Renowned Sports Journalist, Commentator And Author, Ayaz Memon Debates Whether India Can Be A Top Sporting Nation Or Is A One-Sport Country
It is important to understand the sense of actualization of potential that this country has in terms of sports. Demographic advantage can be of great help in multidiscipline sports and events, provided things are done right which is actually happening in cricket. I’ll continue to draw parallels between cricket because I think it is crucial to understand why cricket has become such a huge game in India and why India is in the vanguard of popularising cricket all over the world. Without India, the world would be poorer not just in terms of the money that India generates but also in terms of talent. Then, of course, to see how we can expand our horizons to other scopes.
To take you back seven decades, there is a lot of data available, there were, perhaps, more registered footballers in India than cricketers. There were enough first-class teams but there were more footballers in India, perhaps even more hockey players. That was for two reasons, football is an inexpensive game played across all schools and institutions, as was hockey, which was a little more expensive since you had to buy hockey sticks and you had to buy a pair of shoes. Certainly, this was more expensive than athletics in which you could just run in canvas shoes. Cricket, too, was a slightly expensive game because you had to get gear, you needed a bat, pads, gloves, ball, you needed a pitch. And, therefore, it wasn’t a great incentive to be a cricketer except one thing, which is quite remarkable in the Indian context that in terms of proving to our colonial masters, the British, then, cricket was seen as a far better platform to prove a point. Indians are dextrous and we were good at thinking up lines and angles and therefore we produced some great spinners and not much fast bowlers because constitutionally we weren’t very strong and therefore, what you see in Lagaan, in a sense it is allegorical to the Indian sentiment at that time. Agar angrez ko sabak sikhana hai toh kahaan sikha sakte hain? It emerged more, firstly in the Parsis because they were closer to the British politically and for business reasons. But through them and later from other people, cricket became popular. The exploits of the very early cricketers who didn’t actually play for India such as Ranjitsinhji and Duleepsinhji showed that the Indians’ talent quotient was high.
The defining push that cricket got vis-à-vis the other sports was royal patronage in feudal India, before Independence, from almost all the principalities and small kingdoms because again they wanted proximity to the British and sort-of show them that they were also involved with what the English were doing. They patronized cricket more than any other sport. The only exception was squash because it was more or less a fitness regimen for the raja and maharajas. Therefore, it (squash) was adopted more readily by the defence forces than the aam janta.
Gradually, you could see the wearing down of interest in football and hockey at the elite level. If you look at what happened in hockey, we won Olympic golds in 1928, 1932 and 1936, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1980. Why didn’t we cash into that? We could have built a super structure on which Indian hockey would survive. In football, we finished 4th in the 1956 Olympics, we actually did well in the Asian Games and yet, right after the ’60s, we couldn’t make it. We stagnated or plateaued in football and the reason it happened was that the Federation was inactive, the government itself did not see sports as a priority sector. That is a very huge reason why we languish behind many countries.
To give an example of what this means, China participated in the first Asian Games held in India, didn’t do well at all, was also part of Olympic Games, failed miserably and then they went back behind the bamboo curtain, didn’t participate in international events at all till they had fortified themselves and their talent through government support. And, when they emerged in the 1980s from behind the bamboo curtain, they were a nation of champions: badminton champions, swimming champions, diving champions, gymnastics champions and you find now that they are competing with the US in most Olympic medals and only in recent years has India been able to challenge the hegemony of the Chinese in badminton. You can see their excellence across sports.
The point I am trying to make is that when India was emerging from a mixed economy, post-Independence, maybe the priority was not sport at all as it was a poor country. Therefore, resources had to be allocated for other things, government support was meagre in fact even the amount of grant given to sports institutions was poor. So, you have instances of Khashaba Jadhav who won our first-ever Olympic medal, a bronze medal, if you read his story, you’d know all the hardships that he had to do to get into the Olympics. Dhyan Chand playing barefoot in Germany in 1936 and impressing the world with his speed and talent, Milkha Singh in 1960 running in Olympics, a champion runner, running barefoot most of the times, remember he was in the Army yet he could not afford running shoes. The issue being sports was never seen as priority sector. There are two-three reflection points, opening up of the economy in 1991 has made a big difference, disposable income has gone up, there is far more wealth amongst Indians, we can look at sports as a high priority pursuit. I think this has opened up many vistas, and then the triumphs, 1983 World Cup in Cricket which gave cricket a massive steroid boost, with people saying, ‘If we do as well as cricketers, maybe we will get enough bhaav and money’.
I think livelihood is crucial in achieving sporting experience. You look at all the countries, US which is a free country or China being totalitarian and State-sponsored, but unless there is incentive of livelihood, sustenance and security, you will not get sporting excellence clearly. I think that has been one of the biggest issues in India because even now we fall between two stools. In US, there is no sports ministry, the sports federations have to fend for themselves, as also the athletes. I did a session with Michael Phelps, the greatest Olympian of all time, perhaps, he has won more medals than India has won in total in Olympic history. He says, when he started out and when he was very promising, the swimming federation backed him but not the US Government. They said you will have to find your own money, and he went personally to patrons who could support them in his quest to become a world class swimmer. Then there is China, once they start focusing on sports, they put their might behind it. Then there are mixed systems like Australia where the government supports sports, identifies priority sectors, sets benchmarks and if the benchmarks are not met then the fund is pulled out. The federation doesn’t get the funds, so, there is no freebie. There is also the English system: England had a big surge of Olympic medals starting from the late ’90s and it came through the funding of the British Government not their Chancellery but by starting a lottery targeting money for Olympic and elite-level athlete development. That worked well because Britain saw a huge surge in medal wins in 2008, 2012. There are other countries like Germany which are again mix and match. But in India, what has happened is that it has been a complex issue: there has been a government grant, as I understand it, the last grant disbursed to federations was about Rs 450-500 crore by Mr Jaitley, when he was the Finance Minister. This is one aspect; the other aspect is what you do after giving money? How good is our understanding about sports?
In real terms, despite globalisation and showing an upward trend, there was one Sports Minister about 20 years back who publicly proclaimed that this was a punishment posting, and if they had made him a sports minister, it meant they had not found him good for any other posting. If that is the mindset of a Sports Minister, then there is no accountability of the federations. That was reflected in how the feds worked. I’ll give you an example of hockey around late 1980s. I was sitting in Professional Management Group, a company floated by Sunil Gavaskar because it was next to my office in Mid-Day. I used to go in around noon but they had got a sponsorship from ITC, I think, of Rs 20 lakh for the Indian hockey team. Some officials came from Indian Hockey Federation to the office, Gavaskar wasn’t there, but his partners were and I happened to be there. And the first thing the officials were discussing was, where shall we go now and get blazers made for us? They were not thinking of the hockey players, that was not priority at all. Pehle apna socho! Why? We spent 25-30 years in the federation and this is what we deserve?! So, it was a combination of these attitudes at the very top and the attitude at the Federation level and the third aspect which is equally crucial is the Indian people. I think Indian people also did not care much about the sporting excellence. We were happy to bajao taali and we all said waah, we were by and large happy that we had given a good fight because we didn’t have the incentive and the killer instinct, the fighting roar. All these things were not part of the Indian psyche and the mental makeup.
That transformation has happened over the years. I think in last 20 years, there has been a fundamental change in the Indian psyche, it is a far more confident and young country that thrives on success which fills our chest with pride. It is of more value that uplifts our country, it has great health dividends which is now being understood through sports science, sports medicine, it is also a great psychological boost. If India wins the Test match today, I think we all will be singing tomorrow morning. So, these are the things that are emerging now and they need to be pushed further down for understanding of the Indian people. The young, especially, but also the older people who may not be able to play sports but have a big role to play in promoting or facilitating improvement in sports.
So, say for instance IPL that has a roaring success and a lot of talent you see has emerged from IPL. It is not just about the talent – what Indian cricket has done is that BCCI, for all its problems and all its faults, has spread the gospel of cricket across the length and breadth of the country. Punjab, the bastion of hockey, now mostly plays cricket. Even in the East, in Bengal, cricket has become number one, in Kerala cricket has become huge, this is because BCCI has generated a lot of money but they have also spread the money across the country. There has been fantastic young talent coming from the most remote parts of the country and unorthodox thinking talent. Rishabh Pant or Dhoni, if they had to come from a Bombay school, they would play cricket differently, they would be less risk takers because Bombay’s cricketers are more khadoos type. All this is changing because of the IPL. The other thing happening due to IPL is that it has inspired other federations to look at how best they can do things to grow their own sport. And the livelihood factor, the idea of people making life in the sport, has taken firm roots.
I’ll give you a classic example of Kabaddi. When, in 2012-13, when I was doing commentary on Star Sports for cricket and this came about that most Indian kabaddi players were either from Defence, quasi-Defence or public sector undertakings, sales and etc, their mean salary must be Rs 25-35000. Star Sports and promoters, kind of raved it up, made it exciting to watch, made it television-friendly. And they are not coming only from India, from only PSUs or Defence or quasi-Defence or BSF but they are coming from all aspects and all walks of life. Today, the mean salary of a kabaddi player in Rs 6-8 lakh a season, even a rookie. The best players must be getting over a crore. Now you may not compare it with a Kohli or a Dhoni but the absorption level in sports for money to go up and higher has become huge. Business houses have been coming in, Reliance has been a big mover in sports, table tennis and so many other sports, JSW also.
Why isn’t sports treated as an industry? Why should it be part of CSR? CSR can end up being whimsical – the MD or CEO likes classical dance more than sports, the next year the funds will go there. So, it is important for the government to make the sports space wide and provide tax benefits for more people to get involved. Right now, there is a huge interest in sports among the young people. Of course, cricket is like Amitabh Bachchan in the 80s, Hero no 1 from 1 to 10 and then the other actors follow. So, cricket is from number 1 to 10 but the other sports are offering great opportunities for people who can excel. If you excel in sports, there are going to be more avenues opening up. It is about what happens in the whole eco-system, more jobs, more coaches, more support staff and then you extend it further and further, there are teams managing players, social media managers for players and all. The whole eco-systems offer a livelihood not just to the players and I think that is a huge benefit that we must look at and explore and that also comes through if there is more money flow available. It can be facilitated by the government.
Then, at the societal level, it hardly needs to spelled out that sports promote good health. One of the great things that sports has taught me is that you fall down, you fail, you stand up and you walk and run again, there is a sense of optimism. There is a self-belief which is forged that tomorrow or next day, next month will be better.
Then, of course, there are accolades, there is pride, a sense of achievement which is so great that one of the riches that one can get out of life and it is something that holds a person’s life, mind, and equilibrium right through even if you stop playing, that remains over. Now, having appreciated all this, what happens to the community and social sector? I think sports should be made mandatory, I don’t mean lakdi leke maaro but we need an ethos where everybody is saying, ‘when I am not playing sports, I am actually missing something’.
I have been to Australia a few times; it is a great country for sports, as we know. Kids in school are exposed to seven-eight sports. If you find that Steve Smith is an excellent cricketer, he might be an excellent golfer already, not post-retirement. Viv Richards was not only a great cricketer but also a great swimmer and a terrific footballer. So, exposure to multiple sports is very important. Something needs to be done. What we can do in our homes, families, communities, and societies – we cannot be a sporting nation if we keep 50 per cent of our population out of sports and by that, I mean, the girl child. You cannot! If you look at China and US’s medals in Olympics, 50 per cent are coming from them. In India too, women are the best performers, Saina, Sania, Mary Kom, PV Sindhu, the Phogat sisters, the shooters, even the cricket team is doing extremely well, the hockey team is doing so well. But if you pull out the girl child from school at the age of 10-12, when they reach puberty, and I understand the hardships, some of the villages don’t even have toilets, so, it is not easy for the girls or parents but this is a malaise and if we can fight it, India can be a sporting nation in fast track.
We cannot say football and hockey and all other sports should be as popular as cricket, at par, but I think there will be more avenues for young boys and girls to actualise sports. There is also an aspect of the media, kya tum 2-2 pages cricket ke baare mein likhte ho, aur koi sport nahin hai kya? But media reflects what society wants. If everybody wants to read cricket and imagine if we gave two pages on Judo, the paper is going to take nose-dive, but I do know from the studies made by London Times and some other sources, there are surveys and research done, the biggest pusher of circulation growth was sports, neck-to-neck with entertainment.
In India, we are lagging behind in entertainment because we are still enamoured with only celebrity, not seeing the sportspersons perhaps as better celebrities because remember no sportsperson has a privilege of a retake which every actor has. So, they are, in my opinion, more relevant celebrities that one should look up to. So, this needs to be done. At the government level, see sports as priority sector, we will get more elite athletes at the top, the federation needs to pull up their socks and be focussed on excellence and not on themselves. Business houses should take interest in sports, may include sports within the culture of the company and then of course, there is the society and community aspect where all of us have to push our children to sport and especially the girl child.
Indians who have done so, well in the west and have become CEOs of biggest companies, they have focused on the academics, do they have a method shift for getting sports for their children? Your comments.
Traditionally, Indians have tried their hands with academic exploits rather than sports. Sports was from afar; they would say well done Dhyan Chand but nobody would say you become Dhyan Chand. When I was growing up, when I used to read the matrimonial columns, so and so BA BCom, 4 figure salary so, he would be most eligible. Things are changing. In cricket, I see there has been a Tendulkar phenomenon, at the age of 16 he became a global star and young mums and dads would go to Shivaji park and Azad Maidan and tell the coach aap kuch bhi karo par isko Tendulkar banado. So, that shift has happened, the point is that it involves a lot of hard work not just from child but also the custodians of the child. That can be done, it is not as simple as teaching maths and science, but I know it because my daughter is a swimmer, you have to take your child out to the club for swimming training at 4.30 or 5.00 in the morning day after day for 6 months and then again start after vacation. That onus, if it is tackled well, will lead to more and more people doing sports.
The growth of the economy and the growth in sports is a clear link, many of our sports Federations are full of politicians – how is it that in cricket these seem to be doing a good job while in other sports the results are pathetic? Secondly, I would like to know, from you, the evangelance in sports like Rahul Dravid or Gopi Chand, do we need more such evangelance for other sports to flourish as well?
In both instances, you are right. I think the answer is obvious, sports is very mass related so it is a lust for power. At one level it helps in a complex bureaucratic scenario – for instance you want a facility to be built, you get in a logjam but politicians can do it easily. Politicians can be enlightened about sports and then it won’t be much of an issue but the problem is assuming power and misusing that, that hurts the sports. Sport needs to be evangelised in India because we are 130 crore but our views are even less than four crore, so, you are talking about 3 per cent – we need to harness that resource. We need guys like Dravid and Gopi Chand, they are dedicated and they understand the sport well, the teachings that they impart in the youngsters is helping them grow not just as players and athletes but as mature human beings
Any thoughts on future of basketball in our country?
Yes, I think basket ball and football are two sports that have greatest opportunity. They are cheap to play. Imagine every housing colony has a hoop, you get an easy access and it is fitness driven. It can be played at the basic level and it is also very gender friendly. On television, women’s basketball is as attractive to watch as men’s tennis. The quality keeps on improving unlike the football where pace is slower. So, I think they have a great future, cost is a factor and interest is another one.
Why is horse racing as a sport not covered by newspapers and nor does the government has looked at it favourably, SC has labelled us as a sport of skill and not of chance but still somehow any thoughts on how it can grow?
There is a stigma to horse racing, it has come down as a legacy. At one point of time it was equated to matka except that different category of people played it. That was the perception. I think a lot has changed. I think what can be done is to make horse racing as a sport of pleasure watching horses run and jockeys showing their skill rather than betting. So, there is mammoth betting and let us face it India is a betting country, we bet on anything and everything.
For newspapers, we used to have a full page on racing, it is getting less and less now and patronage is also getting less and less, there is not many people going to the race course. I personally feel that on a broader platform betting needs to be legalized in India. The Government is losing a lot of revenue.
What do you think the government needs to do at the school and college level?
I am not in favour of a complete totalitarian system like China where everyone is forced to do something because so many stories come up with injecting them with steroid and drug abuse, we still need to have choice. But we should think about why should schools not have basic facilities? You cannot encourage kids to do sports at the age of 16-17 – it has to be done early.
All Olympic sports ultimately have to go through federations to have athletes represented, so, you need corporate sponsoring, so, any thoughts on how that can be revamped?
Well, it is not easy to revamp, it is deeply imbedded, more and politicians have taken control. There should be a sense of commitment which is very necessary because the development otherwise can be lopsided. The elections have to be vibrant. The other option is, like US, money is given to federation only if they reach global standards in the set timeline. We should be very firm in awards and acknowledgements. You cannot have 5 Rajiv Gandhi award winners; it was meant for the one and most excellent award person.
