With the launch of the Khelo Bharat Niti 2025, India has unveiled an ambitious blueprint aimed at transforming the nation's sporting landscape. Framed around powerful keywords like inclusivity, physical literacy, and mass participation, the policy aspires to place India among the top five countries in the Olympic medal tally over the next two decades, host the Olympic Games in 2036, and foster a thriving sports economy deeply integrated with education, wellness, and culture.
The Hon’ble Prime Minister’s vision, articulated at the time of the launch, not only reflects national pride but also elevates sport as a key pillar of Viksit Bharat, where athletic achievement and youth empowerment go hand in hand.
With a demographic dividend, rising international visibility, and growing public interest in sports, the timing of this policy could not have been more appropriate. The intent is strong, the language inspiring, and the ambition commendable.
However, as we applaud this timely and necessary initiative, it becomes equally important to ensure that this policy is not just a visionary document, but a truly transformative roadmap, anchored in action, accountability, and implementation. Yet, like any policy document, the real test lies not in its aspirations but in its structure.
The Khelo Bharat Niti 2025 outlines broad goals with enthusiasm, but it leaves readers searching for the specific mechanisms that will turn these promises into reality.
For instance, while it mentions Olympic success and global sporting prestige, it does not specify which sports will be prioritized, how federations will be held accountable, or how performance will be tied to funding and structural reforms.
Take, for example, China’s long-standing strategic approach to elite sport. As early as the 1980s, Chinese policymakers began prioritizing specific Olympic disciplines, not through guesswork or sentiment, but through careful analysis and deliberate planning.
Rooted in what became known as the Five-Word Principle, China focused on “small, fast, women, water, and agile” sports disciplines that are primarily skill-based and offer high medal prospects with relatively efficient investment. This was not just a slogan; it was backed by frameworks like Tian’s clustering theory, which scientifically categorized Olympic sports by physical and skill attributes, allowing the state to fund and nurture athletes in sports where the return on effort was strategically highest.
As a result, China didn’t just rise rapidly on the Olympic medal table; it did so by building depth where it mattered most. The success was not just athletic; it was administrative. That kind of foresight, backed by implementation discipline, offers valuable lessons for countries like India that are still balancing vision with execution.
In comparison, India’s new policy still lacks that level of focused clarity. For instance, if our goal is to rank among the top five in the Olympics, shouldn’t we identify a core group of ten or fifteen sports with the best medal prospects and allocate resources accordingly?
Performance-based funding could be formalized to reward federations that achieve results, fostering a culture of results-driven governance. These are tough but essential discussions that a national policy must be prepared to engage in.
Another missing element is reflection. A national sports policy is not just about what we aspire to achieve; it should also indicate our current position.
The lack of a detailed assessment of prior initiatives, such as Khelo India, Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS), or even the results of the earlier 2001 Sports policy, hinders stakeholders' understanding of the current landscape.
In the smallest countries like Zambia, sports policies are organized into chapters, starting with an honest situational analysis, then policy formulation, and ending with a true and practical implementation plan. This approach helps in turning policy into reality by ensuring that ambition is grounded in reality.
The implementation framework in the last leg of Khel Bharat Nīti is unfortunately limited to just four brief paragraphs. It leaves vital questions unanswered regarding timelines, accountability, and inter-agency coordination.
For example, the idea of utilizing overseas talent is ambitious, but without clarifying how citizenship laws will change or how foreign-born athletes will be integrated into national systems, it risks staying only a dream.
Likewise, the promise of private investment in sports has been made before, through public-private partnerships or the 'Adopt a Player' initiative, but now we must focus on how exactly these models will be redefined and expanded.
To be fair, this is not the first or last policy India will write on sport. But suppose we truly want to become a sporting nation. In that case, we must start treating policies not as ceremonial announcements but as evolving instruments of change, with timelines, accountability, and empathy at their core.
Khelo Bharat Niti 2025 has begun the conversation. Now it must build the road.
About the authors: Professor (Dr) Ruhi Paul is the UNESCO Chairholder on Legal Dimensions of Clean Sport at the National Law University Delhi.
Udiksha Rana is a research scholar and team member, UNESCO Chair on Legal Dimensions of Clean Sport at the National Law University Delhi.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.
< Sponsored by the Brand >