Indian sports needs an identity, not a comparison

A hat-trick of World Championships in a sport that invariably everyone at some point of time would have attempted – chess, is a phenomenal achievement by an outstanding individual. No dancing around or punching the air or visible over-the-moon celebrations, but an honorable acceptance of victory and the innocent-like, infectious smile followed. What followed in the public and media though, was a sense of immense respect and humble joy; alas like it has happened throughout – these sentiments made way only for the day Anand won the title.

The following day, SMS and online polls asking people whether Anand is the greatest Indian sportsperson ever or whether he deserves the Bharat Ratna more than Sachin etc. were doing the rounds. TV experts and sports slots were vehemently comparing the hat-trick win to the World Cup win by the cricket team last year; Sania Mirza’s endorsement deals were compared, Saina Nehwal’s popularity was compared and the list went on.. You almost get a sense of déjà vu when you try and recreate the above set of events.

It could be natural or restricted to Indian sports, but every major win or the particular sportsperson invariably finds being compared to the most popular sport or its exponents at that time – which happens to be cricket in India. Sports in general have a set of followers which you can describe by the word – passionate, and others which you could put in the category of fans or followers. People curiously watching Ranji trophy games, or those formulating strategies while watching a hockey match, or those making sure they don’t miss a single point of a badminton or tennis game would be categorized as passionate followers. And there would be fans who like to keep a track of things but aren’t disappointed if they happen to miss live action.

The quantum of such passionate followers drives any sport and the presence of iconic names generates such followers. Tennis and badminton have picked up after the likes of Paes, Bhupathi, Gopichand, Saina and others have notched up victorious performances. Baichung Bhutia has inspired people to play football, so have Vijender Singh & Sushil Kumar to take up boxing. More often than not, it is a team sport that commands large fan following; probably due to the fact that team legacy continues despite retirements. Yet for any sport to create interest, it has to have big names.

India doesn’t have an illustrious sporting history, which makes it all the more difficult for different sporting disciplines to grow in our country. You could be technically illiterate for certain sports, but it doesn’t imply that the particular sport or those playing that aren’t good enough. It’s high time the Indian public and the media in general recognize that we should freeze moments for each sport distinctly and not judge performances on a relative scale that has parameters inscribed with the performances of the cricket team. It is the Olympic year and the Indian cricket team doesn’t have a major tour, which should imply more-than-decent interest and support for the Indian contingent at London. Apart from the support, we should learn to treat each sporting discipline and performances therein separately. Anand’s win and the pleasant response thereafter gives hope that sports in India still have the space to carve a niche for themselves.