The Indian Olympic Association, which has rarely distinguished itself in terms of administrative efficiency, may have calculated that sending the largest-ever summer Olympic contingent to Rio will yield a richer medals tally than the six in London and the five (including the first individual gold) in Beijing. In a way, this effort to leverage India's "democratic dividend" is a reflection in miniature of India's broader challenges: with 1.2 billion people, India's embarrassingly low medals haul remains a permanent cause of collective national angst. It shouldn't; the concerns should lie elsewhere. One brutal truth that the Olympic Games reveal in four-yearly intervals is the link between sporting prowess and economic prosperity.
Even accounting for the rampant doping that has become the worst-kept secret of this "Higher, Faster, Stronger" sporting tradition, the countries with the largest medal hauls are among the world's richest. The top ten countries on this parameter are the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Hungary, Russia, China, South Korea and Australia. No coincidence, these are all countries with per capita incomes way higher than India's. The lowest of them, China, had the second-highest medals tally at the London Olympics but its per capita income is about five times India's. Even Brazil has won more medals than India; it is no coincidence that its per capita income is also five times higher. There are outliers to this, of course, such as Ethiopia, but the exceptions emphasise the trend.
The connection between national wealth and sporting success is one aspect of the equation. In most successful sporting nations, the relatively easy access to sporting facilities plays a significant role in talent discovery. A notable exception to this trend perhaps is China, which continues with the old Communist-era template of equating sporting prowess with national pride and instituting training programmes for its athletes that border on human rights abuse. In India, where access to basic facilities like drinking water and healthcare for large sections of the population remains a challenge, the gateway to running tracks, swimming pools, tennis courts and other such sporting infrastructure is closed for most. It is worth noting that the sole individual gold is held by that diffident young man, Abhinav Bindra, who led the contingent at Rio. By his own admission, he has been able to expend a considerable amount of his father's personal wealth to train and practice. Our silver medallist shooter, now a minister, had the advantage of Army infrastructure to underwrite his training. India's other successful sportspeople in the global arena - tennis and badminton - also come from relatively well-off homes but even their best Olympic performances have yielded only bronze medals. Wrestling is the one event that can be held up as a truly equal-opportunities sport, thanks to the established Indian tradition of akhadas, where young men of any background can participate. But here, too, the best yield has been a silver - the golds have been won by Iran, among others.
The example of Indian hockey is instructive; the country won eight golds in an era when the game was played on grass. Once the Western nations introduced expensive AstroTurf with its requirement for faster, stronger, (and, therefore, better nourished) players, India's performance fell away. It says something for its legacy, however, that the country's name figures in the technique known as the "Indian Dribble". Political, economic and public health crises may well be disruptive elements as the Olympics Games get going for the first time in South America. But India's performance will remain rooted in its socio-economic situation back home.