India’s submission of a Letter of Intent to the International Olympic Committee to host the 2036 Olympics is far from a coming-of-age moment that the enormity of the move and its symbolism would have us believe.
Words of Prime Minister Modi, ‘this is the age-old dream,’ are an awkward ode to a nation whose passage has been gritty and dreams, basic and fundamental.
Yes, a nation needs to aspire, but timing is everything and without getting its own house in order a claim to host this most spectacular of sporting extravaganzas is mere grandstanding.
Not surprisingly, the city of Ahmedabad from Modi’s home state of Gujarat is the chosen one. There are the obvious arguments in its favour, some off the cuff and a few, meritorious. The oft bandied one, that of an economic boost through jobs and tourism is contentious. A research paper on Olympics says these ‘purported benefits are dubious.’
Let’s leave that for a moment and look at the hopefuls — a non- sporting nation embracing sports other than cricket and a push to grass roots sporting facilities in other parts of the country as well (Ahmedabad is the destination, the journey is through SAI centres which number only 23 in a country the size of India forcing even elite athletes to struggle for training). As a host nation India gets automatic entry in a few disciplines in which historically it has not qualified.
A double-edged sword
The home advantage may not be the great leveller but think former tennis player Laender Paes and his love fest with the Tricolor! Perhaps, even the much-vaulted archers will cross the bridge in front of familiar crowds.
Last but not the least, with the event in our own backyard, Indian officials who outnumber athletes will spare junket costs. This however can be a double-edged sword when it comes to seating!
But is this reason enough to bring the Olympics home? The first obstacle — and an overarching one — is the expenditure, and it is not restricted to what is spent on the Games.
Bidding, securing and indirect costs of getting a city Games ready are as draining as the actual extravaganza. The lengthy list of asks also includes resources on transportation, accommodation, and beautification which could clash with environment.
Nine other nations have also put their hat in the ring, but this time the cities are not familiar. Read between the lines. There is a reason economists warn that hosting the games is a white elephant. Budget overruns — without recent exceptions — and the ripple effect of revenues not corresponding to investments have left even developed nations cleaning up debts.
An Oxford University study says since the 1960s all budget estimates have been overshot by a large margin, ‘at an average of 172 per cent in real terms.’ An S&P Global Ratings report puts the Paris Games spending at $10 billion — ‘only’ 25% over the initial budget.
The 2016 Rio Games overshot its budget by 350% and 2020 Tokyo Games went over by 280%. Paris came out looking better — although it cleaned up Seine at a whopping cost of 1.5 billion dollars — because it already had infrastructure and facilities in place. Ahmedabad on the other hand boasts only of the Narendra Modi cricket stadium.
Hosts also takes care of Paralympics, another challenge in a country where disability rights far from being mainstreamed are neither understood nor accessible.
Nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that have also put in a bid have an advantage. Qatar built facilities for the 2022 Fifa World Cup and Saudi Arabia has invested in sports infrastructure.
Ambition feels right when basics like civic infrastructure, facilities at the grass roots and last mile connectivity tick all the boxes. Will a nation that stands 101 out of 127 nations in the Hunger Index offer its people cake when there is no bread?
It is not just what meets the eye. Holding the G20 summit and Business 20 meetings may have given the government confidence in the geopolitics game but holding an event of the magnitude of the Olympics needs a village.
"A PR disaster"
India’s last sporting show, the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi was a fiasco. BBC called it ‘a huge public relations disaster.’ Allegations of corruption and substandard construction made more headlines than the events.
A foot-over bridge collapsed just 12 days before the start of the Games and India has still not got over its penchant for newly constructed roofs and roads collapsing.
Months later the organising committee Chairperson Suresh Kalmadi, was arrested for corruption and financial malpractice. At an estimate, the initial budget of Rs1620 crores ended at a staggering Rs70,000 crores.
In the country with the world’s largest population struggling with fatal air quality feel good can take many other forms.
What is the endgame? With one silver and five bronze medals at Paris and only two individual gold medallists till date, India is not showcasing any sporting power. It first needs stadiums where aspiring athletes can hone their skills so that a sporting mindset other than cricket is normalised and is not a four yearly occurrence.
In recent times, priorities have been skewed and in the name of nationalism there is intolerance for any view — however far-fetched — not aligned with the government. It will be no different when it comes to the Olympics.
That however does not answer the key question, what is India’s objective in holding the Games? In a broken system of transparency, words like optics and image swim around.
India needs to introspect otherwise with all attention on Ahmedabad the rest of the country will be pushed behind a green curtain.
