The power of sport was evident in the success of P V Sindhu and Sakshi Malik – and in no small measure, Dipa Karmakar – at the Rio Olympics. As they competed for a medal India came to a standstill, collective national will egging them on to win.

When Sakshi and Sindhu transcended that critical barrier to earn a place on the podium, the country erupted with joy. After a barren 12 days, their medals came as huge relief. Some self-respect had been salvaged.

Nothing raises the prestige of a nation as excellence in sport. It reflects a country’s health, state of mind, sense of purpose. At the Olympics, particularly, this gets a tangible definition in number of medals won.

India won two this time, one less than at Beijing and a big comedown from the six at London four years later, suggesting regression. But there is a conundrum at play here.

India sent 117 athletes to Rio – the highest number ever – spread across 15 disciplines. The Olympics are the acme of sporting prowess. That so many could be in this elite group is not insignificant.

Had some potential medals been realised – in shooting, archery and tennis certainly – the tally could have matched that at London. And yet, even this wouldn’t have been a breakthrough.

India’s record at the Olympics is unflattering. The cumulative number of medals won (28) equals that of Michael Phelps alone. Facetious though comparison may seem, it nonetheless tells a story.

Inevitably after every Olympics the query arises: why can’t a nation of 1.3 billion people win more medals? It’s a legitimate question, though now fatigued. The answers are always too accusatory, diffuse or hopelessly ambitious. Dispassionate analysis, research and some proactive measures are needed to redeem the situation.

The equation between population and medals is misleading. India’s problem starts at the basic level: the abysmal attention given to sport. Of 1.3 billion, less than 15% are actually exposed to it.

Structurally, sport must be integrated with health and education, not be independent of it. If the base is small, it will produce elite athletes sporadically and, as is the situation in India, against all odds.

India’s demographics point to an advantage that is waiting to be tapped. There is a huge young population whose energy and ambition can be channelised towards sporting accomplishments.

The excuse of being a poor country has not held true for at least the past two decades. India is among the fastest growing economies. Getting world-class infrastructure, coaching, sports medicine, etc in place can’t be difficult.

However, only money and infra does not guarantee success as the example of oil rich Arab nations shows. A politico-socio-cultural ethos that sees sporting excellence as an imperative is necessary. This requires long-term vision, meticulous planning and hard-boiled execution.

India has been found wanting in all these aspects, caused essentially by government ineptitude and supplemented by public indifference. To break the logjam a transformational agenda has to emerge.

China, for instance, won no medals in the 1952 Olympics, abstained for 32 years for political reasons, but on return in 1984 won 15 golds! Since then China has evolved into a powerhouse by pursuing a detailed, state-driven programme that relentlessly targeted medals in select disciplines before spreading its ambition to others.

Great Britain, running neck-and-neck with the Chinese at Rio, offers a fascinating study in contrast. In the 1996 Olympics the once powerful country was reduced to a single gold medal, and 15 in all. Alarmed at the decline, Britain plugged sports to its National Lottery for funding excellence. Since then, with an unforgiving scrutiny system monitoring the money spent, their stock at the Olympics has risen dramatically.

What should India do? Apart from dramatically improving access to sport through efforts in education, health, infra and allocating a meaningful budget, the government should leave sports alone.

I have argued for some while that the sports ministry be scrapped. Over the years it has served no great purpose – apart from every now and then causing embarrassment as at Rio. Paucity of ideas and proliferation of nepotism has made it a hindrance.

A sports ministry is a failed idea, effective only in the most disciplined totalitarian systems. The momentum for any long-term programme to reach fruition can be stymied in the rollercoaster of democracy where political parties aim to undo each other when in power.

The US has no sports ministry, yet has been a pre-eminent power since inception of the Olympics. In India, a National Sports Council (NSC) should replace the ministry. Funded by the government, but run independently.

The NSC would have professionals of merit drawn from different walks and report, say, to the President of the country. It would look at infra, competitions, interface with the Indian Olympic Association as also health and HRD ministries to sustain the ‘national vision’.

Key to NSC’s success would be diligent audit and compliance of sports federations. Each sport gets funding depending on projected achievements with milestones defined. Failure to meet targets would mean cutting of resources.

For instance, Indian federations for tennis, shooting and archery would have their budgets seriously slashed after the disappointing show at Rio; those for badminton, wrestling and gymnastics would be increased.

There is no ‘quick fix’ to excellence. This could take a decade or more to actualise. But with the right people at the helm, India’s ambition to become a sporting nation could get going.