Competing in sport is not divorced from the economic development and social evolution of people. We play sport, driven by a primordial instinct of trying to win. So, we should not have to make the difficult choice between promoting sportsmanship and pulling people out of poverty
At Place Emile Zola in the city of Dijon in France, four children, who previously did not know each other, ran in circles around the central fountain, playing catch. last week, my partner Chirag and I watched them compete with each other on speed and squeal with laughter when one of them would win.
The human species are perhaps born with a natural tendency, in different measures, to want to win. The prospect of victory anywhere is so alluring that the effort and perspiration of sport as well as the anxiety and fear of failure is accepted. Even in prehistoric times, when our species were leading naturally active lives, they practised sports. There are paintings of humans sprinting and wrestling etched on the walls of the lascaux caves in France that dates back to 173000 years ago.
In Mongolia, cave paintings created in 7000 BC also show a wrestling match surrounded by crowds. In libya, rock art of around 6000 BC depicts swimming and archery. In Greece, there are frescoes of gymnasts, etched out in 1500 BC. It was also in the city of Olympia in Greece that sports were properly institutionalised at the first Olympic Games in 776 BC, organised every few years, and gradually included several races and sports.
Since then, while various team sports have been exported across the colonies of the European imperialist powers, the Olympic Games in Greece contributed towards gradually standardising the rules of the games. Very much a European phenomena, Indian or other Asian indigenous sports did not for a long time succeed in being included in such global sports competitions. India and these other countries had indeed started on a terrible handicap. The globalisation of sports had not produced a leveled playing field.
In Europe, the industrial revolution and subsequent mass production techniques increased the leisure time of people, allowing more time to engage in playing or being a spectator to sports. Engaging in sports was once described in the ancient Greek epic poem Iliad as the prerogative of the wealthy — but this has largely no longer been so, especially after the industrial revolution. Sports have become less elitist and the subsequent increased global connectivity through media have made sports even more professionally organised in the developed economies.
Towards the end of the 20th century, fast developing countries such as China caught on to this trend. They learnt the rules, and trained their children to compete in games that did not belong to their culture. It was important for them to win, and establish themselves as a significant soft power. Just as King Odysseus of Ithaca, the legendary hero in Greek mythology, had once proved his status to King Alkinoos of Phiakes by throwing magnificently the javelin, winning in sports continued to be associated with skill and tenacity.
Contrary to art or literature where success is subjective, winning in a race is a clear tangible numbers game. In sports there can be only one winner. And so in modern times, economies flexing their muscles for world dominance, such as the United States or China, have striven to come up tops in sports. Competitions such as the Olympics, that are well publicised globally, present a marvellous platform to establish authority and proof of vitality.
In the 2012 london Olympics, the United States and China won 46 and 38 gold medals each, and ranked overall first and second globally on the total medals tally. The United Kingdom ranked third, Germany was at the sixth place, and France won 11 golds and 34 medals to rank seventh. Even Iran, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tunisia, Algeria, and the Bahamas fared better than India, which won zero golds and a total of six medals to rank 55th at the games. To worsen matters, it was declared that the 2012 Olympics had been India’s best performance yet.
Subsequently in the 2016 Olympics, that was inaugurated this week, India has sent to Rio a 120-member contingent. This is 37 more than India’s previous record of sending 83 athletes in 2012, even though this has no direct correlation to victory. It is only in hockey that India has performed well historically at a global level, but the spell of triumph has been short, lasting mostly from 1928 to 1964.
Competing in sport at the Olympics, at the local community level, or around a humble fountain in the city, is not divorced from the economic development and social evolution of people. We play sport, driven by a primordial instinct of trying to win. And so we should not have to make the difficult choice between promoting sportsmanship and pulling people out of poverty, building infrastructure, or providing jobs.
Government Budgets are indeed limited and priorities take slice from the same pie. Yet at every unit of society, the development of skills — including sports — must be an important concern. At the least, it does not have to vie for the last few spots in any country’s development agenda.
This is important because winning is a habit. On and off the field.
The writer is Chief Sustainability Officer for the group of companies, Jindal Steel and Power ltd. She is a Global leadership Alumna of the World Economic Forum. miniya.chatterji@jindalsteel.com