Answer

Introduction

India’s decision to host the 2030 Commonwealth Games comes at a time when the event itself faces declining global relevance and repeated withdrawals by host nations. Yet, India views the Games as a strategic soft-power opportunity and a stepping stone to its larger ambition of hosting the 2036 Olympics. This moment demands a balanced assessment of the diplomatic benefits and the economic–administrative burdens such mega-events bring.

Body

Positives of India’s bid

• Boosting global image: Hosting CWG positions India as a capable, reliable organiser of major sporting events and strengthens its Olympic bid.
  Eg: Ahmedabad has been chosen as India’s proposed city for the 2036 Olympics.
• Projecting sporting ambition: Showcases India’s expanding interest in diverse sports and elevates its athletic profile internationally.
  Eg: India now has world-class heroes like Neeraj Chopra to represent emerging excellence.
• Enhancing cultural diplomacy: The Games amplify India’s visibility across Commonwealth nations and reinforce its soft-power narrative.
  Eg: Returning as a host after 20 years signals India’s intent to be a global sports hub.
• Driving infrastructure upgrades: Investments in stadiums, transport, and public facilities benefit both athletes and residents.
• Inspiring youth and sports culture: A home event motivates young athletes and encourages nationwide participation in multiple sports.
  

Economic and administrative challenges

Economic Challenges

• High financial burden: Hosting can strain public finances due to escalating costs and possible overruns.
  Eg: Victoria and Alberta withdrew due to unsustainable CWG costs.
• Limited global value of CWG: As the Games shrink in disciplines and global influence, return on investment becomes uncertain.
  Eg: Glasgow 2026 will have only 10 sports, with key events removed.
• Weak conversion to Olympic success: Strong CWG medal counts do not translate into Olympic gains, questioning developmental payoff.

Administrative Challenges

• Risk of mismanagement: Past corruption scandals highlight governance weaknesses that must be avoided.
  Eg: The 2010 Delhi CWG was marred by allegations of corruption.
• Doping concerns: Rising doping cases can damage India’s international reputation during a global event.
• Declining CWG credibility: Frequent host withdrawals reflect event instability, increasing organisational uncertainty for India.
  Eg: Birmingham replaced Durban in 2022; Glasgow stepped in after Victoria’s exit for 2026.

Way forward

• Strengthen financial discipline: Transparent budgeting, independent audits, and strict cost controls must guide all preparations.
• Focus on durable infrastructure: Prioritise facilities that serve long-term athletic and public needs rather than temporary structures.
• Fix governance and anti-doping systems: Improve sports administration, testing mechanisms, and institutional capacity to safeguard credibility.
• Link CWG planning to Olympic vision: Ensure CWG investments dovetail with the proposed 2036 Olympic masterplan.
• Promote inclusive sports culture: Use the Games to expand grassroots participation, coaching systems, and multi-sport ecosystems.
  

Conclusion

India’s CWG 2030 bid presents an opportunity to harness sports as a soft-power vehicle while strengthening urban infrastructure and national sporting culture. Yet, the economic and administrative risks require disciplined planning, transparency, and long-term vision. If executed prudently, CWG 2030 can serve not only as a showcase of capability but also as a credible stepping stone towards the 2036 Olympics.

DOWNLOAD PDF