Blame government for ruining sports and Khel Ratna mess

Every year on August 29, the birth anniversary of Dhayanchand - one of the finest hockey players the country has ever produced - the president of India awards sportspersons. This day is also celebrated as the National Sports Day across the country. But, keeping the occasion aside, these awards have, more often than not, been embroiled in controversies. If it was Krishna Poonia who cried foul when Ronjan Sodhi was selected for the Khel Ratna in 2013, boxing world champion MC Mary Kom received the award after she raised objections in 2009.

The biggest embarrassment for the government, though, came in 2014, when boxer Manoj Kumar won a case in the Delhi High Court and the sports ministry had to confer the award to him in November last year. To save the blushes this time around, a retired high court judge was appointed as the chairman of the sports awards selection committee. But, the ruling of the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday, staying tennis star Sania Mirza's nomination for the Khel Ratna, has surely led to another embarrassing situation for the government.

Sania was never in contention for the 2015 Khel Ratna. Her name came into the picture as part of a last minute adjustment by the sports ministry. Her nomination for the award was not forwarded by either the All India Tennis Association nor did she send it herself. But, when Sania won the women's doubles title at Wimbledon, the sports ministry used clause 5.3 of the Khel Ratna Yojana and suo motu took the decision to honour her achievements. Before Sania's entry, paralympian HN Girisha was one of the leading contenders to bag the award.

It is important to understand here how the recipients of the Khel Ratna are decided. Performances in international events like Olympics, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, world championships and world cups during a period of four years prior to the awards are considered. A committee is set up by the sports ministry, which reviews all the applications and decides on the winners. The committee is supposed to select the winners according to the guidelines and points system set by the ministry of youth affairs and sports.

Let us now take a look at how the points are calculated. The maximum weightage is given to medal winning performances at the Olympics and Paralympics. World championships and world cups that occur once in four years are given the second priority, while Asian Games performances are ranked third and those in the Commonwealth Games last. This comprises 80 per cent of the marks. The rest 20 per cent is decided according to the selection committee's discretion, keeping in mind the standard of the sports events where the medals have been won.

So, in this scheme of the sports ministry the Grand Slams that Sania has won do not feature anywhere. Grand Slams, without doubt, are the pinnacle for a tennis player and Sania has done remarkably well during the period in consideration for the Khel Ratna. She won the French Open mixed doubles in 2012 and US Open mixed doubles in 2014. Apart from that, she also won a gold and bronze at the Asian Games in Incheon.

What about HN Girisha then? He became only the 8th Indian to win a medal at the Paralympics, when he won silver at the London 2012 Games. He also won a gold and silver at the Para Athletics Championship in Kuwait and Malaysia in 2012.

If the points system is followed, Girisha scores more points. But then, the committee has the right to use discretion. They felt that the Grand Slam performances of Sania could not be ignored.

Fair enough. But then, why did it not use similar discretion for Arjuna awardees? Why is it that they felt it was okay to take cover behind the criteria laid down and let deserving athletes miss out on awards? Ritu Rani, a deserving hockey player, who is part of a team which, is set to get Indian women's hockey back in the Olympic fold after decades, was left out of the winners' list at the last moment. The reason? Roller-skater Anup Kumar had scored more points. Wrestler Amit Kumar missed out because according to the rules, only one athlete per discipline can be awarded.

Is Girisha right in being agitated at missing out on the awards? Probably knocking the doors of the court is not the ideal way to win. But, as far as the rules stand, he would have sat, calculated his points and figured that the award was in the bag. What he did not factor in was the committee's discretion. And, how could he factor it in? It is after all not consistent in its own ruling.

Is the points system flawed? Surely it is. One can't measure performances in different sports using the same criteria. But, what needs to be understood here is that whether one likes it or not, the points system currently is in place. What the ministry needs to do is be more consistent. It should either follow the points criteria to the last letter for all awards and sports, or let the panel of experts decide who is the most deserving. Different rules for different athletes affect the credibility of these awards.