seaside resort far from any major centres the streets were clean, there was a model of urban development, clean water and sewerage was available to all. On a trip inland taken on a clean local bus we found fast roads. The economic comparison with India is instructive: Turkish GDP per head is almost 4 times higher, but the total Indian economy is ranked 10th in the world while Turkey is only ranked 15th.

So, why as I learnt while Istanbul is bidding for the 2020 Olympics is there is no bid from India?

India has after all successfully hosted the Asian Games (twice) and the Commonwealth Games in 2010. Hosting the Olympic Games is almost a marker for a country’s arrival as a world power. In 1964 Tokyo hosted the Games seemingly to establish its re-emergence as an industrial power, Mexico in 1968, Moscow in 1980 (although that was to “celebrate” Communist totalitarian power in the midst of the Cold War), Seoul in 1988, Beijing in 2008, and in 2016 another BRIC city Rio de Janeiro, will host the Games.

It is clear that India could be making a bid for the Games to further its prestige, to announce its arrival on the world stage as an economic superpower. It has many other elements in place: increasing clout in international affairs (albeit without the much desired Permanent Membership of the Security Council), a space programme, nuclear weapons, some world class companies (Tata, Infosys amongst others).

Were the political elite haunted by the memories of the Commonwealth Games of 2010? In fact it was not some minor issues but how the organisers reacted to these setbacks. One may recall Commonwealth teams making disparaging noises about standards of cleanliness in the Games village; one of the organisers reportedly said: “Everyone has different standards about cleanliness. The Westerners have different standards, we (Indians) have different standards”; I don’t think one would hear that from a housekeeper at a Taj or Oberoi hotel. Meanwhile a pedestrian bridge near a stadium collapsed; another organizer reportedly said it didn’t matter as the bridge was for “ordinary people”, not athletes. So that’s OK then.

Perhaps it is a fear of being unable to organize a major event but by all accounts the Commonwealth Games, although a much smaller event than the Olympics, went well.

Is it that India has failed in the Olympic Games in recent times? At the London Games India won a total of 6 medals (2 silvers and 4 bronze), a rather disappointing tally for a nation of 1.2 billion and the 10th largest economy in the world. By contrast Russia, with a GDP just slightly higher and ranked 9th, won 82 medals. India placed 55th out of 79 countries for total medals won, below North Korea, and below other BRIC countries. But if the medal tally takes account of population and GDP, India comes last. Not a very good outcome.

There is probably limited support from parents of potential athletes who want their children to be doctors and engineers, and the income inequalities mean few have the general good health needed to become athletes. In short despite a potentially large pool of Olympians there are few that could realistically aspire to such levels. In addition, there are limited sporting facilities in the country. Furthermore, compared to the size of the country there is no political and economic support in developing athletes on an industrial scale.

Some commentators assert that India is a one-sport country: cricket. But most large countries support more than one sport; in the USA it’s baseball, football, basketball, and others such as ice hockey. Perhaps in time more sports will develop in India, and sponsorship will enable new athletes to emerge, but in truth this takes government support in developing basic facilities, and coaches.

Different countries have often found sports at which their populace can excel, but again this takes continuing government support. There are no votes in developing athletes perhaps 10 years before they win medals. African countries have, for example, focused on running events. Perhaps a lack of money is the main barrier.

It is clear that India could organize and host an Olympic Games; let us not forget that Rio is having considerable doubts about its capabilities as many facilities are nowhere near ready, and there are concerns about transport and gang violence. But it would seem an abuse of power and profligacy when so many of the Indian populace live in abject poverty, when rates of literacy are low (it has the largest illiterate population in the world), and there needs to be increased focus on basic public health measures.

Unquestionably India will host the Olympic Games but it needs to be ready industrially, economically, and in terms of sports culture. Indian GDP per head is still far below China’s in 2008. In time India will catch up and pass China. Until the mass of the population participates successfully in the economy India will continue to have to look inward and not on furthering its prestige externally.