India should dare to host the 2024 Olympics

A few days before the Commonwealth Games (CWG) were to open in India in 2010, I met with the Prime Minister to present him a copy of my book, Superpower? The Amazing Race Between India’s Hare & China’s Tortoise. The PM was in a pensive mood, unhappy at the “ugly mood” outside, since the world believed that India had failed with the logistics. Indeed, India’s image lay battered and bruised, as a raucous media focussed on “scams” and “leaking roofs”.

But just a few kilometres away, a spanking new international terminal had come up in record time, built by Indians under the same logistical constraints that were being brutalised for the CWG fiasco.

So clearly, contrary to popular commentary, India hadn’t failed - a private company had delivered a logistical marvel, while a crumbling government apparatus had fallen woefully short.

And the other day, a colleague of mine was waxing eloquent about his trip to Ahmedabad. He told me about concrete walls sunk 50 feet into the river bed, where the waters of the Narmada have transformed the dry Sabaramati into a 23-km long, 275 metre wide channel like Paris’s Seine, which, when fully developed, will rival Mumbai’s picturesque Marine Drive. Forty hectares of land reclaimed from the river bed and bank will make up for the project cost of Rs 1,152 cr, the city’s municipal corporation says.

The point I wish to make is that India has the engineering and financial skills to make possible grand projects like the ones cited above, and Mumbai’s newest terminal inaugurated just this month, proves yet again that we can deliver on global scale infrastructure projects, not merely as empty gestures of national grandeur but as economy-boosting enterprises that can yield several intangible benefits, besides jobs.

So now let me just say it straight: India must dare and bid for the 2024 Olympics. And run it as a “profit generating, viable” enterprise. I know that “socialists” will pounce on me and shower the choicest epithets, calling me anti-poor, saying that we cannot afford these “silly, destructive luxuries in such an awfully poor country”. As if our poverty is the perfect excuse to stay poor!

Now let me make the case. This should not be a ‘sarkari’ event like the 1982 Asiad or the 2010 Commonwealth Games, but a for-profit endeavour executed in public-private partnership by the finest companies and managed by leaders of proven competence. Let us scout for international talent to populate the organizing committee, if necessary.

Given the nature of our political economy and the venality of those heading sports bodies, such national purpose might be hard to find. But difficulty should not be a deterrent; right intentions, strong purpose, and a bar set high should throw up people of the right fit.

I am of course aware of the winner’s curse. Even the Los Angeles Games of 1984, which not only avoided a deficit but earned a profit of $223 million did not account for the full costs of transportation infrastructure, policing and security, says Peter Boykoff, author of ‘Celebration Capitalism and the Olympic Games’. LA was also the sole candidate; there were no bidders. Peter Ueberroth, the chairman of the city’s games organizing committee, did not wish to burden taxpayers, being one himself. He was confident that private enterprise would underwrite the costs, ’to enhance itself and show all that is good about mankind.’

The 1992 Barcelona Games show what smart thinking and deft planning can achieve. A third of the $8 billion infrastructure-spend came from the private sector - the highest in Olympics history (It cost another $1.3 billion to stage the games). The city itself was transformed. The Poblenou industrial area at its core was rebuilt, the Olympic village was converted into housing, ribbons of roads were laid or redone, the waterways were spruced up and the airport refurbished. For four years in the run up to the games, the city began the tradition of organizing cultural Olympiads - a celebration of theatre, dance, music and exhibitions that were emulated by subsequent games hosts. Some commentators have said that 50 years of economic development was compressed into six years and the ripple effects in investor and tourist inflows have compensated.

The 2008 Beijing Olympics are the costliest so far at $41 billion, but it was a preening exercise for the Chinese Communist Party. The government says the infrastructure investment would have been made anyway; the games only advanced them. There have been intangible benefits like improved English speaking abilities among ordinary Chinese, enhancement of hospitality skills and the infusion of a competitive sports spirit across the nation.

The cost of the 2012 London Olympics too overshot the initial bid by three times, but the British government said it was well below the budget outlay. The Games were an excuse to revive a poorer part of the city, and are seen as a benchmark in project delivery and event management.

Of course there have been expensive misadventures too. The Montreal Games were the most expensive in 27 centuries the New York Times said, leaving a debt which the city’s residents would repay over 30 years. The 2000 Sydney Games left a $1.7 billion debt overhang and the 2004 games in Athens cost $11 billion, double the initial estimate because of poor planning, missed deadlines and financial mismanagement. The Greek government spends about $130 million annually on maintaining the stadiums, which The Economist magazine finds as run-down as the Parthenon but drawing fewer tourists,

But India should look at the successes, and believe that it can out perform those. India could prepare to bid for the Olympics as a multi-location event by investing in productivity-enhancing infrastructure like high-speed trains and creating new cities (say a capital for divided Andhra) with principles of modern urban design (for other cities to emulate). This will incubate new enterprises just as the privatisation of highways, ports and airports at the turn of the century bred a set of private infrastructure entrepreneurs.

Finally, the cost-benefit analysis of the Games should be done on modern principles - where critical infrastructure is not seen as an “expense”, but an investment which creates collateral value and yields returns over decades - and not on the outdated

“cash expense principles” adopted by government auditors.

India has to be rebuilt, and the Olympics of 2024 could be one among dozens of sinews for that. I would urge India’s next prime minister to just do it.