CWG Delhi 2010 lacked mechanism,transparency,accountability

10.6.2011 New Delhi Nksagar- Sagar Media Inc;
Hazards Centre successfully organised the Press Conference on the Commonwealth Games 2010 at Indian Women’s Press Corps, New Delhi from 2pm-5pm on 10.6.2011.

Mr. Dunu Roy threw light on the issues that Commonwealth Games was part of an ad-hoc violation of the planning process and without public disclosure of and debate on all the decisions related to the Games. Who then are the real players? Because eventually the expenditure of the Games will be paid for by this “nation” whether it “watched” the Games or not. What were the steps taken by the State on the apprehensions and projections that were made in the report and, if not, then why?

Summary Note
While exploring the phenomena of Big Games, Hazards Centre published a report in 2007 titled “2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi: How much does national prestige cost?’’, in which the historical record of Big Games was examined. Thus, in the 1968 Olympics Mexico had plunged into a debt for 25 to 35 years. Both Munich and Montreal reported a deficit of $1,000mn in 1972 and 1976. Seoul suffered from a $45,000mn national debt in 1988; Barcelona incurred a loss of $1,400mn in 1992, and Sydney’s debt was $2,600mn in 2002. The $16,000mn Olympics in Athens in 2006 are linked by analysts to the current economic crisis in Greece, while the recovery of the spending of $37,000mn in Beijing in 2008 is yet to be seen. The analysis of the impact of big sporting events like the Olympics, World Cups, and Commonwealth Games, on the host cities show that the Games have little to do with sports or with pride. They are part of the larger economic strategy that is promoted by big financial interests through a programme of urban renewal along with advertising and marketing revenues.

This report was not only released publicly on 18 September, 2007, three years before the Commonwealth Games, but copies were sent to the various concerned Ministries. A copy was personally delivered to the then Minister for Sports. On his advice, copies were then sent to a selected list of hundred Members of Parliament and each one of them was contacted telephonically thereafter. However, there was no response from any of the Ministries or MPs – except for NCP MP Shri Tariq Anwar who merely acknowledged receipt of the report. Now, almost a year after the Games, we learn from responses to a RTI query by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal that our report was forwarded by the Sports Minister to the Prime Minister on as early as 19 September 2007 with the comment that “this document must make us pause and think before we continue down this disastrous path that heads of sports federations, doubling as statesmen in Parliament, are attempting to take us down” (emphasis added).

An analytical note was also prepared by the Secretary (Sports) of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports on the same date of 17.9.2007 and forwarded to the Prime Minister’s Office. This note states that the report “is an extremely well researched and argued paper” although “some of comparisons and conclusions may be questioned”, because “there is no clear comparison of the revenue expenditure and revenue income”. However, the note goes on to acknowledge that “the paper attempts to cogently demolish several popular myths and arguments that support conduct of mega events”. These ‘myths’ include the “likely benefits of the revenues”, “the stark reality of social and environmental costs”, “the single minded trampling of environmental laws and safety-nets of the poor”, “the relative rise of prices due to so-called development”, and “negative impact on employment and environment and civil liberties”. The note comments that the report “could have elaborated on the mechanisms adopted by them (Olympic bodies and Organizing Committees)” to vest control in “a few multi-national companies and consulting firms”.

In an internal note circulated by the Director in the Prime Minister’s Office on 30.10,2007, the above observations are repeated with the acknowledgement that “there is no doubt that all the games have suffered deficit” (emphasis added). The Director further notes that “The whole issue of Commonwealth Games cost and benefits is repeatedly coming in focus due to serious differences between the Ministry and the Organizing Committee – while the Ministry insists on transparency and accountability, the OC wants to preserve its fiefdom”. She further comments that “The Cabinet Secretariat had reported resolution of the issues but that is not so”. Interestingly enough, this note is seen by the Joint Secretary (M) who remarks on 31.10.2007 itself, “No further action is required on this” (emphasis added).

Subsequent to this, just before the Games on 25 August, 2010, Hazards Centre released its second report titled “Heritage Games: cleaning up the debris”, in which it was reported that only 6 projects had been completed with the remaining still under construction, and the cost had risen to a staggering Rs102,000 crores, with Rs55,398 crores being directly invested as part of the Games related infrastructure. The report also predicted that the city would eventually have to pay for this investment in one way or another and for many years. On October 15, 2010, after the Games, Hazards Centre issued a press release documenting the adverse impacts of the Games on the workers who constructed the infrastructure, the other workers who serviced the city, the athletes who had participated in the Games, on the use of the infrastructure, the housing that had been built, the transport system that had been put in place, the revenues to the city, and the prices of property and consumer goods and essential commodities. Both these reports were given to the press, sent to the Prime Minister, and posted to all Members of Parliament as well as to investigating agencies. Once again, there was no response.
Conclusion:Some critical questions arise from this entire episode:
1. If the first report cogently demolished several myths and arguments that support conduct of mega events, why did the concerned Ministries not launch an enquiry into the mechanisms adopted by the Olympic bodies and Organizing Committees to vest control in a few multi-national companies and consulting firms?
2. If there was no doubt that all the games have suffered deficits and the OC wanted to preserve its fiefdom while the Sports Ministry was insisting on transparency and accountability, on what basis did the Joint Secretary in the PMO decide that no further action was required?
3. Why did all Members of Parliament abandon their mandatory rights of oversight and not raise questions about the profligate and unaccountable spending of public money even though they were warned three years before the Games were to take place?
4. What does it say about the accountability of parliamentary democracy if the Sports Minister is compelled to comment that the nation is going down a disastrous path at the behest of heads of sports federations, who are doubling as statesmen in Parliament?



We hope that the media will perform its role of vigilant watchdog over democracy and pose these questions before the appropriate authorities.