Sudden buzz around Indian sport mostly box-ticking

Hindustan Times

5 hours ago

Much activity whirled around Indian sport last week – the National Sports Governance Bill 2025 (NSGB) was tabled in parliament, a new National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill 2025 made its appearance too and the 19-month ruckus in the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) between president PT Usha and the executive council – over the appointment of CEO Raghuram Iyer – suddenly dissolved, Usha brushing everything off as 'small internal disputes'. The 19-month ruckus in the IOA between president PT Usha and the executive council – over the appointment of CEO Raghuram Iyer – dissolved last week. (PTI)
At an IOA briefing, there were glimpses of what drove the developments and the bonhomie. IOA joint secretary Kalyan Chaubey, also president of the beleaguered All India Football Federation (AIFF), said IOA's vision was 'to ensure India wins the bid' (to host the 2036 Olympics). He said, IOA would do 'whatever required – that comes with athlete development… good governance… better infrastructure facilities developed… educate athletes in terms of anti-doping… NADA needs to be more equipped to hold more sessions… ensure more sports conclaves… better coordination with all the stakeholders… Whatever is essential to host a big event I think IOA should do and will do.' Promising, forward thinking, a new dawn for Indian sport, etc.
Excuse please, hold the beer, sorry, protein shake, because other kinds of news is disturbing this positivity. Qatar formally launched its Olympics2036 bid with a 16-page press kit saying 95 percent of its Olympic venues were 'already in place and tested at the highest level'. Its Instagram reel then showed visuals from the 2022 FIFA World Cup and world championships in athletics (2019), swimming (2024), artistic gymnastics (2025) and the 2025 table tennis world championships finals – all held in Doha, Qatar's 2036 candidate city.
In the past ten years, India's list of global sports events hosted is thus: two men's (zero women's) hockey World Cups in Odisha, two shooting World Cup Finals in New Delhi and the 2017 FIFA U-17 World Cup and 2023 ICC Cricket World Cup. Last week, alongside Chaubey's rah-rah and Doha2036's Instareel came word that only six of 12 Indian badminton players could compete at the World University Games – because Association of Indian Universities (AIU) officials had not submitted a complete list. Then, according to an India Today report, an unnamed player said AIU officials, angry about their public outing, threatened players saying their 'careers will end once we return to India'. Then two more female runners didn't find their name on the start list – totalling eight Indians who couldn't compete at the Universiade due to official carelessness. The AIU suspended its joint secretary Baljit Singh Sekhon but opportunities are already lost.
Chaubey's careful listing of the 'essentials' to host 'a big event' is like investing in sandcastles. Indian sport needs these elements to actually nourish its ecosystem from the roots – like cleaning up the damn beach to start with.
This sudden buzz around Indian sport is mostly a rapid box-ticking – because that's what IOA was told needed to be addressed when its delegation met the International Olympic Committee (IOC) early this month. The meeting was meant to present – sans public discussion - Ahmedabad's 2036 candidacy. Instead, IOA was told to sort out its in-fighting, address India's proliferation of dope positives and up its sporting performance. Therefore, the IOA peace summit and the push for the two bills around sports governance and anti-doping. Improving athletic performance will mean IOA and national sporting federations (NSF) focusing on athletes over 'big events', so let's not hold our breaths.
There lie reveals in the new NSGB as well. It aims for structural changes in how Indian sport is run and creates an independent regulatory body. The National Sports Board is meant to take over overseeing NSF operations from the government. Plus, sporting disputes will now be handled by a National Sports Tribunal, not the civil courts. (As of February, our courts list 217 ongoing sports cases.) Reasonable ideas both.
But let's compare the October 2024 draft of the governance bill released for public feedback with what is now in parliament. To start with the NSGB25 is a pared down version of the draft – 9,243 bill-specific words to the draft's detailed 16,210. A simple draft read through shows the clause about at least one female vice-president in IOA's EC has gone missing from NSGB. Surprise, surprise. Now quibbling, but the 'at least 30%' women clause in this 15-member EC has been turned into a 'minimum of four' (26.6%). One less woman's the better, I suppose.
The clause that an office-bearer could serve no more than two consecutive terms – on average eight years – in any post is now three terms, followed by a four-year cooling off. That's twelve years, plus there is no maximum number of terms – the candy clause for all sports administrators under 65. Only when an individual crosses 70 at the time of filing nominations for an election will their side careers as sports officials cease.
Setting term limits on return post cooling was argued as stifling the expertise and impact of Indian sports' admin brokers globally. Currently, outside of cricket, the Indians holding posts ('cooling off') in international federations are Adille Sumariwalla, vice-president of World Athletics, Malav Shroff, president Asian Sailing Federation and Virendra Nanavati, bureau member World Aquatics. Neeraj Chopra & Ors gives Sumariwalla a pass of sorts but Shroff and Nanavati's international 'influence' has created zero ripple in home waters. NSGB means groundhogs and their days will return.
The 'autonomy' of sports federations has ensured the NSGB axe for draft clauses that had seemed appropriate for India's politically interwoven sporting system. This is the deleted clause: 'An individual shall be disqualified from being an Individual Member or a representative of a Voting Member (in an NOC/NSF) upon conviction of an offence and being sentenced for a period of more than 2 (two) years.' Whereas, even under the Constitution, anyone convicted and sentenced for two years cannot contest elections for six years. But Indian sport is a free-for-all anyway, so why can't convicted individuals get a clear run here, eh? There's big events to be conducted.