Olympics-The India Story

by Boria Majumdar

  ‘Really Extraordinary’: The Roman Revenge

  If hockey has any gods then they could not have scripted a better final line-up than India vs Pakistan. Here was a wounded champion striving to regain its lost title from the challenger. The off-field rivalry between the nations added an extra needle to the contest. In less than a year, both countries would be at war over the Rann of Kutch and the tensions were already building. In modern terms, the only thing comparable to the emotionalism of this final is the incredibly tense India–Pakistan game in the cricket World Cup of 1999 at the height of the Kargil war. In 1964, the war was still months away but hockey pride had to be restored. This was ‘war minus the shooting’. Finally, India re-established its supremacy in world hockey by defeating Pakistan 1–0. Rene G. Frank, the secretary general of International Hockey Federation, has left a moving description of this final and the emotions that moved both teams:

  The India–Pakistan final which was played in a highly-charged emotional atmosphere was really extraordinary. It was one of the best and probably the best of the matches which I have had opportunity to attend. Two fine teams of appreciably equal strength were each doing their utmost to win…

  If India finally proved a winner by a narrow margin, this was because in my personal opinion its players seemed to me to be inspired with a greater will than their opponents to carry off this victory which enabled them to regain the title of Olympic Champion which they had always held and which was wrested from them for the first time in 1960 by Pakistan.68

  The performance of Indian goal-keeper Laxman stood out in the match. Most observers agreed that the result might have been different had it not been for his athletic defending.

  The celebrations matched the occasion. The victory was followed by ‘indescribable scenes of joy (which lasted) for many minutes’.69 That it meant much to a troubled India, ravaged by a war against China in 1962, is evident in the way the press back home and wrote about the victory. ‘Eleven gallant men will import eleven pieces of gold into India next week and they will be allowed through the customs with smiles and congratulations. We never expected it to be an easy job but we worked for it most sincerely…We started shakily but as the tournament progressed we have gained strength and courage and we made it.’70 The golden glow of this victory was felt around the country. A paan shop in Delhi distributed soft drinks for free soon after the Indians regained the gold. A taxi driver, when interviewed, suggested that he had been waiting for this moment for four years and a number of college students declared that the victory would encourage many in the capital to take to hockey. The prime minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri and President Radhakrishnan expressed delight and sent congratulatory cables to captain Charanjit Singh. The news of India’s victory was conveyed to Shastri when he was addressing a public meeting at Khatauli village in UP. He immediately reacted by giving his audience the news of the nation’s triumph in Tokyo.71

  It should be mentioned here that the huge crowd present in Tokyo for the final was a model sporting audience. To start with, the average spectator did not take sides. Before the start of the game, Pakistani flags were distributed free in the students’ gallery. Though they were briefed to support Pakistan, they mistakenly started shouting ‘Indo, Indo’. When they realized that they were waving Pakistani flags, they started rooting for Pakistan.72

  Tokyo 1964, it can be suggested, was one of Indian hockey’s finest achievements. It was only after 16 years, in Moscow in 1980, that the Indians once again managed to finish ahead of the field. In the interim, though they won the World Cup at Kuala Lumpur in 1975, at the Olympics India’s performance witnessed a sharp decline. At Montreal in 1976, it finished a dismal seventh. Inside the country too, hockey had been thrown into turmoil by the start of the 1970s, a story we recount in the next chapter.

  While some critics rubbish India’s victory at Moscow, pointing to a depleted field, there’s little doubt that an Olympic gold medal winning performance will always rank as an important chapter in India’s sport’s history.

  THE ‘RED’ GOLD: MOSCOW 1980

  Given the absence of several leading hockey nations of the world, many tend to undermine the value of India’s gold medal winning performance at Moscow. While there is some value in such arguments because nations like Pakistan, Holland and Germany stayed away because of the boycott, there’s little doubt that an Olympic gold will always remain special. Athletes who won honours at Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 can hardly be discredited by citing the boycott.

  India had prepared well for Moscow. To ensure it was well acclimatized, the team had been sent ahead of the remainder of the contingent. This allowed the players time to get used to the polygrass surface being used for the first and only time in Olympic history.73 In fact, there was quite a controversy over the use of polygrass because there was a powerful lobby advocating the use of astro-turf, a group led by the influential president of the International Hockey Federation, Rene Frank. Rumours floating in Moscow made it evident that the ageing IHF chief had insisted at one stage that the Moscow tournament should be played only on astro-turf. However, the Russians, who could tackle the boycott so successfully and so ruthlessly, were not to be browbeaten. They made known to Frank that they could afford to run the Olympics minus the hockey tournament. As mentioned by the director of India’s National Institute of Sport, R.L. Anand, ‘Rene Frank got the message and gave in on the issue of the surface’.74

  India started the contest well, crushing the lowly ranked Tanzanians 18–0. K. Datta, covering the tournament for the Times of India, declared in his match report, ‘The score line seems to have been taken out a page from the history of Indian hockey. The matches were one sided then. It was also overwhelmingly one sided today at the Dynamo Stadium when our men opened the campaign in the 22nd Olympics’.75

  Balbir Singh Sr, who was in the audience, was happy at the way the Indians performed and said it was refreshing to see Indian players strike rich form and score a huge haul of goals in their very first tie, though against feeble opposition.76

  The Indians were brought back to earth in their very next encounter against the Poles, managing a last-second equalizer to score a 2–2 draw. ‘To say that Fernandes’s goal in India’s last gasp effort came as a great relief would be the understatement of the Olympic year.’77 It is of interest that the Indians were left fuming at the end of this match against some of the umpiring decisions that went against them. They were extremely critical of Dutch umpire Bob Davidson and blamed their inability to convert penalty corners on him.

  However, as the Times of India reported, a very thin line divides a clean hit from a cut. It depended on what the umpire thought about it and ‘it is better if our players get used to European umpiring rather than quibble about it. Most important they should be reminded of the old adage that it never pays to challenge the umpire or behave peevishly.’78

  Against Spain, in the following match, India snatched a last-minute equalizer to stay afloat in the competition. The Indians were once again upset with some of the umpiring decisions, though the manager of the team, Dayanand, ruled out any possibility of lodging a formal complaint with the organizers. What was good to see in the match against Spain was the Indians’ superior physical ability. As the Times of India reported, ‘This Indian team in Moscow may not be the best to be sent out for an Olympic campaign, but it is fighting fit’.79

  India followed up the draw against Spain with a 13–0 victory over Cuba that ensured that a win against the Russians in the last group tie would propel them into the final.80

  Against the Soviets, the Indians displayed real pluck and skill and won a close contest 4–2. For a change, the umpiring worked in India’s favour and often the Russians were left ruing their misfortune. The outstanding Indian star was Mohammed Shahid, who played an excellent match as game maker, setting up multiple openings for the forwards.81 It was his form that gave the Indians hope for the final against Spain, whose penalty corner conversion record was much better
than the Indians.

  ‘They Do All Sorts of Things with Stick and Ball’:

  Gold at Last

  India tasted gold in Moscow after 16 years, beating Spain 4–3. K. Datta in the Times of India described the final thus: ‘An Olympic hockey gold medal at last. But India should have won it by a more convincing margin. They played as they should have played till they led three-nil with twenty minutes to go. Then the defence began letting them down and when the end came the lead had thinned down to the barest minimum’.82 Congratulating the Indians on the victory, Horst Wein, the German coach of the Spanish team, said that the gold medal would help India return to the pole position in world hockey. According to him, the young team was the best India had sent to the Olympics for some time. It was quick and its players fit. Its ability to swiftly counterattack and keep fighting until the end was something the European teams had to take note of.83

  Elated at the victory, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Union Education Minister B. Shankaranand and Chief Minister of Maharashtra A.R. Antulay sent congratulatory messages to the winning team.84 The locals too were delighted at the way the Indians had performed and Russian kids who had not seen a field hockey game before were mesmerized by the skill and artistry on display. Even before the final, Leonia Kondrashov, 12, was so taken by the Indians that he suggested that if he had his way he would straightway award the gold medal to them. ‘The game looks so nice when the Indians play it. They do all sorts of pretty things with stick and ball.’85

  The doubters, however, remained. Rene Frank, president of FIH, who had so movingly described the great Indian victory at Tokyo in 1964, now felt that the Moscow win was nothing but a flash in the pan. In an interview given to K. Datta for the Times of India, he stated that over time the standard of Indian hockey had gone down while the Europeans had improved considerably. This had resulted in a leveling of standards. ‘The Europeans first learnt the finer points from Indian hockey and then evolved tactics of their own. Indian hockey has evolved no new tactics. It is stagnant. It likes to live on old prestige… The organization of Indian hockey also is not what it should be.’86

  Vasudevan Bhaskaran, the coach of the Indian team at Moscow, was however of a different opinion and suggested that there was no reason to underrate India’s achievement in Moscow. He had high praise for the newcomers, 14 of whom were playing in their first Olympics, and said he hadn’t seen a more gifted player in India than Mohammed Shahid, who was naturally endowed with physical attributes that made for a talented inside forward. ‘For years India should be able to depend on this versatile star,’ he said.87

  Back home, the hockey fraternity looked upon the victory as having heralded a renaissance in Indian hockey and there was hope all around that the golden run could be sustained. That such hope was unfounded was evident when the Indians were once again pushed to the fifth spot at Los Angeles in 1984. Also, the infighting that had corrupted the edifice of Indian hockey continued unabated, resulting in a string of poor Olympic performances between 1984 and 2004.

  It is the story of this infighting which, more than anything else, orchestrated the decline in India’s national sport and this is what we discuss in the next chapter.

  6

  ‘The Fall of Rome’

  The Decline of Indian Hockey

  The future of Indian Hockey is indeed gloomy and the average Indian expects us to do everything possible to see that Indian Hockey is once again supreme in the world.

  —Pankaj Gupta, honorary secretary, IOA, 19621

  Not only did artificial turf replace real sod, but also plastic balls replaced leather ones. A slow, analytical game gave way to one of nonstop, true-hop action. For India it was like starting over with all nations even in field hockey.

  —Steve Ruskin, Sports Illustrated, 19962

  I helped India win the last Asian Games Gold in 1998 as a captain and what do I see on my return? Seven players instantly sacked from the side. It can only happen in this godforsaken country.

  —Dhanraj Pillay, 20073

  In contrast to the upbeat nature of hockey in colonial and early post-colonial India,4 the period since the late 1970s presents a rather dismal picture. As early as 1976, World Hockey magazine in an article analyzing this decline decided to define it with the pathos-ridden headline, ‘The Fall of Rome’.5 India performed miserably in the Olympics and the Champions’ Trophy in the 1980s and 1990s. In the eight-nation tournament in Holland in August 2005, the Indian hockey team finished a dismal seventh.6 It was only in the 2007 Asia Cup that Indian hockey demonstrated possibilities of a resurgence, winning the competition by defeating arch-rivals Korea 7–2 in the final.7

  That this was a mirage became clear when India, for the first time in history, failed to qualify for the Olympics, losing out 0–2 to Great Britain in the finals of the Olympic qualifying match at Santiago, Chile on 9 March 2008. This was its second consecutive loss to Britain in the tournament, having lost 2–3 at the group stage. Indian hockey had come full circle. The contest, which started at 3.30 a.m. India time on Monday 10 March, was shown live back home. Hopes of a last-minute resurgence were snuffed out in first 15 minutes of the encounter, with the Indians conceding two goals.

  From the very first minute, the Indians seemed to be under pressure. Prabhjot Singh hardly looked the world’s leading forward we claimed he was, Ramchandra Raghunath hardly the penalty corner specialist who could help us forget Jugraj Singh’s accident and Dilip Tirkey, the captain, was a shadow of his former self, having lost the skill and the punch that had once made him one of the best defenders in the world.

  India’s performance was such that even if it had won, the victory wouldn’t have done much to contest the fact that since the late 1970s hockey has languished (bronze medals in Mexico in 1968 and Munich in 1972, a World Championship win in Malaysia in 1975 and gold in Moscow in 1980 notwithstanding) and it is hardly comparable in popularity to cricket, which has gained in reputation since. With cricket reigning as the national passion, mass spectatorship in hockey in contemporary India is a rarity. Often, it is less than five per cent of the spectator base for cricket in the country.

  Hockey’s failure to retain its earlier glory has been the primary reason for the game’s decline. The IOA and the IHF blame the corporate world and the media for stepmotherly treatment, but poor marketing strategies, internal politicking and the myopic views of the officials who run these institutions are also accountable for the decline the sport.

  Further, hockey continues to be regarded as a male domain, a taboo for respectable middle-class women. Nothing illustrated this better than the venal sport administrator in the 2007 Shahrukh Khan starrer Chak De India who unfeelingly told Kabir Khan, angling for a job as the coach of the women’s national team (Shahrukh’s character in the film): ‘Bhaiyya, these are Indian women. How will those who wield the chakla and belan wield the hockey stick?’ In contrast to other Asian nations such as China and Korea, women hockey players in India (despite having achieved considerable success in recent times) mostly try their hand at the game without hope of earning a livelihood from it. In fact, despite the tremendous success of Chak De, and the cult following of its fictional women’s hockey team, the film did not quite see a ‘mass exodus of SRK’s female fans from the theatres to the Astro-turf’.8 In a reflection of the institutional challenges to women’s hockey, no more than 22 women turned up for the trials for Mumbai’s team for the nationals in 2008. This, despite the fact that the current Mumbai team features as its second goalkeeper Nisha Nair, more famous for her role as the Jharkhand hockey player Soi Moi in Chak De.

  Hockey associations continue to stagnate and financial crisis is a permanent companion of the women’s game. Leading stars are hardly ever given due recognition, and the jobs on offer are never higher than the clerical grade. It is commonplace to see noted women hockey players languishing in penury after retirement, only to be rescued from such a plight by welfare organizations and sports enthusiasts. Under such circumstances, women
are often forced to give up hockey, if they take i up at all.9

  Sadly, the IOA and the IHF have both contributed to this plight. Most of the measures taken to develop hockey date back to the colonial period; in post-independence India, neither the IOA nor the IHF have made any serious attempts to match the commercial success of cricket. Such apathy has contributed to converting hockey, metaphorically speaking, into a low-end vocation in contemporary India. While the glamour of cricket has turned it into an aspirational sport, fully in tune with the consumer ethic of a globalizing society, hockey has stagnated. In the past two decades, cricket has steadily expanded its catchment area, attracting talented players from classes and areas not traditionally associated with the game—‘middle and urbanized India’.10 Hockey, on the other hand, despite its traditionally larger base, has languished.

  Administrative lethargy is a central reason for this decline. This is best evident from the lack of protest on the part of the IHF when field hockey was moved from grass to astro-turf in the mid-1970s. The year astro-turf was adopted in 1975, India was a top hockey nation, having just won the World Cup in Malaysia. But astro-turf decisively changed the balance. It is instructive that Germany won the first international tournament ever played on the artificial surface. World Hockey magazine detected the meaning of that victory immediately, interpreting it as a sign of Europe bouncing back in ‘the see-saw battle between Europe and Asia at the head of the world rankings’.11 Being the only sport where the Indians could flex their muscles on the Olympic stage, the IHF and the IOA’s lack of initiative to pre-empt the shift is revealing.

  While this move to artificial turf seriously impacted India’s fortunes, it is not the only reason for the sad plight of Indian hockey. Pakistan, a nation economically worse off than India and one which has far fewer artificial turfs, has done particularly well in recent times, even winning the eight-nation unofficial world championships at Amstelveen in August 2005. If Pakistan can, why can’t India? Or for that matter, if India could win despite even greater systemic hurdles in the colonial period, then why not now?