The Army and the Olympics Anomaly

The 2016 Olympics are over. As after every Olympics the media was filled with congratulating those few who brought glory to the parched hearts of the country. That phase is also now over. The Prime Minister has given broad directions to enable a better performance in the future. Pragmatically, he has asked for the planning to be done for the next three Games. On 09 Sep 2016 the Times of India reported that the Sports Authority of India (SAI) had done a preliminary inquiry as to why we earned so few medals. They narrowed down the poor performance to poor selection of foreign coaches and the shortfalls in our athlete’s fitness levels. The detailed report is to be submitted by end September.

13 army men qualified to compete in the Rio Olympics, the largest number who have ever gone in an Olympic contingent so far. None made any mark. In the manner that the country is introspecting, so should the army. After all the army has had a specific programme to get Olympic medals for the past 15 years. The Army Sports Institute (ASI) at Pune under the Military Training (MT) Directorate was set up by the then COAS Gen Padhamabhan in July 2001 after our single medal performance in the Sydney Olympics in 2000 and a national clamor ‘to do something’. Then also the face-saving effort had been of a woman athlete, Karnam Malleshwari, who won a bronze in weightlifting. The ASI was allocated Rs 60 crores by the MoD from the army budget. The aim was to get a medal in the 2004 Olympics. The country got one medal in 2004, a Silver by an army man, Lt Col Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore in Double Trap shooting. Post the Olympics, in the very too familiar anguish of getting just one medal, the President, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam speaking at a public function stated that the army should get fully involved in getting sports medals for the country. The army promptly started a new programme under the MT Directorate called ‘Mission Olympics’ to make greater coordinated efforts get Olympic medals. Successive Chiefs when being briefed by the Deputy Chief of Army Staff (IS&T) under whom the MT Directorate, Mission Olympics and ASI function, have made statements to the effect that “we must get a Gold Medal” or “we will get a gold medal” for the country in the next Olympics. Sadly, that couldn’t transpire. The two Olympic medals the army has got after 2001 are in shooting (Silvers by Lt Col Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore in 2004 and Subedar Vijay Kumar in 2012) and can be attributed to these shooters being groomed in the Army Marksmanship Unit at the Infantry School, Mhow. That unit has been in existence much before Mission Olympics.

This article opines that if in 15 years the army’s Mission Olympics has not been able to make a mark then it is time to wind it up or revamp its functioning in a major way. Should not the training to get Olympic medals be left to the sports governing bodies and institutions whose charter and core competency is in the field of sports? The army’s core competence is in the field of wielding weapons to defeat enemies who threaten the security of the country. The charter for winning sports medals is of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the various sports federations. There is an organisation set up by dedicated sportspersons which has a better track record in winning Olympic medals. ‘Olympic Gold Quest’(OGQ) was set up by Geet Sethi and Prakash Padukone in 2000. Incidentally OGQ claims credit for Vijay Kumar’s Silver in the 25m rapid fire pistol in the London Olympics by purchase of a world class air pistol, ammunition and accessories for his pistol. Also by regular medical assessment and nutritional assistance for him, making arrangement for his travel and accommodation for domestic tournaments. If this be so one wonders what was the contribution of ‘Mission Olympics’ in Vijay Kumar’s silver medal.

At the moment Mission Olympics trains athletes in 10 disciplines. If we don’t want to be too abrupt in dismantling Mission Olympics we should scale down to only three disciplines. Shooting, because it is supposed to be the core competency of a soldier. Any effort to prepare medal winning shooters will add to the efficiency of our primary function. Boxing, because it imbues fearlessness and aggression in an individual more than wrestling. That is why the officers’ training academies have compulsory boxing but no wrestling. Lastly, endurance races like the Marathon, long distance races and walks. Endurance is part of a soldiers training and stress on endurance benefits the army. If we concentrate upon these three and still don’t get medals the effort would not be wasted as it will still benefit the army.

Team sports like football, hockey, volleyball etc are routinely played in units. These games inculcate team spirit and unit cohesion which are battle-winning factors. Ideally all soldiers must play them every day. If in the course of the normal Formation and Services competitions extraordinary talent is evident, then such a sportsman can be facilitated to play at the national level under that soldier’s State sports federation, associations or sports bodies.

The viewpoint given by this article is likely to be resisted because of a number of reasons. We must understand these reasons if we have to bring in change for the better.

We resist because of our ego if the original unworkable idea was ours. ‘Mission Olympics’ was an idea whose ownership is of the army. An acknowledgement of its failure to produce results would be construed as a failure of the army; therefore, the resistance.

Our army has a strength of culture. Our ability to produce results in the most demanding circumstances is our culture. It is anathema to us to acknowledge that producing Olympic medal winners has eluded us in spite of this culture; therefore, the resistance.

Old organizations acquire great rigidity. The army is a very old organization. Rigid structures often foster a type of tunnel vision making change much harder to achieve. Examples of tunnel vision are; Mission Olympics can only be under the Military Training Directorate; the best career officers cannot be posted to manage Mission Olympics because we need the best to manage wars.

Organizations resist change because they don’t want to lose their sunk costs or lose face.  The army has invested a great deal in an attempt to get Olympic medals. There will always be resistance to cutting our losses by either reducing our scope or withdrawing altogether.

Lastly individuals and interest groups can be a major source of resistance especially if they see personal short term benefits. Often, they fail to realize the negative consequences of sustaining the status quo. They can see that they are going nowhere, but start believing their own logic as their entrenched interests prevent them from taking corrective action.

The Olympics are seen as a barometer of national pride. The army for long has been seen as an accountable and dedicated organization. If the people who should be held accountable for our lacklustre performances in the Olympics want to deflect the flak off themselves, it is convenient to chant the ‘Military Mantra’ as the panacea for all ills. In the military the army because of its size and ethos appears to be the most willing to be roped in.

The facts that speak for themselves post the Rio Olympics and in light of the success of OGQ are these, real athletes motivate themselves to give their best, coaches can get medals only if the athletes are dedicated, and lastly, the private sector can mobilise better funds and spend them with better accountability to achieve better results. The army needs to take a hard look at the points made in this article. The period from 1947 till 1982 (The New Delhi Asiad) can be considered as the period when the armed forces were the bulwark of the country’s sporting strength and organisation. Post 1982 and liberalisation, the civil society can do without this crutch.   

This is a subject which will need deliberation at the level of the Army Commander’s conference level, the highest collegium in our army. Ours is a country with major security problems because of two hostile neighbours with whom we have unsettled borders. It is logical that the army should focus its efforts on its primary task.

Views expressed by the Author are personal.