India has also witnessed a steady improvement in its overall sporting performance in the past two decades. Despite well-documented declines in showcase sports such as football and hockey, India has certainly made strides at the sub-Olympic level, finishing eighth in the last two editions of the Asian Games and fourth in the past couple of Commonwealth Games. Yet it has consistently fallen short at sport’s largest stage, when faced with opposition from not only its Asian and Commonwealth rivals, but also the United States and much of continental Europe. In fact, India is at a disadvantage even before the games begin. In Beijing, Indians qualified for only 13 of the 34 Olympic sports, and have so far been in the hunt for medals in only six: archery, badminton, boxing, shooting, tennis and wrestling.

Following Abhinav Bindra’s much-feted victory, it was surreal to see India above perennial sporting powerhouses Russia, France, Germany and Cuba in the medals table, albeit briefly. Add to that Sushil Kumar’s bronze, and India already has its best Olympics in 56 years. But are two, or even three medals enough for an emerging economic power of a billion people? What can a country like India so poor yet increasingly so rich — do to improve its performance on the field, around the court and in the pool?

There are three models to follow among successful sporting nations. The first, possible only in state-controlled societies or economies, involves the government and its agencies taking responsibility for talent-scouting, training and development. This system had been behind the sporting successes of the former Soviet Union and erstwhile Warsaw Pact states, as well as Cuba and China, but would be difficult to implement in India given individual freedoms and a lack of government planning and resources.

... contd.