FOR sheer spectacle and raw drama, the Athens Olympics will be hard to beat. The Greeks surprised the world (and probably themselves) by their faultless organization of the Games. Predictably, the event was dominated by the United States, China and Russia, followed by Australia, Japan and a clutch of European countries. But for anybody following the fortunes of South Asian sportsmen, there was not much to cheer about, apart from a solitary Indian silver medal.

Considering that the subcontinent comprises nearly a quarter of the world’s population, this performance is hard to explain. When friends abroad have asked me what medals Pakistan was in the running for, I answered by mumbling that we were serious contenders for the hockey gold. In the event, the top positions in even this sport has been finally removed from our grasp.

In actual fact, standards in South Asia have declined while the rest of the world has improved. Where once we could compete in some of the wrestling and track events, we are now at the bottom of the league.

The reasons for this decline are many and complex, but it is too facile to assert that our failure to compete at the international level is entirely the result of our underdevelopment. After all, Ethiopia has picked up seven medals, including two golds, while Kazakhstan won eight.

So why are we so bad at sports? Apart from hockey, the only sport in which South Asia has produced world-beaters is cricket, a relatively sedentary sport in which powerhouses like the US, Russia and China do not compete. Pakistan could once boast of some outstanding squash champions, but ever since the game became popular in other countries with more money pouring in, our players no longer figure in world rankings.

Let’s do the numbers: out of a total South Asian population of around 1.5 billion, we can safely remove Muslim women from the running in virtually every Olympic sport. After all, they can hardly run the 100-metre dash, or swim in the 50-metre butterfly race while observing the conventions of “modest” attire. So that removes over 200 million from medals contention.

Then, we can safely eliminate another five hundred or so million children from our reckoning. Finally, we can discount virtually half the population on grounds of poverty: after all, if people don’t know where their next meal is going to come from, we cannot reasonably expect them to train for the marathon.

I know statisticians will object to my rough and ready calculations, but this still leaves us with around 100 million able-bodied men and women who should be able to compete. Countries with far smaller populations have scooped up impressive medals tallies in Athens.

A reader of the Daily Telegraph has come up with an interesting way of looking at Olympics winners and losers. Geoffrey Simmons, in a letter to the editor published on August 32, writes:

“We have become accustomed... to the monotonous regularity of the American national anthem, as they won more than 100 medals. The Precious Metal’ table, however, looks very different when related to the populations of the top 30 countries on the [medals] table: 1. Australia, 2. Cuba, 3. Hungary ... On average, 3.6 million people were needed to produce one medal.”

According to this formula, Pakistan should have won 41 medals, while India ought to have walked off with no fewer than 277. Even our reduced (but combined) competitive population of 100 million should have produced 27 medals.

Our barren sporting record is not limited to the Olympics: not one South Asian nation has ever qualified to even compete in the soccer World Cup. Considering that soccer is regularly played across the subcontinent, it is difficult to understand why we are so poor in this sport. And not only do we not produce decent teams, not a single individual South Asian player has been asked to play for a premier division team in Europe (or elsewhere), at least in the last couple of decades. And yet, professional players from Africa and South America dominate the game.

One reason for our poor performance at the international level is that apart from cricket, there is no money for sports, either from the state or from the private sector. India has produced a couple of excellent tennis players in recent times, but that’s just about it. State schools have playing fields, but no facilities or professional coaches, while private schools are often located in buildings without grounds.

This lack of facilities has obvious implications. Our decline in world hockey can largely be ascribed to the advent of astro-turf. This surface is better suited to the fast, physical game played by the Europeans. Our smaller, slimmer players did well when bouncy, grassy surfaces favoured the more skilful game based on short passes and quick flicks. In Pakistan, at least, the number of grounds with astro-turf can probably be counted on the fingers of both hands.

My personal theory is that we are poor at most sports because the vast majority of South Asians have skinny legs. Since this is not an impediment in cricket, we do well in it. But any sport that calls for speed over a period of time is beyond us. However, I must confess that this thesis is rendered questionable by the great, lean long-distance runners produced by Kenya and Ethiopia over the years.

On a more serious note, it is clear that until our governments pay attention to sports, we will continue to languish at the bottom of the rung. This should be a priority not just to do well internationally, but because the lessons learned on the sports field are so important in life. Building up mental toughness and the will to win are crucial to success in life.

Many people will say that governments have the responsibility to solve so many other problems resulting from poverty that they do not have the resources to spend money on sports. But considering how much money is spent on our armed forces, it can be argued that it would be better to take our differences to the sports field and remove them from the battlefield.

Finally, I know the Olympic spirit is supposed to be about competing rather than about winning. But as John McEnroe famously remarked: “Show me a good loser, and I will show you a loser.”