Reiterated Number of Times and Little Change: Before the Boast and Talk, Build At least the Sporting Nation

Before India compares itself with China, Japan or South Korea, it should study what those comparisons demand. Sporting stature is built through years of organised work: children playing regularly, coaches earning dependable livelihoods, athletes receiving scientific support, and institutions answering for results. A medal table cannot measure a civilisation’s worth. It can, however, expose the distance between national ambition and the everyday systems needed to fulfil it.

At the close of competition on September 27, India stood twelfth at the ongoing Aichi–Nagoya Asian Games: four golds, sixteen silvers and seventeen bronzes, totalling 37 medals. China had 119 golds and 205 medals; Japan, 37 golds and 157 medals; South Korea, 21 golds and 83 medals. China’s gold medals alone exceeded three times India’s entire haul. This is a sobering sporting comparison. 

Yet fairness requires restraint. The Games end on October 4, and medal opportunities arrive unevenly across the schedule. An interim ranking cannot establish India’s final performance. Rankings also prioritise gold: countries with fewer total medals can stand above India. The present concern is particularly the shortage of champions, not an absence of competitive athletes or worthy podium finishes.

History shows meaningful improvement. India finished second in the inaugural 1951 Games, third in 1962, fifth in 1982 and eleventh in 1990. Programmes and participation varied across editions.

At Guangzhou in 2010, India finished sixth with 65 medals, including 14 golds. Incheon 2014 brought eighth place, 57 medals and 11 golds. Jakarta–Palembang 2018 delivered eighth place, 70 medals and 16 golds. Hangzhou 2023 lifted India to fourth with 106 medals, including 28 golds.

These totals incorporate subsequent medal revisions. Hangzhou’s celebrated 107 became 106 after boxer Parveen Hooda’s bronze was withdrawn following whereabouts violations. Even after that correction, India’s total rose approximately 63% between 2010 and 2023, while gold medals doubled. That is substantial improvement. Dismissing it would erase athletes’ achievements and weaken the argument for reform.

The sharper criticism is that improvement has not produced parity. At Hangzhou, China won 201 golds, Japan 52 and South Korea 42 against India’s 28. China therefore collected more than seven times India’s gold tally at India’s best edition. Reaching fourth place was a breakthrough; becoming a consistently formidable sporting nation requires much greater depth.

China’s advantage has accumulated over decades. It topped eleven consecutive Asian Games medal tables from 1982 through Hangzhou. Its government-led development structure connects sports schools, provincial teams and national squads. Talented youngsters enter a sustained training pathway rather than depending entirely on family resources or one exceptional mentor. The essential lesson is continuity: identification, coaching, competition and progression are connected.

For these Games, China selected 815 athletes across 38 sports and 369 events, with 69 overseas specialists among its staff. That breadth matters: dominance comes from producing contenders repeatedly across disciplines. It also challenges the idea that national pride requires rejecting foreign expertise. Serious competitors learn wherever useful knowledge exists.

Japan and South Korea demonstrate that effective systems need not follow one political model. Japan links school sport, community clubs and organised competitions. South Korea’s sports-science institutions support physiology, biomechanics, psychology and performance analysis. Their example directs attention towards ordinary institutional competence. The difference is not that Indian children lack talent; it is whether enough children can develop that talent consistently.

India has invested, and pretending otherwise is equally misleading. The Sports Ministry reported ₹800.70 crore in preparation expenditure through training-calendar support and the Target Olympic Podium Scheme over the three years preceding these Games. That spending deserves transparent evaluation, not automatic condemnation. However, support near the summit cannot substitute for a broad base of coached children, functioning local facilities and dependable competitions.

Reform should begin where participation begins. Every school should provide protected playing time, trained physical-education staff and access to usable grounds. Districts need affordable clubs, predictable leagues and transport assistance. Girls require safe facilities, suitable changing spaces and trusted complaint mechanisms. Children from poorer households need nutrition, equipment and scholarships before their talent becomes visible nationally. Otherwise, the selection pool remains much smaller than the population.

Coaching must become a respected profession with stable contracts, continuing education and clear accountability. Promising athletes need physiotherapy, injury rehabilitation and psychological support before crises derail them. Selection criteria should be published, trials documented and appeals resolved promptly. Federations should disclose expenditure and development outcomes. Athlete safety and protection from harassment must be conditions of public funding, alongside sound financial management.

India must also widen its competitive reach. A swimming programme can offer numerous medal opportunities, whereas a victorious team ordinarily contributes one gold. This does not justify neglecting team games; it explains why depth across disciplines matters. Stronger junior pathways in swimming, gymnastics, cycling and other technically demanding sports should complement existing strengths, with patient funding and realistic development timelines.

Success should therefore be measured between Games: participation sustained, girls retained, coaches qualified, injuries prevented, junior performances improved and athletes progressing into senior competition. Published district and federation scorecards would make those responsibilities visible. Universities and employers should help athletes combine training with education and livelihoods, reducing the fear that an unsuccessful sporting career leaves them stranded.

India should demand excellence without turning disappointed athletes into national scapegoats. Progress is real, the current gap is enormous, and premature verdicts help nobody. Before another declaration of sporting greatness, build the conditions that make greatness repeatable. Let children play, let professionals work, let institutions answer—and let the scoreboard eventually justify the speech.