Almost as soon as the government announced the list of winners for the various National Sports Awards last fortnight, the sniping began.
Eyebrows were raised over the inclusion of cricketer Rohit Sharma for the Arjuna Award. More contentiously, Vinod Kumar, the former wrestling coach of the men’s national team, filed a petition objecting to the Dronacharya award being conferred to Anoop Kumar, claiming that he was a far more deserving candidate. The matter has now gone to the courts.
Right on cue
But, this was not the end of it. The decision to confer the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna on tennis player Sania Mirza opened a can of worms. HN Girisha, a celebrated high-jumper and winner of many medals at the Paralympics, challenged Mirza’s recommendation for India’s top sporting honour. However it seems, Girisha is not alone in his indignation.
In the interview with DNA newspaper on Wednesday, Advani was quoted as saying:
In a later tweet though, Advani denied reports that he "slammed" the government. He also used the "happyforsania" hashtag, clarifying that he was not, per se, opposed to Mirza receiving the Khel Ratna honour.
A significant lack of transparency
Both Girisha and Vinod Kumar were irate about the manner in which award-winners are determined. Ironically, to prevent controversy, the government now follows a performance-based point system, ostensibly to bring transparency into process of deciding these awards. The details of this system are provided on the official Ministry of Sport website.
Girisha contends that going by the criterion specified on the website, he was far ahead of Mirza, based on performances in the last four years. He added that Mirza’s Wimbledon doubles crown should not count, since the rules only counted performances at the Olympics, the Asian Games, Commonwealth Games and World Cups/Championships. A similar argument has also been made by Vinod Kumar, who maintains that his performances as national wrestling coach between 2010 and 2015 should have been enough for the award to be conferred to him.
While both cases have been taken up by the courts, the controversies over the awards, which seemingly crop up every year, have become a blot on Indian sport. For a start, those who actually receive the awards are plagued by accusations that they are undeserving – in Mirza’s case, no one can deny that her achievements in tennis in the last few years have been truly exemplary.
The problem lies in the process by which the government chooses the eventual award-winners. For all the talk of transparency, the process still has flaws. There are accusations that the members who sit on the committees that take the final call on the awards may not always be non-partisan.
Advani gave the example of Vidya Pillai, who has won a plethora of titles in international snooker, but has not yet been given even the Arjuna Award. According to Advani, this illustrates that there is less emphasis on team events. “Why is there discrimination when it comes to selecting people for awards or making policies?” he asked.
Eyebrows were raised over the inclusion of cricketer Rohit Sharma for the Arjuna Award. More contentiously, Vinod Kumar, the former wrestling coach of the men’s national team, filed a petition objecting to the Dronacharya award being conferred to Anoop Kumar, claiming that he was a far more deserving candidate. The matter has now gone to the courts.
Right on cue
But, this was not the end of it. The decision to confer the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna on tennis player Sania Mirza opened a can of worms. HN Girisha, a celebrated high-jumper and winner of many medals at the Paralympics, challenged Mirza’s recommendation for India’s top sporting honour. However it seems, Girisha is not alone in his indignation.
In the interview with DNA newspaper on Wednesday, Advani was quoted as saying:
"When we talk about sports in India, we get carried away by the hype generated around a sport. You cannot be swayed by the popularity of a particular sport or a sportsperson. I think when it comes to government awards, let's treat every sporting achievement in a pure way. There are a lot of sportspersons who are not that popular and, because of that reason, it's like a more popular sportsperson getting the bigger award"
In a later tweet though, Advani denied reports that he "slammed" the government. He also used the "happyforsania" hashtag, clarifying that he was not, per se, opposed to Mirza receiving the Khel Ratna honour.
Amazed at how journos can freely write about me "slamming the government"Please choose ethical journalism over sensationalism.#happyforsania
— Pankaj Advani (@PankajAdvani247) September 2, 2015A significant lack of transparency
Both Girisha and Vinod Kumar were irate about the manner in which award-winners are determined. Ironically, to prevent controversy, the government now follows a performance-based point system, ostensibly to bring transparency into process of deciding these awards. The details of this system are provided on the official Ministry of Sport website.
Girisha contends that going by the criterion specified on the website, he was far ahead of Mirza, based on performances in the last four years. He added that Mirza’s Wimbledon doubles crown should not count, since the rules only counted performances at the Olympics, the Asian Games, Commonwealth Games and World Cups/Championships. A similar argument has also been made by Vinod Kumar, who maintains that his performances as national wrestling coach between 2010 and 2015 should have been enough for the award to be conferred to him.
While both cases have been taken up by the courts, the controversies over the awards, which seemingly crop up every year, have become a blot on Indian sport. For a start, those who actually receive the awards are plagued by accusations that they are undeserving – in Mirza’s case, no one can deny that her achievements in tennis in the last few years have been truly exemplary.
The problem lies in the process by which the government chooses the eventual award-winners. For all the talk of transparency, the process still has flaws. There are accusations that the members who sit on the committees that take the final call on the awards may not always be non-partisan.
Advani gave the example of Vidya Pillai, who has won a plethora of titles in international snooker, but has not yet been given even the Arjuna Award. According to Advani, this illustrates that there is less emphasis on team events. “Why is there discrimination when it comes to selecting people for awards or making policies?” he asked.
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!